Case Report | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0419/316
Assistant Professor Department of Pharmacy AUST)
*Corresponding Author: Khalid Javed, Assistant Professor Department of Pharmacy AUST)
Citation: Khalid Javed, Hamza Niaz, Muhammad Shafiq Khan (2023), A Rational Approach to the Diagnosis of Narrow Complex Tachycardia. J. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 6(5); DOI:10.31579/2641-0419/316
Copyright: © 2023, Khalid Javed. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 05 May 2023 | Accepted: 15 May 2023 | Published: 26 May 2023
Keywords: Covid-19; Individual vaccine
Comparative effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines is a research study that includes 23 cases of commonly used covid-19 vaccines administered in Pakistan. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews in tertiary healthcare hospitals in the Hazara region
Comparative effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines is a research study that includes 23 cases of commonly used covid-19 vaccines administered in Pakistan. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews in tertiary healthcare hospitals in the Hazara region. The study utilized post- vaccination relapse of disease or breakthrough infections as criteria to assess the comparative effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines. The data was analyzed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel-2016. Results suggested that Pfizer was most effective to prevent breakthrough infection and relapse of disease, while Sputnik-V was most effective to reduce the severity of symptoms on relapse. Investigate SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among healthcare workers who received the COVID-19 vaccine to identify trends or clustering in patient characteristics, the administered vaccine, and their comparative effectiveness to prevent relapse and severity of symptoms.
Comparative Effectiveness
The data analysis using SPSS and Microsoft Excel-365. suggests that the majority (95%) of the HCWs who reported clinical symptoms of breakthrough infection had either severe fever (100%) New olfactoryy disorder (100%) and new taste disorder (100%) while 90% of the HCWs had >3 sever and moderate symptoms. The most frequent symptoms included fever (100%), cough (60%), headache (100%), malaise (60%), sore throat (70%), runny nose (70%), and shortness of breath (90%).
Individual Vaccine Analysis
Individual vaccine analysis suggested that most breakthrough infections occurred with AstraZeneca 1/3 (33.3%) followed by Sinovac 3/16 (21.7%), Sputnik-V 1/4 (25%), and Pfizer 0/1 (0%). A comparison of the vaccine based on the percentage of relapse of breakthrough infections suggests that
Pfizer was most effective in preventing post-vaccination relapse of disease while AstraZeneca was least effective in the population studied. Most relapse or breakthrough infections occurred after the first dose 3/5 (60%) while 2/5 (40%) after the second dose. The data on effectiveness for Pfizer is currently limited due to a shortage of vaccines in-country online foreign visitors are allowed to take this vaccine.
Relapse after Dose number
In conclusion, the current report reconfirms the possibility of post-vaccination COVID-19 infection among HCWs. Although the results cannot be generalized because of limited population inclusion and neglecting the other elements including individual condition, rate of exposure, underlying health conditions, and medications. A comparison of vaccine effectiveness based on clinical symptoms on relapse shows that all vaccine is equally effective to reduce the severity of symptoms in a post- vaccination relapse of disease. Sputnik-v was found more effective in reducing the severity of the new olfactory disorder in a patient with a relapse of the disease as well as it reduces the severity of all other symptoms compared to other alternatives.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,
