{"id":51706,"date":"2023-09-30T10:32:54","date_gmt":"2023-09-30T10:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=51706"},"modified":"2024-03-12T06:56:34","modified_gmt":"2024-03-12T06:56:34","slug":"prevalence-of-chronic-backpain-after-covid-19-astrazeneca-and-pfizer-biontech-vaccines-in-sultanate-of-oman-a-survey-based-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol16no3\/prevalence-of-chronic-backpain-after-covid-19-astrazeneca-and-pfizer-biontech-vaccines-in-sultanate-of-oman-a-survey-based-study\/","title":{"rendered":"Prevalence of Chronic Backpain after COVID-19 Astrazeneca and Pfizer\/Biontech Vaccines in Sultanate of Oman: A Survey-Based Study"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coronavirus belongs to the family coronaviridae which contain glycoprotein spikes in their envelope that gives the virus a crown-like shape1.<\/sup> Coronavirus contains a single RNA molecule. The late SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) has caused the highly contagious pandemic COVID-19, which is similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome.1<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are three main types of COVID-19 vaccines introduced based on how they are designed. The first type, an inactivated vaccine; uses the whole organism after inactivation with certain chemicals, heat or radiation. This vaccine can be widely used among people including those who are immunocompromised. The second type is a live-attenuated vaccine which weakens the virus or bacterium while still alive. This type is not  usually suitable for immunocompromise people. A third type, a viral vector vaccine; only delivers the genes with the information to trigger the immune response of interest through a vector2<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four vaccines are approved for use in Oman, these include Pfizer\/BioNTech vaccine (RNA), Oxford\/AstraZeneca and Gamaleya Sputnik vaccines (non-replicating viral vectors), and Sinovac corona vaccine (inactivated)3<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pfizer\/BioNTech is a messenger RNA vaccine that contains the nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-23<\/sup>. Other ingredients that help stabilize the vaccine may include lipids, salts as well as sugars. Possible side effects may be localized (to the site of injection) or systemic. Pericarditis and myocarditis have also been reported but very rarely. Additional side effects that have been reported  include severe allergic reactions4<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Oxford\/AstraZeneca is a recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector encoding the SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein produced in genetically modified human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells. The vaccine contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Other ingredients include L-histidine, L-histidine hydrochloride monohydrate, magnesium chloride hexahydrate, ethanol, sucrose and sodium chloride[4]<\/sup>. Very common side effects may be localized (tenderness, pain, itching or bruising) or generalized (fatigue, chills, headache, nausea, joint pain or muscle ache). Common side effects include vomiting or diarrhea, pain in legs or arms and flu-like symptoms. Uncommon side effects include sleepiness, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, enlarged lymph nodes and excessive sweating. Very rare side effects include thrombosis  (brain, liver, spleen and intestine) and Guillain-Barr\u00e9 syndrome (GBS).5,6<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back pain\nand COVID-19 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The neurological effects of COVID-19 infection were thoroughly investigated and established7,8<\/sup>. A study by Morgan et al (20210) reported back pain after COVID-19 infection as and concluded that it may be attributable to the virus but rather a transient condition9<\/sup>. Another study by Mohammad Ali et al (2022) found that 24.4% of COVID-19 survivors reported lower back pain, compared to 15.7% of people who hadn\u2019t been infected.  Possible explanations were the dysregulated immune response and Spinal muscle weakness10<\/sup>. Some of the common side effects of  different COVID-19 vaccines have also been reported. Among these side effects were joint\/muscle pain with Pfizer11<\/sup> and myalgia with AstraZeneca12<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few studies focused on the association between back pain and COVID-19 vaccines. A study by Nagla et al. (2021) showed that the frequency of back pain  among Saudi residents after the first Pfizer dose was 0.8% compared to 2.4% after the second dose. The duration of the pain, however, was not reported13<\/sup>. Another study by Balsam et al. (2021) concluded that back pain occurred in 2.8% of participants aged less than 49 years and 8.5% in those aged more than 49 years after the first dose of Sinopharm, compared to 2.4% and 5.1% after the second dose, respectively. Females were more commonly affected than males in both groups14<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many Omani citizens, as well as expatriates residing in Sultanate of Oman, have increasingly reported back pain with variable intensity  after one or  both doses of the vaccine. There is no data regarding the pathophysiology of the back pain following Covid-19 vaccine. Erum Khan et al. (2022) reported one case of acute transverse myelitis as a vaccine-related case. It appeared within one week following the first dose of Moderna vaccine15<\/sup>. Many studies has also established an association between the vaccine and transverse myelitis16,17, 18<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COVID-19 vaccine was also reported to trigger sciatica19<\/sup>. COVID-10 vaccines are also suspected to cause axial spondylarthritis20<\/sup>. Hence the current study aimed to measure the prevalence of back pain in individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines AstraZeneca and Pfizer\/BioNTech in Sultanate of Oman. Moreover, the study has assessed the effects of various demographic as well as vaccine-related parameters on the correlation between the back pain and the vaccine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Materials and\nmethods<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nsurvey-based cross-sectional observational study was\nconducted in the period from April to November 2021 measure the frequency of\nback pain in individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 AstraZeneca and Pfizer in\nSultanate of Oman. Sample size\nwas taken from Omani individuals and expatriates residing in Sohar Province,\nOman, vaccinated with Pfizer or AstraZeneca during the period from April to\nNovember 2021. Exclusion criteria included history of medical or traumatic\nconditions that cause back pain (osteoarthritis, spondylarthritis, scoliosis,\naccident, compression fractures and herniated disc) and age extremities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two hundred\nparticipants were enrolled in the study, sample size was calculated based on a 95%\nconfidence level, a 3% margin of error, a 2.4% proportion and around 222,000\npopulation size. A structured questionnaire (online and hard copy) was used for\ncollection of baseline and demographic data. The questionnaire was piloted prior to the\nstudy by using a representative group of 10 individuals. Responders filled up\nthe questionnaire and offered their feedback. Accordingly, the questionnaire\nwas refined and retested. The questionnaire was divided into two major domains,\ndomain I covered variables related to demographic data (age and gender) and\nvaccine received (AstraZeneca\/Pfizer). Domain II covered variables related to back\npain (onset, intensity, character, location, temporal pattern, and duration). Chi\nsquare was used to analyse the association between categorical data. Data were\nanalysed with the SPSS (28th<\/sup> version). All individuals signed an informed\nconsent. Ethical approval was obtained from College of Medicine and Health Sciences,\nNational University, Oman (registration ID: NU\/COMHS\/EBC0012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Socio-demographic\ndata<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study\nincluded Two hundred individuals. One hundred individuals were vaccinated with\nAstraZeneca and another hundred individuals were vaccinated with Pfizer. There\nwas no control group as this is a cross-sectional study. Distribution of\nsociodemographic variables among participants is shown in table-1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Distribution of socio-demographic variables among study subjects<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Variable<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No. of participants<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Percentage (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Age group (in years)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

