Добірка наукової літератури з теми "SAIDS Vaccines"

Systemic autoinflammatory diseases (SAIDs) are defined by recurrent febrile attacks associated with protean manifestations involving joints, the gastrointestinal tract, skin, and the central nervous system, combined with elevated inflammatory markers, and are caused by a dysregulation of the innate immune system. From a clinical standpoint, the most known SAIDs are familial Mediterranean fever (FMF); cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS); mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD); and periodic fever, aphthosis, pharyngitis, and adenitis (PFAPA) syndrome. Current guidelines recommend the regular sequential administration of vaccines for all individuals with SAIDs. However, these patients have a much lower vaccination coverage rates in ‘real-world’ epidemiological studies than the general population. The main purpose of this review was to evaluate the scientific evidence available on both the efficacy and safety of vaccines in patients with SAIDs. From this analysis, neither serious adverse effects nor poorer antibody responses have been observed after vaccination in patients with SAIDs on treatment with biologic agents. More specifically, no new-onset immune-mediated complications have been observed following immunizations. Post-vaccination acute flares were significantly less frequent in FMF patients treated with colchicine alone than in those treated with both colchicine and canakinumab. Conversely, a decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been proved for patients with FMF after vaccination with the mRNA-based BNT162b2 vaccine. Canakinumab did not appear to affect the ability to produce antibodies against non-live vaccines in patients with CAPS, especially if administered with a time lag from the vaccination. On the other hand, our analysis has shown that immunization against Streptococcus pneumoniae, specifically with the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, was associated with a higher incidence of adverse reactions in CAPS patients. In addition, disease flares might be elicited by vaccinations in children with MKD, though no adverse events have been noted despite concurrent treatment with either anakinra or canakinumab. PFAPA patients seem to be less responsive to measles, mumps, and rubella-vaccine, but have shown higher antibody response than healthy controls following vaccination against hepatitis A. In consideration of the clinical frailty of both children and adults with SAIDs, all vaccinations remain ‘highly’ recommended in this category of patients despite the paucity of data available.

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective in the healthy population at large. However, significant gaps remain in the evidence of their safety in patients with systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs). Patients and rheumatologists have expressed concerns regarding vaccination triggered allergic reactions, thrombogenic events, and other adverse events (ADEs) contributing to vaccine hesitancy (1)ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess and compare short term COVID-19 vaccination associated ADEs in patients with SAIDs and healthy controls (HC) seven days post-vaccination, as well as between patients with SAIDs receiving different vaccines.MethodsWe developed an comprehensive, patient self-reporting electronic-survey to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. ADEs were categorized as injection site pain, minor ADEs, major ADEs, and hospitalizations. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type (data as median, IQR).Results10900 respondents [42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 5,867 patients (54%) with SAIDs were compared with 5033 HCs. All respondents included in the final analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfizer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). Baseline demographics differed by an older SAID population (mean age 42 vs. 33 years) and a greater female predominance (M:F= 1:4.7 vs. 1:1.8) compared to HCs.79% had minor and only 3% had major vaccine ADEs requiring urgent medical attention overall. In adjusted analysis, among minor ADEs, abdominal pain [multivariate OR 1.6 (1.14-2.3)], dizziness [multivariate OR 1.3 (1.2-1.5)], and headache [multivariate OR 1.67 (1.3-2.2)], were more frequent in SAIDs than HCs. Overall major ADEs [multivariate OR 1.9 (1.6-2.2)], and throat closure [multivariate OR 5.7 (2.9-11.3)] were more frequent in SAIDs though absolute risk was small (0-4%) and rates of hospitalization were similarly small in both groups, with a small absolute risk (0-4%). Specific minor ADEs frequencies were different among different vaccine types, however, major ADEs and hospitalizations overall were rare (0-4%) and comparable across vaccine types in patients with SAIDs (Figure 1).Figure 1.A. Post Vaccination ADEs in SAIDs compared to HCs. B. Proportions of post COVID-19 vaccination ADEs in SAIDs by vaccine type.ConclusionVaccination against COVID-19 is relatively safe and tolerable in patients with SAIDs. Certain minor vaccine ADEs are more frequent in SAIDs than HCs in this study, though are not severe and do not require urgent medical attention. SAIDs were at a higher risk of major ADEs than HCs, though absolute risk was small, and did not lead to increased hospitalizations. There are small differences in minor ADEs between vaccine types in patients with SAIDs.References[1]Boekel L, Kummer LY, van Dam KPJ, Hooijberg F, van Kempen Z, Vogelzang EH, et al. Adverse events after first COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 Aug;3(8):e542–5.AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the collection of data. The authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.Disclosure of InterestsParikshit Sen: None declared, Naveen R: None declared, Arvind Nune: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Minchul Kim: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Marcin Milchert: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Speakers bureau: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Consultant of: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Grant/research support from: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Albert Selva-O’Callaghan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Grant/research support from: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, and holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Consultant of: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Grant/research support from: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra: None declared, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Johannes Knitza: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Hector Chinoy Speakers bureau: HC has served as a speaker for UCB, Biogen., Consultant of: HC has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca, Grant/research support from: HC has received grant support from Eli Lilly and UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from for the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Kyverna, Janssen, Roivant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Argenx, Q32, Alexion, EMD Serono, Jubliant, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from for the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Kyverna, Janssen, Roivant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Argenx, Q32, Alexion, EMD Serono, Jubliant, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant., Latika Gupta: None declared

