COVID-19 Vaccine and Fitness to Fly

2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (9) ◽  
pp. 698-701
Author(s):  
Daniel Gabbai ◽  
Aya Ekshtein ◽  
Omer Tehori ◽  
Oded Ben-Ari ◽  
Shachar Shapira

INTRODUCTION: On December 2020 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. This new vaccine has several side effects that can potentially impair function, which warrants special attention regarding aircrews fitness to fly following vaccination.METHODS: A survey was conducted in the Israeli Air Force (IAF) Aeromedical Center in order to characterize the side effects and their duration following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administration to aviators.RESULTS: The most common side effect was injection site pain. Headache, chills, myalgia, fatigue, and weakness were more common following the second dose administration. The difference is statistically significant. Following the second vaccine, duration of side effects was longer compared to the first vaccine (P-value 0.002).CONCLUSION: The IAF Aeromedical center policy for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine recipients among aircrew members, based on side effects duration and severity, is to temporarily ground from flight duties for 24 and 48 h following the first and the second dose, respectively.Gabbai D, Ekshtein A, Tehori O, Ben-Ari O, Shapira S. COVID-19 vaccine and fitness to fly. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(9):698701.

Diagnosis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Ryan ◽  
Andrew Olson

AbstractWe report a novel syndrome of aseptic myonecrosis in a child occurring after intramuscular (IM) benzathine penicillin G injection for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis. Common side effects of IM injection, including transient injection site pain and inflammation, are common and well described. However, isolated myonecrosis following IM injection in the pediatric patient has not been previously reported. Only one similar case, following IM diclofenac injection, has been discussed in the adult literature.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balsam Qubais ◽  
Rula Al-Shahrabi ◽  
Shaikha Salah Alhaj ◽  
Zainab Mansour Alkokhardi ◽  
Ahmed Omar Adrees

Objectives Vaccines are one of the best interventions developed for eradicating COVID-19 the rapid creation of vaccinations was increased the risk of vaccine safety problems. The aim of this study to provide evidence on Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Methods A cross-sectional survey study was conducted between January and April 2021 to collect data on the effects of COVID-19 vaccine among individuals in the UAE. Demographic data chronic conditions side effects of the 1st and 2nd dose toward the vaccination, and the response of unwilling taking COVID-19 vaccine were reported. Results The most common side effects of post 1st dose (less than 49 years old vs >49 years) were normal injection site pain, fatigue, and headache while pain at the vaccination site fatigue lethargy headache and tenderness were the most side effects of the post 2nd dose in both groups. All the side effects in both doses were more prevalent among the participants less than 49-year-old group. Among females vs males side effects were more common in females compared with males in both doses in both doses. The most common adverse reactions of 1st dose in (females vs males) were fatigue lethargy headache while in 2nd dose were fatigue sever injection site pain. The most common reason of not willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine were the vaccines are not effective and they were not authorized to take vaccine. Conclusion The 1st and 2nd dose post-vaccination side effects were mild predictable and there were no hospitalization cases this data will help to reduce the vaccine hesitancy.


2022 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia Marshall ◽  
Sara Winter ◽  
John D. Capobianco

Abstract Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 is one of the three U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved vaccines for the prevention of COVID-19. Its most common side effect, injection site pain, occurs because of locally recruited inflammatory mediators and is mitigated by the lymphatic system. Side effects may discourage individuals from receiving vaccines; therefore, reducing the duration of injection site pain can promote vaccination compliance. Osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT) can directly affect the physiology underlying muscle soreness; however, there is currently no literature that supports the use of OMT in this scenario. In this case report, an otherwise healthy male presented with acute left deltoid soreness after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The pain began 5 h prior to the visit. Three hours after being treated with lymphatic OMT, the severity of the pain was significantly reduced and was alleviated 8h after onset in comparison to the median duration of 24–48 h. He received his second dose 3 weeks later. This case report can provide future studies with the groundwork for further investigating the role of OMT in treating postvaccination muscle soreness, which can improve patient satisfaction and potentially promote vaccination compliance.


Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 950
Author(s):  
Sami Abu-Halaweh ◽  
Rami Alqassieh ◽  
Aiman Suleiman ◽  
Mohammed Qussay Al-Sabbagh ◽  
Maram AbuHalaweh ◽  
...  

Vaccines are considered the best approach for countering the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we compared early side effects associated with vaccination with the Sinopharm and Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this observational cohort were interviewed based on semi-structured telephone interviews, with enquiries about side effects that developed after vaccination with each dose of these vaccines. Overall, 1004 participants were enrolled, of which 51.1% received Sinopharm vaccine and 48.9% received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. After the first dose, 46.3% of participants had an adverse reaction, with injection site pain most commonly being reported (33.2%). Participants who received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine had significantly higher frequencies of all types of adverse reactions (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the duration of adverse reactions between the two vaccines. Regarding the second dose, 48.6% of participants had adverse reactions, with injection site pain being most commonly reported (29%). Those who received the Pfizer vaccine reported higher frequencies of all adverse reactions (p < 0.01). However, a longer duration of adverse reactions was seen among Sinopharm vaccine recipients as compared to Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine recipients (p = 0.01). In conclusion, early adverse effects are reported following all types of vaccines but these are more likely to be encountered following the administration of new-generation vaccines. These side effects are mostly mild and treatable.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1959.1-1960
Author(s):  
S. Gohil

