Background: Knowledge about a vaccine’s side effects and efficacy is important to improving public vaccine acceptance. This study aimed to detect the safety and efficacy of vaccines among the Egyptian population. Methodology and Results: Data was collected using an online survey from participants who took two doses of the BBIBP-CorV, ChAdOx1, or BNT162 vaccines. Pain at the vaccine injection site, muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, fever, and headache were the most common side effects after the first and second doses. The number pf side effects was higher in ChAdOx1 than in BNT162 and BBIBP-CorV. Most of the side effects started on the first day after vaccination and persisted for 1–2 days. Vaccinated people with past coronavirus infections before vaccination developed better antibodies than those who were only vaccinated. The side-effect severity was greater after the first dose of BBIBP-CorV and ChAdOx1 than after the second dose, but in contrast, the side-effect severity was greater after the second dose of BNT162 vaccine than after the first dose. ChAdOx1 was more effective than BBIBP-CorV, and one dose of ChAdOx1 produced an immune response similar to that of two doses of BBIBP-CorV. Conclusions: Coronavirus vaccines were well-tolerated, safe, and produced an immune response against the virus in most cases. Most postvaccine side effects were mild to moderate, which indicated the building of immunity by the body for protection.

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the effect of metered dose inhaler (MDI) counselling on the inhalation technique and pulmonary function test scores of patients with asthma. Methods 491 subjects with asthma (281 female) attending the Beni Suef University hospital outpatient clinics were enrolled during a 2-year period. Their mean (SD) age was 42.1 (17.1) years. Their MDI inhalation technique was checked and the number of mistakes was noted and corrected at the first visit and at each of two following monthly visits (three visits in total). Their peak expiratory flow and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) as a percentage of the forced vital capacity were checked at each visit. Results Most MDIs contained salbutamol, although some patients were using MDIs containing beclomethasone or a combination of beclomethasone and salbutamol. The mean number of mistakes observed decreased significantly (p<0.001) as the number of visits increased, especially in the children's group. The most common repeated mistake was failure to maintain a slow inhalation rate until the lungs were full. There was a significant improvement (p60 years. Conclusions MDI counselling should be frequently repeated to improve and maintain the recommended MDI inhalation technique and possibly improve patients’ pulmonary function tests scores.

Objective The repurposing of nitazoxanide, doxycycline, and azithromycin may be effective to improve the symptoms in mild and moderate COVID‐19 subjects. This study aimed to detect and explain the efficacy of reusing of these drugs in treating COVID‐19. Methods The study was divided into two parts; clinical and computational parts. In the clinical part, 80 (30 females) subject with reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID‐19 with mild and moderate symptoms were enrolled in the study. Subjects were treated with azithromycin or doxycycline, and nitazoxanide were added to the treatment if the subject had diarrhea. Subjects were divided into 4 groups: Group 1: subjects treated with azithromycin (20 subjects); Group 2: subjects treated with doxycycline (20 subjects); Group 3: subjects treated with a combination of nitazoxanide and doxycycline (20 subjects); and Group 4: subjects treated with a combination of nitazoxanide and azithromycin (20 subjects). In the computational part, we docked the three drugs against all currently available COVID‐19 related protein targets (viral and non‐viral). Subsequently, top hits were subjected to molecular dynamic simulations (50 ns) and binding free energy calculations to further validate the docking experiments and to investigate the binding modes of the potential inhibitors. Results The symptomatic improvement of mild to moderate subjects was seen on the 5^th day after starting treatment in Group 3 and Group 4 and on the 7^th day in Group 2. However, for Group 1, the symptomatic improvement of mild to moderate subjects was not seen on the 5^th day and required replacement by doxycycline to get the symptomatic improvement. None of the subjects needed intensive care admission and no deaths were reported. In silico, results were in good accordance with the clinical outcomes, where both nitazoxanide and doxycycline achieved the best docking scores against the viral ADP‐ribose phosphatase (ADPRP) and the human Adaptor‐Associated Kinase 1 (AAK1). Molecular dynamic simulations revealed that both drugs were stable in their bindings indicating that they can be considered as lead molecules for targeting ADPRP and AAK1. Conclusion The clinical and computational studies applied on three FDA‐approved antimicrobials together with their recent clinical findings revealed that both nitazoxanide and doxycycline have great therapeutic potential against COVID‐19. The future in‐vitro mechanistic investigation may confirm our primary computational outcomes, and in turn, these classes of compounds provide a promising starting point for further anti‐COVID‐19 therapeutics.

The aim of the work presented here was to determine the role of dry powder inhaler (DPI) counselling on inhalation technique and lung function test scores of the asthmatic patients. To decrease variability, asthmatic patients using an Aerolizer were enrolled in the study, as this was the most commonly prescribed DPI in outpatient clinics of Beni Suef University hospital. Each patient was subjected to three visits separated by 1 month each. In each visit, patient inhalation technique from the DPI was checked, and the number of mistakes was identified and corrected. Also, patients’ peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) presented as a percentage of the forced vital capacity (FVC) were checked. As the number of visits increased, the mean number of observed mistakes was significantly decreased (p < 0.001). The most common repeated mistakes were “To inhale fast” and “To maintain a fast inhalation rate until the lungs are full”. In all age groups, there was a significant increase (p < 0.001) in the pulmonary function test after the period of counselling. To improve and maintain the recommended inhalation technique of DPI and possibly improve patients’ lung function test scores, counselling on proper DPI technique should be repeated at every possible opportunity.

The purpose of this study was to explore the value of using cefepime and ceftazidime in treating patients with COVID-19. A total of 370 (162 males) patients, with RT-PCR-confirmed cases of COVID-19, were included in the study. Out of them, 260 patients were treated with cefepime or ceftazidime, with the addition of steroids to the treatment. Patients were divided into three groups: Group 1: patients treated with cefepime (124 patients); Group 2: patients treated with ceftazidime (136 patients); Group 3 (control group): patients treated according to the WHO guidelines and the Egyptian COVID-19 management protocol (110 patients)/ Each group was classified into three age groups: 18–30, 31–60, and >60 years. The dose of either cefepime or ceftazidime was 1000 mg twice daily for five days. Eight milligrams of dexamethasone were used as the steroidal drug. Careful follow-ups for the patients were carried out. In vitro and in silico M^pro enzyme assays were performed to investigate the antiviral potential of both antibiotics. The mean recovery time for Group 1 was 12 days, for Group 2 was 13 days, and for Group 3 (control) was 19 days. No deaths were recorded, and all patients were recovered without any complications. For Group 1, the recovery time was 10, 12, and 16 days for the age groups 18–30, 30–60, and >60 years, respectively. For Group 2, the recovery time was 11, 13, and 15 days for the age groups 18–30, 30–60, and >60 years, respectively. For Group 3 (control), the recovery time was 15, 16, and 17 days for the age groups 18–30, 30–60, and >60 years, respectively. Both ceftazidime and cefepime showed very good inhibitory activity towards SARS CoV-2′s M^pro, with IC₅₀ values of 1.81 µM and 8.53 µM, respectively. In conclusion, ceftazidime and cefepime are efficient for the management of moderate and severe cases of COVID-19 due to their potential anti-SARS CoV-2 activity and low side effects, and, hence, the currently used complex multidrug treatment protocol can be replaced by the simpler one proposed in this study.