BackgroundSignificant gaps are present in the evidence of the spectrum and severity of COVID-19 infection in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). IIM patients typically require immunosuppressive therapy, may have multiple disease sequelae, and frequent comorbidities, and thus may be more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection and complications (1). The possibility of attenuated immunogenicity and reduced efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines due to concomitant immunosuppressive medication is a major concern in these patients, and there is little data available on COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections (BI) in IIM (2).ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare disease spectrum and severity and COVID-19 BI in patients with IIM, other systemic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs).MethodsWe developed an extensive self-reporting electronic-survey (COVAD survey) featuring 36 questions to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the COVAD survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. BI was defined as COVID-19 infection occurring more than 2 weeks after receiving 1st or 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type.Results10900 respondents [mean age 42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 1,227 (11.2%) had IIM, 4,640 (42.6%) had other SAIDs, and 5,033 (46.2%) were HC. All respondents included in the final analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfizer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). IIM patients were older, had a higher Caucasian representation and higher Pfizer uptake than other SAIDs, and HC. A higher proportion of IIM patients received immunosuppressants than other SAIDs.IIMs were at a lower risk of symptomatic pre-vaccination COVID-19 infection compared to SAIDs [multivariate OR 0.6 (0.4-0.8)] and HCs [multivariate OR 0.39 (0.28-0.54)], yet at a higher risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to SAIDs [univariate OR 2.3 (1.2-3.5)] and HCs [multivariate OR 2.5 (1.1-5.8)]. BIs were very uncommon in IIM patients, with only 17 (1.4%) reporting BI. IIM patients were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 prior to vaccination than ≤2 weeks of vaccination [univariate OR 8 (4.1-15)] or BI [univariate OR 4.6 (2.7-8.0)]. BIs were equally severe compared to when they occurred prior to vaccination in IIMs, and were comparable between IIM, SAIDs, and HC (Figure 1), though BI disease duration was shorter in IIMs than SAIDs (7 vs 11 days, p 0.027). 13/17 IIM patients with BI were on immunosuppressants.ConclusionIIM patients experienced COVID-19 infection less frequently prior to vaccination but were at a higher risk of hospitalization and requirement for oxygen therapy compared with patients with HC. Breakthrough COVID-19 infections were rare (1.4%) in vaccinated IIM patients, and were similar to HC and SAIDs, except for shorter disease duration in IIM.References[1]Brito-Zerón P, Sisó-Almirall A, Flores-Chavez A, Retamozo S, Ramos-Casals M. SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2021 Jun;39(3):676–87.[2]Wack S, Patton T, Ferris LK. COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease: Review of available evidence. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Nov;85(5):1274–84.AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the collection of data. The authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.Disclosure of InterestsLatika Gupta: None declared, Leonardo Santos Hoff: None declared, Naveen R: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Minchul Kim: None declared, Ashima Makol: None declared, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Speakers bureau: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Consultant of: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Grant/research support from: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Albert Selva-O’Callaghan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Grant/research support from: EN holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Consultant of: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Consultant of: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Hector Chinoy Speakers bureau: HC has been a speaker for UCB, Biogen., Consultant of: HC has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca, Grant/research support from: HC has received grant support from Eli Lilly and UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, and Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, and Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant.

Two years into the pandemic, with the number of deaths over five million globally and vaccine-resistant variants continuing to multiply, scientists are in the midst of the most dangerous and ill-conceived experiment in the history of medicine. Pinning their hopes on the success of new mRNA-based vaccines that stretch all conventional notions of a vaccine, and which were hastily released without adequate efficacy and safety trials, they seek to take the wind out of the sails of a full-blown pandemic without fully understanding either the means by which individuals develop resistance to the coronavirus or by which herd immunity is attained.