Background:The advent of biosimilars has heralded a new era for cost effective biologic prescribing in the NHS. As patents expire for originator biologics, less expensive versions are now widely available as biosimilars. Non-medical switches (for reasons unrelated to a patient’s health) ensure prescribing of best value medicines, and cost savings can be redirected to patient care.1This practice resonates with recommendations from Lord Carter’s 2016 report regarding reducing unwarranted variation in the NHS and adopting cost saving opportunities.2In 2018/19, following loss of patent exclusivity for the expensive adalimumab originator biologic, UHCW worked in accordance with national directives to drive forward one of the largest non-medical biosimilar switches.Objectives:This qualitative review aims to explore the success of the adalimumab biosimilar switch and key themes associated with switch backs/refusals across the Rheumatology (R), Gastroenterology (G) and Dermatology (D) specialities at UHCW.Methods:The switch plan occurred between April-December 2019. 403 patients (R;189, G;176, D; 38) were eligible for switch. Patients were informed of the plan in advance via a patient information leaflet/hospital clinic visits. Switch refusals, withheld treatments and cancellations were documented and patients were advised to contact the hospital pharmacy/clinical teams if they encountered any concerns, adverse effects or lack of efficacy post switch. The clinician would then advise on subsequent management.Results:During April-December 2019, 264/403 patients had been successfully switched (R;122, G;109, D;33). 33/403 patients switched back to the originator biologic (R;22, G;10; D;1). Of the 22 rheumatology switch back patients; 6 patients reported injection site pain and variably headache, fatigue, disease relapse, gastrointestinal (GI) upset, erythema; 10=reported lack of efficacy and variably influenza-type symptoms, relapse in associated psoriasis, difficulty in walking/sleeping, hair loss, excessive perspiration, facial cellulitis, foot drop and GI upset; 1=blepharitis;1=latex allergy before injection; 3=later declined switch; 1=damaged two devices and did not wish to continue biosimilar. Of the 10 gastroenterology switch back patients; 1=injection site pain; 2=lack of efficacy; 1=developed needle phobia; 1=latex allergy before injection; 1=switch detrimental to health; 2=unstable disease; 1=insomnia; 1=pregnancy. The 1 dermatology switch back patient reported injection site pain and bleeding.38/403 patients refused the switch and remained on the originator biologic (R;11, G;27, D;0). 29/403 patients had treatment cancellations and were switched to an alternative biologic (R;17, G;9, D;3). 32/403 patients stopped treatment (R;13, G;19, D;0). Treatment was withheld for 7/403 patients (R;4, G;2, D;1).Conclusion:The UHCW adalimumab biosimilar switch plan succeeded in switching a total of 66% of patients; thus an annual cost saving of £73,020. Injection site pain, most likely due to the biosimilar citrate content, and lack of efficacy according to patient perception and subsequent clinical review, were the most predominant causative themes for switch backs. Gastroenterology patients accounted for 71% (27/38) of the total switch refusals. Additional data regarding patient refusals, identifies future opportunities to improve patient counselling and drive further cost savings.References:[1]Azevedo V, et al. Biosimilars: considerations for clinical practice. Considerations in Medicine. 2017;1(1):13–8[2]Lord Carter of Coles. (2016) Operational productivity and performance in English NHS Acute Hospitals: Unwarranted variations [Online]Acknowledgments:Mark Easter, Chief Pharmacist, Hardeep Bagga, Deputy Chief Pharmacist, UHCW Pharmacy Homecare Team, UHCW Specialist Clinical Teams.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-213
Author(s):  
Hironori TANAKA ◽  
Makoto HAYASHI ◽  
Mariko AWAYA ◽  
Yumiko KUSUNOKI ◽  
Nao TANAKA ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802096633
Author(s):  
Jacob Dresser ◽  
Kyle John Wilby

Objective: To compare the incidence and types of adverse effects between 3 recommended treatment options for gonorrhea and to compare the incidence of injection site pain between single-dose intramuscular ceftriaxone and gentamicin. Data Sources: A keyword search of MEDLINE (1966 to September 2020), EMBASE (1947 to September 2020), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to September 2020) was conducted. The electronic search was supplemented with manual screening of references. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Comparator studies reporting adverse effect outcomes of treatment with cefixime, ceftriaxone, or gentamicin for gonorrhea in humans were included. Data extracted included study year, authors, aim, setting, population, dosing protocols, and outcome results. Data Synthesis: A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 6 met inclusion criteria. Two randomized controlled trials compared ceftriaxone and gentamicin. Four randomized controlled trials compared cefixime and ceftriaxone. No differences were noted for the occurrence of at least 1 adverse effect between gentamicin and ceftriaxone (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.56-1.18) or between cefixime and ceftriaxone (OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.21-5.93). Injection site pain (ceftriaxone and gentamicin) and other adverse effects (all drugs) were common but occurred at similar rates between groups. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Results of this review show a lack of signal for safety concerns with gentamicin-based regimens for the treatment of gonorrhea. Future research should investigate patient acceptability, especially for intramuscular injections. Conclusions: The use of single-dose cefixime, ceftriaxone, and gentamicin-based regimens for treatment of gonorrhea appears to be safe and acceptable for use in practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document