Human monkeypox is an emerging viral zoonotic disease, that has caused highly distinctive, challenging and threatening problems worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given interim authorization for the JYNNEOS and ACAM2000 vaccines for the outbreak of monkeypox 2022. The present study aims to highlight the globally derived evidence about the biological and pharmacological features, indications, contraindications and adverse effects of JYNNEOS and ACAM2000 vaccines. Initially, 82 documents were selected and, finally, 14 fact sheets, documents and international organizations were included. The data were recorded from the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) USA, ISI-Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. The data revealed that the JYNNEOS vaccine has been recommended to children, adults, females during pregnancy and people of all age groups with a dose of 0.5 mL, and the complete vaccination cost per person is about USD 115. It provides immunogenicity, and the mean titer of neutralizing antibodies was 153.5. However, the ACAM2000 vaccine is contraindicated in infants and pregnant females, and recommended to people over 18 years of age and older, with a single dose of 0.0025 mL, and a cost of about USD 139. ACAM2000 provides immunogenicity, and the mean titer of neutralizing antibodies was 79.3. The JYNNEOS vaccine has mild adverse effects including pain, redness, swelling or itching at the site of the vaccine shot, fever, fatigue, headache, nausea and muscle pain. However, the ACAM2000 vaccine can cause pain, redness, edema, headache, fever, fatigue, muscle pain, body ache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath and increased risk of myopericarditis and cardiomyopathy. The evidence supports the view that both vaccines are beneficial, but the overall impact of JYNNEOS is better than that of ACAM2000.

The novel coronavirus infection outbreak has posed a major threat to international health system and economy. This study is aimed at investigating the biological and epidemiological trends in the prevalence and mortality due to outbreaks of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infections.

No abstract

Vaccinating children against COVID-19 is an essential public health strategy in order to reach herd immunity and prevent illness among children and adults. Parents are facing tremendous stress in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination program for children. In this study, we aimed to investigate parents’ perceptions and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine for their children in Saudi Arabia. A well-designed, pre-validated, Google questionnaire was distributed to parents through social media websites. The selection of the participants was based on the simple random sample technique. The study sample size was 1304 participants, with 342 males (26.2%), and 962 females (73.8%). The personal information, perception about COVID-19, and their children’s vaccination status were obtained. Among the participants, 602 (46.1%) were willing to get the COVID-19 vaccination for their children, whereas 382 (29.3%) were hesitant to inoculate their children for COVID-19 and 320 (24.4%) were unsure. Age (p = 0.004), gender (p = 0.001), occupation (0.004), income (p = 0.030), and vaccination status (p = 0.001) had an influence on the parents’ acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination of their children. On the other hand, education level, number of children, and having been previously infected with COVID-19 had no statistically significant effect on the parent acceptance. The correlation of parents’ knowledge about COVID-19 and their agreement to the vaccination of their children was statistically significant, along with gender (males were more knowledgeable, with p < 0.001), occupation, income (higher income showed a statistical difference, with p < 0.001), and vaccination status (p < 0.001). There was a decrease in parents’ acceptance toward the COVID-19 children vaccine in Saudi Arabia, which requires more attention and focus from health providers to eliminate fear and anxiety among the parents through additional educational programs and events to decrease the resistance toward the vaccination of children. More emphasis is required to increase the awareness of parents and convey the importance of the vaccine for children. In addition, more studies are needed to ensure the vaccine’s safety.

Objectives The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, also known as COVID-19 pandemic has caused an alarming situation worldwide. Since the first detection, in December 2019, there have been no effective drug therapy options for treating the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, healthcare professionals are using chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, convalescent plasma and some other options of treatments. This study aims to compare the biological, molecular, pharmacological, and clinical characteristics of these three treatment modalities for SARS-COV-2 infections, Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, Convalescent Plasma, and Remdesivir. Methods A search was conducted in the “Institute of Science Information (ISI)-Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library databases, Scopus, and Google Scholar” for peer reviewed, published studies and clinical trials through July 30, 2020. The search was based on keywords “COVID-19” SARS-COV-2, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, remdesivir and treatment modalities. Results As of July 30, 2020, a total of 36,640 relevant documents were published. From them 672 peer reviewed, published articles, and clinical trials were screened. We selected 17 relevant published original articles and clinical trials: 05 for chloroquine and/or hydroxychloroquine with total sample size (n = 220), 05 for Remdesivir (n = 1,781), and 07 for Convalescent Plasma therapy (n = 398), with a combined total sample size (n = 2,399). Based on the available data, convalescent plasma therapy showed clinical advantages in SARS-COV-2 patients. Conclusions All three treatment modalities have both favorable and unfavorable characteristics, but none showed clear evidence of benefit for early outpatient disease or prophylaxis. Based on the current available data, convalescent plasma therapy appears to show clinical advantages for inpatient use. In the future, ongoing large sample size randomized controlled clinical trials may further clarify the comparative efficacy and safety of these three treatment classes, to conclusively determine whom to treat with which drug and when to treat them.