ObjectivesIn patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disorders (SARDs), vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines has been proposed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the immune response elicited by vaccination with mRNA vaccine, testing IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) and measuring neutralising antibodies.MethodsIgG, IgM and IgA anti-RBD antibodies were measured in 101 patients with SARDs. Antibodies inhibiting the interaction between RBD and ACE2 were evaluated. Antibody avidity was tested in a chaotropic ELISA using urea. Twenty-one healthcare workers vaccinated with mRNA vaccine served as control group.ResultsAnti-RBD IgG and IgA were produced after the first dose (69% and 64% of the patients) and after the boost (93% and 83%). Antibodies inhibiting the interaction of RBD with ACE2 were detectable in 40% of the patients after the first dose and 87% after boost, compared with 100% in healthy controls (p<0.01). Abatacept and mycophenolate had an impact on the titre of IgG anti-RBD antibodies (p<0.05 and p<0.005, respectively) and on the amount of neutralising antibodies. No effect of other therapies was observed. Vaccinated patients produce high avidity antibodies, as healthy controls.ConclusionsThese data show that double-dose vaccination induced in patients with SARDs anti-RBD IgG and IgA antibodies in amounts not significantly different from controls, and, most interestingly, characterised by high avidity and endowed with neutralising activity.

It is now known that the existing vaccination, Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG), is unable to stop the global Tuberculosis (TB) epidemic, and TB continues to pose a serious threat to public health [1]. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), the causing agent, enters the body by inhalation, causing TB predominantly a respiratory infection [1]. Therefore, there is solid evidence to support the idea that a mucosally administered TB vaccination would be more successful than one administered systemically. Our team in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) has been working with several organisations in conjunction with Malaysia’s National Vaccine Roadmap (PPVN) to address this problem as well as the government's goal to produce vaccines that are high-quality, efficient, and secure following the guidelines established by the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA). Therefore, the development of TB mucosal vaccines over the past few years for worldwide as well as in USM is outlined in this presentation. It aims to discuss immunological and practical factors in the development of mucosal vaccines and emphasises some of the current and future approaches in USM. As a result, it is acknowledged globally that matching the path of infection with the path of immunisation is an appealing strategy for the development of TB vaccines. Several approaches have been made in USM to produce a vaccine candidate that significantly induces mucosal immunity. The design of the study showed the manipulation of IgA, which is a hallmark of mucosal immunity, with multi-epitopes of TB to produce IgA: TB recombinant protein by using goat’s milk as a bioreactor. The concept of oral immunisation in-vivo also is an important approach in our effort to maximise the production of the immune system at the point of entry of bacteria. In a conclusion, as a boost to a prior respiratory or systemic immunisation, the mucosal method might be more effective. In addition to systemic immunity obtained by injected vaccines, vaccines to induce pathogen-specific IgA are being developed to provide a first line of defence at these entry sites. Therefore, combining these concepts into developing new recombinant vaccine against TB would be a promising alternative.

Abstract The elderly are at high risk for influenza infection and its complication. However, current inactivated influenza vaccines are often modestly immunogenic and show low protective immunity in the elderly, due to immunosenescence. New approaches are urgently needed for developing effective vaccines against influenza for the elderly. In current study, we have constructed new recombinant influenza viruses, named host-targeted self-attenuated influenza viruses (SAIVs), which can express functional mammalian species-specific artificial microRNAs (amiRNAs). The expression of these amiRNAs can inhibit expression of some host factors critical for influenza replication, and therefore the resultant recombinant influenza viruses are replication restricted and attenuated in the host cells. One of these SAIVs, which can express an amiRNA that inhibits expression of the host cellular Cdc2-like kinase 1 (CLK1), was produced in embryonic chicken eggs and evaluated in an aged mouse model of influenza infection. It elicited robust antibody and T cell responses against influenza virus and demonstrated significantly protective efficacy against lethal infection with wild type influenza virus H1N1 PR8 after single dose of intranasal vaccination. Our research finding provided a proof of concept that the new host targeted self-attenuated influenza virus can be further used as an effective vaccine against influenza in aged population. Supported by a research grant from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI133207).

