Background The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in addition to the global economy are huge. Vaccination is a pivotal measure to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and to help bring the pandemic under control. Yet, success of the vaccination process depends on the population’s willingness to be vaccinated which may be determined by their level of knowledge about and trust in currently available COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, this study aims to assess the knowledge, attitude, and acceptance of Palestinians towards COVID-19 vaccines. Methods A national cross-sectional study was distributed in different Palestinian regions to assess the knowledge and attitude of Palestinians toward COVID-19 vaccines using an online questionnaire, it included three sections; sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge assessment questions, and attitude assessment questions. Results A total of 6226 participants completed the questionnaire; among them, 41.36% believed that vaccines are safe, 69.02% agreed that vaccines are vital to protect from COVID-19; in addition, 55.1% approve administering the vaccine once available, and 37.86% do not believe their benefits outweigh the risks. The Source of information for 22.07% of participants in social media, while 11.92% rely on health care providers. Participants’ attitudes and knowledge were significantly affected by gender, governorate, age, education level, and marital status (P <0.001). Conclusion The findings suggest that there is good knowledge and attitude toward the vaccination process against COVID-19 in Palestine, although low acceptance was detected. Awareness campaigns are required to spread reliable knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines.

Background and objective More than five million individuals died because of problems connected to COVID-19. SARS-Cov-2 poses a particular challenge to expectant mothers, who comprise one of the most vulnerable segments of the population. Our aim is to demonstrate the maternal and neonatal safety of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, Ovid, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases from inception till December 2021 and then updated it in April 2022. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Square and grey literature. Cohort, case–control studies, and randomized controlled trials detecting the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy were included. We used the Cochrane tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADE scale to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4. Results We included 13 studies with a total number of 56,428 patients. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: miscarriage (1.56% vs 0.3%. RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.54 to 2.78); length of maternal hospitalization (MD 0.00; 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08); puerperal fever (1.71% vs 1.1%. RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.67 to 1.61); postpartum hemorrhage (4.27% vs 3.52%. RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.65 to 1.09); instrumental or vacuum-assisted delivery (4.16% vs 4.54%. RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.56); incidence of Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min (1.47% vs 1.48%. RR 0.86; 95%CI 0.54 to 1.37); and birthweight (MD -7.14; 95%CI -34.26 to 19.99). Conclusion In pregnancy, the current meta-analysis shows no effect of SAR-CoV-2 vaccination on the risk of miscarriage, length of stay in the hospital, puerperal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, birth weight, or the incidence of an Apgar score of ≤ 7 at 5 min.

Background and ObjectivesIn young people aged < 50 years, cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is among the most common causes of stroke. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the safest and most effective antithrombotic treatment for CeAD. We aimed to synthesize concrete evidence from studies that compared the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet (AP) versus anticoagulant (AC) therapies for CeAD. Methods We searched major electronic databases/search engines from inception till September 2021. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets for CeAD were included. A meta-analysis was conducted using articles that were obtained and found to be relevant. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for continuous data and odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data. Results Our analysis included 15 studies involving 2064 patients, 909 (44%) of whom received antiplatelets and 1155 (56%) received anticoagulants. Our analysis showed a non-significant difference in terms of the 3-month mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.58), > 3-month mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.40-6.56), recurrent stroke (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46-2.02), recurrent transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.98), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19), and complete recanalization (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Regarding primary ischaemic stroke, the results favoured AC over AP among RCTs (OR 6.97, 95% CI 1. 25-38.83). Conclusion Our study did not show a considerable difference between the two groups, as all outcomes showed non-significant differences between them, except for primary ischaemic stroke (RCTs) and complete recanalization (observational studies), which showed a significant favour of AC over AP. Even though primary ischaemic stroke is an important outcome, several crucial points that could affect these results should be paid attention to. These include the incomplete adjustment for the confounding effect of AP-AC doses, frequencies, administration compliance, and others. We recommend more well-designed studies to assess if unnecessary anticoagulation can be avoided in CeAD.

No abstract

Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a global health condition related to mental and physical consequences, functional impairment, and medical expenses. A wide range of antidepressant drugs could be prescribed for MDD patients. In this study, we aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Vilazodone treatment for relieving MDD symptoms upon valid scores. Methods Five databases were searched for literature search and seven included randomized clinical trials were finally meta-analyzed. All data were presented either as a mean difference (MD) in pooling continuous outcomes or risk ratio (RR) in pooling dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results We included 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total number of 3804 patients; 3390 of them were eligible to be pooled in our analysis. Patients' ages ranged from 13 to 42.4 years. vilazodone was given orally once a day with different doses throughout the included trials ranging from 10 to 40 mg for the duration of 8 to 12 weeks. The results significantly favored vilazodone over the placebo regarding the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (MD =-4.69, 95% CI: [-6.83, -2.55], P < 0.0001), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity (MD=-0.29, 95% CI: [-0.41, -0.17], P < 0.00001), and CGI improvement (MD =-0.36, 95% CI: [-0.44, -0.28], P < 0.00001). The pooled effect size significantly favored Vilazodone in terms of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, somnolence, dry mouth, insomnia, and dizziness compared to controls. Conclusion Vilazodone treatment is an effective, well-tolerated, and safe drug for MDD patients in terms of multiple outcomes.