RESUMO
Introduction The most efficient method of combating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic would be to use effective, safe, and proven vaccines; however, their widespread use has been hampered partly by concerns over possible adverse effects. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine side effects among participants. Methods This was a multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted using a non-probability sampling technique. The duration of the study was nine months, from February 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The study included 900 participants who provided informed consent and had received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Demographic characteristics of participants, such as gender, age, comorbidities, AstraZeneca vaccine with both doses along with booster dose, previous exposure to COVID-19 infection, and the prevalence of any local and systemic side effects following the first and second doses of vaccine, were documented. Results The study findings showed that of the 900 participants, 414 (46.0%) were males and 486 (54.0%) were females; their mean age was 40.72 ± 13.47 years. Among them, 198 (22.0%) had hypertension and 144 (16.0%) had diabetes mellitus. Following the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, pain at the injection site was the most commonly reported side effect in 594 (66.0%) participants. Moreover, swelling at the injection site was the most commonly reported side effect in 522 (58.0%) participants after receiving the second dose of the vaccine. The level of satisfaction showed that the majority of the 648 participants (72.0%) were satisfied with their vaccination. Conclusion This study concluded that pain at the injection site was the most commonly reported side effect, followed by swelling and fever after the first dose of the vaccine. Following the second dose of the vaccine, adverse effects included headache, swelling, and burning at the injection site.
RESUMO
Introduction Vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) helps develop protective immunity against COVID-19 without experiencing potentially severe illness. Many vaccines are used worldwide, but there is little data on the efficacy and side effects of the Sinopharm vaccine. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the reported adverse effects of the Sinopharm vaccine among participants. Methods This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in multiple hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. The study was eight months, from April 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022. A total of 600 participants who gave informed consent and had received their first and second doses of the Sinopharm vaccine were included in the study. As hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) are common prevalent conditions in our population, the duration of DM and hypertension were documented as means and standard deviations apart from age, height, and weight. Side effects of the Sinopharm vaccine were reported as frequencies and percentages. Results The study findings showed that out of 600 participants, 376 (62.7%) were males and 224 (37.3%) were females; their mean age was 42.79±14.44 years. Among them, 130 (21.7%) had hypertension, and 138 (23.0%) had DM. All participants received the Sinopharm vaccine. Fever was the most frequently reported adverse effect following the first dose of the Sinopharm vaccine in 308 (51.3% of participants), followed by burning at the injection site in 244 (40.7% of participants) and pain at the injection site in 228 (38.0% of participants). Following the second dose of the Sinopharm vaccine, fever was the most frequently reported side effect in 254 (42.3%) participants, followed by pain at the injection site in 236 (39.5%) participants and burning at the site of injection in 210 (35.0%) participants. Moreover, joint pain in 194 (32.3%), shortness of breath in 170 (28.3%), swelling of glands in 168 (28.0%), chest pain in 164 (27.3%), and muscle pain were reported by 140 (23.3%) participants. The level of satisfaction showed that the majority of the participants, 334 (55.7%), were satisfied, 132 (22.0%) were very satisfied with their vaccination, and only 12 (2.0%) were dissatisfied. Conclusion This study concluded that fever was the most frequent side effect after both doses of the Sinopharm vaccine. Pain and burning at the injection site and joint pain were among the other common side effects reported by most participants. The Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine had mild, predictable, and non-life-threatening side effects after the first and second doses.
RESUMO
Introduction Since patients with type 2 diabetes are frequently misdiagnosed, provided inappropriate management, or poorly controlled, it is important to comprehend the wide range of clinical signs and symptoms associated with diabetes. Therefore, this study evaluated the overall clinical manifestations of patients with type 2 diabetes patients with respect to gender. Methods This was a multicenter, cross-sectional study that was conducted at various hospitals, using a non-probability sampling technique. The duration of the study was about six months, from January 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022. The study included 590 type 2 diabetes patients, ranging in age from 35 to 70 years. Age, gender, socioeconomic status, health status, co-morbidities, and diabetes symptoms were documented. A chi-square was applied to determine the association between overall symptoms associated with type 2 diabetes and gender. An independent t-test was applied to determine the significance level between means of demographic parameters. Results The study findings showed that out of 590 patients with diabetes, 310 (52.5%) were males and 280 (47.5%) were females. The male and female mean ages were 57.46±14.93 and 50.38±14.85 years, respectively, with a statistically significant gender difference (p<0.001). The prevalence of renal manifestation in type 2 patients with diabetes revealed a significant relationship (p<0.05) for both genders. The prevalence of ocular manifestations revealed a significant relationship with both genders (p<0.05) in terms of distortion and blurred vision. The prevalence of ocular manifestations revealed a significant relationship observed with both genders (p<0.05) in terms of shortness of breath, dyspnea severity, and severity of chest pain. Conclusion This study concluded that women with type 2 diabetes mellitus have a significantly higher frequency of muscular pain, urinary symptoms, neurological symptoms, and dermatological manifestations than men. In contrast, respiratory symptoms were significantly more pronounced in males than in females. The presence of comorbidities such as dyslipidemia significantly increased the probability of developing type 2 diabetes in both genders.
RESUMO
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are the options for revascularization in coronary artery disease (CAD). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of CABG and PCI for the management of patients with CAD. The meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. The reference list of included articles was also searched manually for additional publications. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. In total, 12 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 9,941 patients (4,954 treated with CABG and 4,987 with PCI). The analysis showed that PCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.45) and revascularization (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.82-3.21). However, no significant differences were reported between two arms regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.96-1.39), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.82-1.67), and stroke (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.35-1.16). CABG was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and revascularization compared to PCI. However, no significant difference was reported in the risk of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke between the two groups.