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccination strategies have evolved with increasing vaccine availability and emerging vaccine safety data. While data on immunogenicity and safety of COVID vaccination strategies exists, there is limited data for people with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) such as inflammatory arthritis (IA), systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and multiple sclerosis (MS).ObjectivesIn IMID patients treated with homologous or heterogeneous COVID vaccines, to compare post vaccine IMID disease activity and COVID antibody responses.MethodsBetween March 2021 and Dec 2021, patients with IA (n= 70; 77% rheumatoid arthritis), SARD (n=82; 70% lupus), IBD (n= 92; 40% crohn’s), and MS (n= 71; 77% RRMS) self-reported COVID illness and exposure risks, and disease activity prior to and 1 month post both COVID-19 vaccinations (V1 and V2). Disease activity was assessed by the Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) for SARDs, the RAPID-3 and RA flate index for IA, the IBD Symptoms Inventory-short form (IBDSI) and IBD flare index for IBD and the 25 meter walk and 9 hole peg test and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) for MS. Patient reported flare state was assessed using the relevant questions these indices (SLAQ “Have you had a flare?”; RA Flare index “Are you in a flare?”; IBD flare “My IBD is sometimes to continously active“). Disease activity and serum anti-spike, anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) and anti-nucleocapsid (NC) IgG antibody titers at 30 days post V2 were compared across vaccine courses and to age-sex matched vaccinated blood donor controls (CNTS).ResultsPatients were predominantly female (79.7%), with a mean (standard deviation-sd) age of 56 (15) years; 8% had suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 illness; 1.2% positive anti-NC (Table 1). For all IMIDS, the majority received mRNA vaccines-BNT162b2 (BNT) or mRNA1273 (V1 74%; V2 97%;) the rest received ChAdOx1 viral vector vaccines; 71% received homologogous vaccines (ChAdOx1-ChAdOx n=6; BNT-BNT n=174; mRNA1271-mRNA1273 n=21; ChAdOx1-BNT n=36; ChAdOx1- mRNA1273 n=30; BNT-mRNA1273 n=15; mRNA1273-BNT n=3; other n=4). For most IMIDs, disease activity was similar before and after each vaccination. Post V2 disease activity did not differ between homologous versus heterologous vaccines nor by vaccine type (RAPID3; SLAQ, 25 meter walk and 9 hole peg test and EDSS overall and subscales, IBDSI overall and subscales all p=NS). In 254 IMIDs, most seroconverted (anti-spike 86%; anti-RBD 96%). Seroconversion rates for CNTS were 98.1% for anti-Spike and 3.5% for anti-NC. Antibody titers were higher following homologous mRNA (BNT or mRNA12723) than homologous vector vaccine (Figure 1). For IMIDs primed with ChAdOx vector vaccine, boosting with BNT or mRNA1273 generated similarly increased anti-Spike and anti-RBD titers.Table 1.All IMIDsIASARDIBDMSAge (mean (sd) years)56(15)63(12)56(14)54(16)51(17)Female (%)8084906483COVID risk exposure (%) Any4439465044 Contact1412141221 Travel66666 HCW/hospitalized151516209 Other risk9610128V1 mRNA (%)7480688264V2 mRNA (%)9798969699Homologous V1 V2 (%)7179677464Flare status post V2 (%)101560-Seroconversion (%) Anti-Spike8990869384 Anti-RBD9192869688Figure 1.Post vaccine antibody titersConclusionHeterologous COVID vaccination improves seroconversion rates following a viral vector vaccine and does not lead to disease flare in most IMID patients. While data is needed to assess vaccine effectiveness, duration of immunogenicity and effects of subsequent vaccination, this work supports mixing COVID vaccines for IMID patients.AcknowledgementsStudy funded by Research ManitobaDisclosure of InterestsNone declared

(1) Background: Vaccine hesitancy is recognized as an important issue globally and healthcare workers (HCWs) have a powerful influence on the public. Recent studies have reported that there are increasing numbers of vaccine hesitancies among HCWs. This study was conducted to assess the knowledge and attitudes on childhood vaccinations among HCWs in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM). (2) Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted among one hundred and ninety-eight HCWs in HUSM, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan who were selected via convenient sampling. Data on their socio-demographic details, working experience, and main source of information regarding childhood vaccination were collected. A validated, Malay version of the knowledge and attitude on childhood vaccination (KACV) questionnaire was used during the study. (3) Results: Female (OR (95% CI):3.15, (1.39, 7.12), p < 0.05) and a higher education level (degree and above) (OR (95% CI): 2.36 (1.14, 4.89), p < 0.05) are significantly associated with good knowledge. Respondents with a history of side effects of the vaccines among their relatives were about 66% less likely to have good knowledge (OR (95% CI): 0.342 (0.16, 0.73), p < 0.05). A positive attitude towards childhood vaccination was significantly associated with a higher level of education participants, who had significantly better knowledge than participants with a lower education level (OR (95% CI): 3.81, (1.92, 7.57), p < 0.001). On the contrary, participants having direct contact with patients were less likely to have a good attitude towards childhood vaccination (OR (95% CI): 0.207 (0.043, 0.10), p < 0.05), and those with a history of severe side effects of the vaccines among their relatives were also significantly associated with a poor attitude towards childhood vaccination (OR (95% CI: 0.342 (0.16, 0.76), p < 0.05).; (4) Conclusions: The survey findings showed a good level of knowledge and a good attitude of participants towards childhood vaccination. Good knowledge is important for the HCWs to have a favourable attitude to educate the general population on childhood vaccination.

