COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines induce immunity through different mechanisms. The aim of this study is to compare the titers of specific antibodies in subjects vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Sinopharm vaccine. This prospective observational cohort included Jordanian adults vaccinated with two doses, 21 days apart, of either of the two aforementioned vaccines. Titers were collected 6 weeks after the administration of the second dose. Overall, 288 participants were included, of which 141 were administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while 147 were administered the Sinopharm vaccine. Remarkably, 140 (99.3%) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients had positive IgG titers, while 126 (85.7%) of Sinopharm recipients had positive IgG (p < 0.001). The mean titer for IgG among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients was 515.5 ± 1143.5 BAU/mL, compared to 170.0 ± 230.0 BAU/mL among Sinopharm subjects (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine positively correlated with positive IgG titers (OR: 25.25; 95% CI: 3.25–196.15; p = 0.002), compared with a negative effect of cardiovascular diseases (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.11–0.99; p = 0.48) on IgG titers. In conclusion, fully vaccinated recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had superior quantitative efficiency compared to Sinopharm recipients. A booster dose is supported for Sinopharm recipients, or those with chronic immunosuppressive diseases.

Vaccination is the most promising strategy to counter the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccine hesitancy is a serious global phenomenon, and therefore the aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the effect of educational background, work field, and social media on attitudes towards vaccination in Jordan. We compared between medical personnel who were in direct contact with patients and non-medical individuals at Jordan University Hospital in terms of demographics, knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, rumors received via social media, their trust in these vaccines, and the encouraging factors for vaccination. 646 individuals were enrolled in this study, of which 287 (44.4%) were from medical field, and 359 (55.6%) from non-medical field. 226 (35%) were planning to take the vaccine once available, with a positive response from 131 (45.6%) medical field workers, compared to 94 (26.2%) non-medical individuals (p < 0.001). The social media rumor that was believed the most was the unsafety of these vaccines (n = 283; 43.8%). Only 163 (56.8%) of medical persons did not believe any of the circulated rumors, compared to 126 (35.1%) of non-medical persons (p < 0.001). The effect of medical personnel advice (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.98; p = 0.026) and social media (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.41; p = 0.012) were significantly associated with the willingness to take COVID-19 vaccine once available. In conclusion, medical personnel and social media play a crucial role in increasing the society’s inclination towards vaccination by providing the community with updated evidence-based information about COVID-19 vaccines as an efficient medical countermeasure and by correcting the previously spread misinformation.

Intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine intraoperatively during hypospadius repair in children reduces intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements and lowers heart rate and blood pressure.

Editor, GPI 15715 or Aquavan injection (fospropofol disodium; MGI Pharma, Inc., Bloomington, Minnesota, USA) is a water-soluble, phosphono-O-methyl prodrug of propofol for intravenous (i.v.) injection. It has been evaluated for sedation during diagnostic and routine therapeutic procedures. The early evaluation studies were published mostly in Anesthesiology between 2003 and 2005.References 1 Fechner J, Ihmsen H, Hatterscheid D, et al. Pharmacokinetics and clinical pharmacodynamics of the new propofol prodrug GPI 15715 in volunteers. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:303-313. 2 Fechner J, Ihmsen H, Hatterscheid D, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the new propofol prodrug GPI 15715 and propofol emulsion. Anesthesiology 2004; 101:626-639. 3 Struys MM, Vanluchene AL, Gibiansky E, et al. AQUAVAN, a water-soluble prodrug of propofol as a bolus injection: a phase I dose escalation comparison with DIPRIVAN. Part II: pharmacodynamics and safety. Anesthesiology 2005; 103:730-743. 4 Gibiansky E, Struys M, Gibiansky L, et al. AQUAVAN Injection, a watersoluble prodrug of propofol as bolus injection: a phase I dose escalation comparison with DIPRIVAN. Part 1: pharmacokinetics. Anesthesiology 2005; 103:718-729. 5 Schywalsky M, Ihmsen H, Tzabazis A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the new propofol prodrug GPI 15715 in rats. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003; 20:182-190. 6 Fechner J, Ihmsen H, Schiessl C, et al. Sedation with GPI 15715, a watersoluble prodrug of propofol, using target-controlled infusion in volunteers.