Cholera, a diarrheal disease caused by Vibrio cholerae (V. cholerae) O139 and O1 strains, remains a public health problem. The existing World Health Organization (WHO)- licenced, killed, multiple-dose oral cholera vaccines demand ‘cold-chain supply’ at 2 °C–8 °C. Therefore, a live, single-dose, cold-chain-free vaccine would relieve significant bottlenecks and costs of cholera vaccination campaigns. Our cholera vaccine development journey started in 2000 at Universiti Sains Malaysia with isolation of the hemA gene from V. cholerae, followed by development of a gene mutant vaccine candidate VCUSM2 against V. cholerae O139 in 2006. In 2010, VCUSM2 reactogenicity was reduced by replacing its two wild-type ctxA gene copies with mutated ctxA to produce strain VCUSM14. Introducing the hemA gene into VCUSM14 created VCUSM14P, a strain with the 5- aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) prototrophic trait and excellent colonisation and immunological properties (100% protection to wild-type challenged rabbits). It was further refined in Asian Institute of Medicine, Science and Technology (AIMST University), with completion of single- and repeated-dose toxicity evaluations in 2019 in Sprague Dawley (SD) rats, followed by development of a novel cold-chain-free VCUSM14P formulation in 2020. VCUSM14P is unique for its intact cholera toxin B, a known mucosal adjuvant. The built-in adjuvant makes VCUSM14P an ideal vaccine delivery platform for emerging diseases (e.g. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] and tuberculosis). Our vaccine formulation mimics natural infection, remains non-reactogenic and immunogenic in vivo, and protects against infection and disease. It will also cost less and be less cumbersome to distribute due to its stability at room temperature. These features could revolutionise the outreach of this and other vaccines to meet global immunisation programmes, particularly in low-resourced areas. The next stage of our journey will be meeting the requisite regulatory requirements to produce the vaccine for rollout to countries where it is most needed.

AbstractWhile the TRIPS Agreement provides for minimum standards of protection of intellectual property, it leaves certain degree of policy space for WTO members, whether developed or developing countries, to implement the Agreement’s provisions in different manners, to legislate in areas not subject to the minimum standards under the Agreement, and to develop legal interpretations of such provisions to determine the scope and content of the applicable obligations. This paper focuses on some aspects of how panels and the Appellate Body of the WTO have interpreted said provisions. The paper also draws general conclusions for the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities, which are of crucial importance for the design of a pro-competitive intellectual property system and, in particular, for achieving public health objectives, as specifically recognized by the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.

At the end of 2019, there was a global pandemic jeopardizing the lives of millions of people, with reports on the spread of novel coronavirus (nCoV-2019). COVID-19 or the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) originated from bats and was transmitted to humans through an unknown source in Wuhan city located in China and spread across the globe in early 2020. The nCoV-19 uses its spike glycoprotein receptor to bind to the host cell angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) sites to launch a combination of events leading to server acute respiratory syndrome. In the past 100 years, the COVID-19 pandemic is the most destructive and life-threatening disease affecting the lives of millions of people after the Spanish flu. Hence, it requires a speedy measure to curtail the spread and combat the death rates. As it is said, vaccines are found to be a commendable strategy to alleviate the viral strains. The data required for the vaccine development, including the whole genome and protein sequence of SARS-CoV-2, were made available, which enabled numerous researchers and scientists across the countries to develop multiple vaccines for prophylactic and treatment of COVID-19. All these vaccines are in various stages of clinical trials. To date, globally, only 115 vaccine candidates have been developed, out of which 78 were found to be active and 37 yet to be confirmed. Vaccine development to prevent SARS-CoV-2 has potential hurdles where regulatory and medical decisions are taken based on the ratio between benefit and risk factors. Data on the specific SARS-CoV-2 antigen(s) used in vaccine development are highly limited in public resources. The vaccine developed mainly aimed to induce neutralizing antibodies against the viral spike (S) protein, preventing uptake via the human ACE2 receptor. However, it is unclear how different forms and/or variants of the S protein used in different vaccine candidates relate to each other or the genomic epidemiology of the disease. The most advanced candidates have recently moved into clinical development, including mRNA-1273 from Moderna, Ad5-nCoV from CanSino Biologicals, and INO-4800 from Inovio. Numerous other vaccine developers have indicated plans to initiate human testing in 2020. In this review, we focus mainly on the development of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine using recombinant technology.

This chapter highlights the story of autism, the widespread acceptance of its incorrect cause, and the impact on use of vaccines, all stemming directly from deliberate, false reporting. The basic conflict is twofold. First, involvement of a scientific method that must be reproducible, be reliable, and possess substantial proof is in conflict with common/personal beliefs. Second, doctors, scientists, and public health workers, despite their mandate to listen to parents and patients concerning their opinions, must base medical conclusions on evidence that validates the outcome of each patient’s health issue. It is in this milieu that autism and the anti-vaccine groups still do battle. In 1998, Lancet, a usually respectable and reputable English journal, published Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s opinion that the measles, mumps, rubella (German measles) vaccine injected into the arms of children caused inflammation, leading to harmful chemicals entering the bloodstream through the gut (intestine). These factors, he said, traveled to the brain, where the harmful chemicals/toxins caused autism. In the face of this “fake news” about the source of autism and measles, the vaccination rate for measles dropped in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Chikungunya fever is a vector borne tropical disease that was first described in an outbreak in Tanzania. The disease is caused by Chikungunya virus (CHIKV), an alpha virus belonging to the family Togaviridae and which is transmitted from one person to another via the bite of mosquitoes. Active disease is characterized by high grade fever, pain and joint symptoms. Although debilitating at times, the disease seldom progresses to result in a serious outcome like death. There are no specific treatments for Chikungunya virus at the moment. Clinical case management is highly dependent on providing palliative care which in turn is expected to alleviate symptoms and accelerate recovery from the infection. An important element in the control of outbreaks of CHIKV infection is prevention. Preventive strategies involve initiatives like vector control, immunizations and extra care to patients with the infection. There have been several tens of researches focusing on the introduction of newer drugs and vaccines against Chikungunya. That being said, so far, no single agent has completed the entire drug or vaccine development process. Chikungunya fever is a neglected tropical disease. Although it has no specific treatment till date, the number of vaccine and drug candidates under study provides promising insights on the prospects on chikungunya treatment.

Abstract An Evolutionary Perspective on Sexually Transmitted Viruses At a press conference on April 23, 1984, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, forecasted the imminent development of a vaccine to prevent AIDS. Focusing on the newly developed process for mass production of HIV, she said “we also believe that the new process will enable us to develop a vaccine to prevent AIDS in the future. We hope to have such a vac9ine ready for testing in approximately two years” (Heckler 1984). Those two years came and went over a decade ago. Between then and now a disturbing realization has emerged: HIV is one of the most formidable pathogenic adversaries that the health sciences have ever confronted. One of the things that makes it so formidable is its great potential for evolutionary change; it is a continually moving target. This potential for evolutionary change also makes HIV a prime example of the need for an integration of evolutionary biology with medicine.

This chapter explores the basic compatibility or otherwise of Islam with science, especially with reference to stunning and halal slaughtering, halal vaccines, genetically modified organisms, and the environmental impacts of meat eating. It addresses the basic premise of these concepts. Halal and haram are not determined by reference only to human reason or scientific knowledge, but by a combination of these and the guidance mainly of divine revelation (wahy). Worship matters (‘ibadat) are normally determined by the shariah independently of scientific evidence, and this could also be said of a limited number of dietary restrictions Islam has imposed—even though there may be some scientific justification for them. Still, Islam is on the whole receptive to scientific evidence.

It’s not every day you see a poet in the news. Further unrest in the Middle East, the latest twist in the MMR vaccine saga, a leaked Pentagon report on the security risks of climate change – there were so many reasons on 22 February 2004 not to think of lyric poems. But someone had other ideas, and that someone was Jeremy Halvard Prynne. His was not a planned intervention that day, it must be said, nor a solo revolution, though you’d have been hard-pressed to draw any other conclusion from the injured parties at ...

Medicinal plant therapies are becoming more common, as more people seek natural cures and health approaches devoid of synthetic chemicals' adverse effects. The biological and pharmacological potential of plants is studied and utilized all around the globe for various purposes including the treatment of infections and diseases owing due to bioactive compounds in plants produced as a result of secondary metabolism. The study of medicinal plants is helpful in clinical trials to find pharmacologically useful chemicals, and this method has produced thousands of valued medicines. Opium, aspirin, quinine, and digoxin are some examples. Plants possess a large number of bioactive compounds. On the basis of their chemical structure, they are divided into four classes: alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, and terpenes. Plants can now be turned into “factories” that create therapeutic proteins, vaccines, and many more products for use in the production of biotech pharmaceuticals, medications, and therapies. This chapter discusses the diversity and importance of medicinal plants in various sectors as well as highlights the successful drug products produced by the said entities and their future trends.

Seven years after Britain’s government in 1996 admitted to the potentially catastrophic human health risks of mad cow disease, fears of the deadly pathogen had faded. Scientists had neither a vaccine nor a cure for nCJD, but in early 2003 they downgraded the projected infection rates; tens of thousands of cases of nCJD now appeared unlikely. The domestic beef market had recovered, and even long-critical media commentators said it was time for beef “to have a revival” (Lawrence 2003a). Whether for reasons of safety, taste or patriotism, market surveys indicated that consumers now preferred British beef to imported meats (Mintel 2003). They also worried rather less about overall food safety. According to the government’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) annual Consumer Attitudes Survey, the percentage of consumers who described themselves as “very” or “quite” concerned about food safety had dropped to 68 percent in 2002 down from 71 percent the year before.1 This is still a lot of concern, but the government nonetheless concluded that it had “made some headway” in its efforts to win back public trust. At the international level, however, longstanding food controversies still simmered and sometimes flared. Zambia, for example, set off a round of transatlantic name-calling in late 2002 when, despite impending famine, it refused to distribute genetically modified (GM) food aid from the United States. The U.S. trade secretary accused the “Luddite” Europeans of forcing Africans to go hungry because the Zambians, like other southern African agro-exporters, feared losing access to the European market if American GM corn contaminated their own crops. European NGOs, meanwhile, condemned the United States for using food aid to establish an African beachhead for the biotech industry (Vidal 2002; Teather 2003). Media analysis of this controversy gave little attention to Zambian citizens’ views of GM food, emphasizing instead the striking rift between American and European perspectives on GM foods and food quality more generally. As in past coverage of the transatlantic GM battle, the explanation was partly cultural (Europeans simply care more about taste than shelf life), partly social psychological. The trauma of recent food scares, in other words, had left Europeans suspicious of “unnatural” foods even if “science” insisted they were safe.

Over the past three decades, the media has bombarded the public with a seemingly endless array of risks, from the familiar to the exotic: hormone replacement therapy, anthrax, mad cow disease, SARS, West Nile virus, radon, vaccine-associated autism, childhood obesity, medical errors, secondhand smoke, lead, asbestos, even HIV in the porn industry. A drumbeat of risks to worry about, big and small, with new studies often contradicting earlier ones and creating further confusion. It's gotten so bad that some people feel like they're taking their lives in their hands just trying to order a meal at a restaurant. “Will it be the mad cow beef, the hormone chicken, or the mercury fish?” asks an imperious waiter in one of my favorite cartoons from the Washington Post. “Urn ... I think I'll go with the vegetarian dish,” the hesitant diner responds. “Pesticide or hepatitis?” the waiter asks. The diner, growing ever more fearful, asks for water. The waiter persists: “Point source, or agricultural runoff?” Perhaps it's time for the media to become part of the solution rather than continuing to be part of the problem. Ideally, science journalists could lead the way toward improved risk coverage that moves beyond case-by-case alarms—and easy hype—to a more consistent, balanced approach that puts the hazard du jour in broader perspective. The challenge is to create stories with chiaroscuro, painting in more subtle shades of gray rather than extremes of black and white. Too often, as my late Washington Post colleague Victor Cohn once said, journalists (and their editors) gravitate toward stories at either extreme, emphasizing either “no hope” or “new hope.” Unfortunately, today's “new hope” often becomes tomorrow's “no hope” (which is a good reason for avoiding words like “breakthrough” or “cure” in the first place). Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is a classic example of this yo-yo coverage. In the '60s and '70s, the media helped overpromote hormones as wonder drugs for women, promising everlasting youth as well as a cure for hot flashes. Concerns rose, however, with reports of possible links to cancers of the breast and uterus. Later, when the uterine cancer risk was shown to return to normal by adding an additional hormone, the publicity about HRT became mostly positive again, emphasizing its potential to protect against bone loss and heart disease.

As economic and human development problems worsen, the majority of countries are relying on technological development to emerge from the crisis, whether it is the infectious disease crisis or the natural resource depletion crisis. Modern technology contributes to reducing the effects of both environmental pollution and the spread of HIV infection, Given the results of quarantine on the environment, it can be said that the importance of the latter is reflected in:Creating new vaccines and vaccines to eradicate the virus, Adopting environmentally friendly production mechanisms ,Adopt policies to reduce the depletion of natural resources, The trend towards the use of renewable energies to maintain the sustainability of the environment, Emphasizing the need to adopt a green economy and sustainable development.so the methods of disposing of medical waste differ from one country to another, In some places, waste is collected and sterilized, then sent to sanitary landfills or incinerated It is no secret to everyone that the amount of masks, gloves and other personal protection tools that were used during the pandemic period has exceeded twice their use before the pandemic. This in itself is a burden on an environment that already suffers from the problems of disposing of solid and liquid waste in a correct manner and in conformity with global health, After the transformation of medical waste into hazardous waste and the readiness of the competent teams to deal with the crisis, they were suffering from a weakness in the methods of disposing of this waste and with accurate preventive measures during the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, We found it necessary to mention in this research the impact of the pollution resulting from those wastes that affected the countries of the whole world and how to find ways to increase the awareness of the individual in our Iraqi society, similar to advanced societies in dealing with the remnants of covid-19, Which has proven in some scientific sites with graphic documentation about the use of these wastes in their countries by some birds in building their nests and caused death to some of them after swallowing them and others by clashing in their claws and the difficulty of getting rid of them for weeks due to the incorrect disposal of solid waste in particular by the municipalities similar to the lack of support and experience.

"In late December 2019, a large number of patients with unknown causes of pneumonia were reported by press from a seafood market in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. This coronavirus was originally named the 2019 new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 12, 2020. The Coronavirus Working Group (CSG) of the WHO and International Committee proposed to call the new virus SARS-CoV-2 on February 11, 2020. As a result of the samples taken from the patient, the whole genome sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 was isolated on January 7, 2020, by Chinese scientists in a short time. WHO announced on February 11, 2020; that “COVID-19” will become the official name of the disease. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director of the WHO, said the epidemic meant “ko”, “corona”, “vi” for “virus” and “d” for “disease” as first described on December 31, 2019. Such a name has been preferred to avoid stigmatizing a particular region, animal species or human. The infection, which started to spread first in China and then in nearby countries, spread to most countries later on. The epidemic soon reached an international dimension, affecting the whole world. As a result, the WHO considered COVID-19 as an international public health problem and declared it as a pandemic on January 30, 2020. In humans, coronaviruses cause some cases of colds and respiratory infections that can be fatal, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In recent years, new viral infections have been detected periodically in various countries. The first epidemic; was observed in 2002-2003 as a result of the crossing of a new coronavirus from bat origin to humans through palm civet cats in Guangdong Province, China. This virus, called SARS, affected a total of 8422 people in China and caused 916 deaths (11% mortality, however different rates are given in different literatures). The second epidemic event occurred approximately 10 years later. In 2012, the MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) emerged from bat origin through a dromedary camel in Saudi Arabia. It affected a total of 2494 people and caused 858 deaths (mortality rate of 34%). WHO has declared it as a pandemic after the outbreak and scientists are doing great efforts to identify the characterization of the new coronavirus and to develop antiviral therapies and vaccines. Clinical studies and vaccination studies are still ongoing fastly. Also, the pathogenesis of the virus is still not fully known, and new studies are needed in this regard. Currently, effective infection control intervention is the only way to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The most appropriate prophylactic regimen for patients under observation due to COVID-19 related disease is unknown. For this reason, treatment protocols should be planned by following the current guidelines. This study consists of evaluating the opinions about the history of pandemics associated with COVID-19, related definitions and the projects being carried out with the compilation of available resources, the development stages of the pandemic and the projection of postpandemic interaction so far."

"In late December 2019, a large number of patients with unknown causes of pneumonia were reported by press from a seafood market in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. This coronavirus was originally named the 2019 new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 12, 2020. The Coronavirus Working Group (CSG) of the WHO and Internati- onal Committee proposed to call the new virus SARS-CoV-2 on February 11, 2020. As a result of the samples taken from the patient, the whole genome sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 was isolated on January 7, 2020, by Chinese scientists in a short time. WHO announced on Febru- ary 11, 2020; that “COVID-19” will become the official name of the disease. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director of the WHO, said the epidemic meant “ko”, “corona”, “vi” for “virus” and “d” for “disease” as first described on December 31, 2019. Such a name has been preferred to avoid stigmatizing a particular region, animal species or human. The infection, which started to spread first in China and then in nearby countries, spread to most countries later on. The epidemic soon reached an international dimension, affecting the whole world. As a result, the WHO considered COVID-19 as an international public health problem and declared it as a pandemic on January 30, 2020. In humans, coronaviruses cause some cases of colds and respiratory infections that can be fatal, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In recent years, new viral infections have been detected periodically in various countries. The first epidemic; was observed in 2002-2003 as a result of the crossing of a new coronavirus from bat origin to humans through palm civet cats in Guangdong Province, China. This virus, called SARS, affected a total of 8422 people in China and caused 916 deaths (11% mortality, however different rates are given in different literatures). The second epidemic event occurred approximately 10 years later. In 2012, the MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) emerged from bat origin through a dromedary camel in Saudi Arabia. It affected a total of 2494 people and caused 858 deaths (mortality rate of 34%). WHO has declared it as a pandemic after the outbreak and scientists are doing great efforts to identify the characterization of the new coronavirus and to develop antiviral therapies and vaccines. Clinical studies and vaccination studies are still ongo- ing fastly. Also, the pathogenesis of the virus is still not fully known, and new studies are needed in this regard. Currently, effective infection control intervention is the only way to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The most appropriate prophylactic regimen for patients under observa- tion due to COVID-19 related disease is unknown. For this reason, treatment protocols should be planned by following the current guidelines. This study consists of evaluating the opinions about the history of pandemics associated with COVID-19, related definitions and the projects being carried out with the compilation of avai- lable resources, the development stages of the pandemic and the projection of postpandemic interaction."