20-30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

30-40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

42.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

40-50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

>50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

200<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gender<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Male<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

90<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Females<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

110<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

200<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n

Prevalence of\nback pain<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study found\nthat about 36% (72) of participants have developed back pain after being\nvaccinated. Six characteristics of pain were addressed including onset,\nintensity, character, location, temporal pattern and duration. Pain was graded using\nthe 0-10 numeric pain rating scale[21]<\/sup>. It has been shown that pain\nwas of sudden onset in 25% (18) individuals and gradual onset in 75% (54)\nindividuals (table-2). The study revealed that pain was severe in 9.7% (7)\nindividuals, moderate in 61.6% (44) individuals, and mild in 29.1% (21)\nindividuals (table-2). Regarding character, 50% (36) of individuals said that\nthe pain was dull aching, 43% (31) said it was unspecified, and 7% (5) of\nindividuals described it as sharp (table-2). Anatomically, the pain affected\nthe lower half in 72.2% (55) of individuals and the upper half in 27.8% (17) of\nindividuals (table-2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding\ntemporal pattern, pain was intermittent in 88.9% (64) of individuals and\ncontinuous in 11.1% (8) individuals (table-2).  Lastly, the pain lasted for less than a week\nin 20.8% (15) of individuals, 1-2 weeks in 16.7% (12) of individuals, 2-4 weeks\nin 25% (18) of individuals, and more than one month in 37.5% (27) individuals\n(table-2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2: Frequency of back pain related variables among study subjects<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Variable<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No. of participants<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Percentage (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Onset<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sudden<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gradual<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Intensity<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Mild<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Moderate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

61.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Severe<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Character <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dull aching<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sharp<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

unspecified<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Location<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lower half<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Upper half<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Temporal pattern<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Intermittent<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

88.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Continuous<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Duration<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

< 1 week<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1-2 weeks<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2-4 weeks<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

> 4 weeks<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

37.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n

Back pain and\nage <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current\nstudy concluded that 13.8% (10) of individuals with back pain were under\n20-year-old, 16.7% (12) of individuals were in their twenties, 41.6% (30) of\nindividuals were in their thirties, 26.3% (19) of individuals were in their\nforties, and 1.4% (1) were above 50-year-old (table-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statistical\nanalysis was significant at p<0.05. Consequently, being in the age group\n30-40 years is a risk factor for developing the back pain after the vaccine. On\nthe other hand, individuals who are above 50-year-old, followed by those below\n20-year-old, were the least to develop the back pain after vaccination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3: Association between back pain and Age<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Age<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Back pain after vaccination<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chi square<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<20 years<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19 (14.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 (13.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.518<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

20-30 years<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24 (18.7)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12 (16.7)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

30-40 years<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55 (42.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30 (41.6)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

40-50 years<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14 (10.9)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19 (26.3)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

>50 years<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16 (12.5)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (1.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total column<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

128<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

200<\/strong> (grand total)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Back pain and\ngender<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study\nshowed that 52.8% (38) of female participants developed the back pain after\nwhereas 47.2% (34) of male participants developed the pain. Statistical\nanalysis was insignificant at p<0.05 (table-4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly,\ngender has no effect on the association of back pan with the vaccine. In other\nwords, being male or female did not decide whether an individual will or will\nnot experience the pain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4: Association between back pain and Gender<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Gender<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Back pain after vaccination<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chi square<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Females<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72 (56.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

38 (52.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

110<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.224<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.635<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Males<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

56 (43.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34 (47.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

90<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total column<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

128<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

200<\/strong> (grand total)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n

Back pain and\nvaccine type<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding type of vaccine, 52.8% (38) individuals developed back pain after AstraZeneca while 47.2% (34) individuals developed the pain after Pfizer (table-5). Statistical analysis was insignificant at p<0.05. In other words, type of vaccine did not affect whether a vaccinated individual will or will not develop the back pain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 5: Association between back pain and Type of vaccine<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/strong>Vaccine<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Back pain after vaccination<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>Total raw<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chi square<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yes<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

AstraZeneca<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62 (48.5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

38 (52.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.347<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.555<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pfizer<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

66 (51.5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34 (47.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total column<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

128<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

200<\/strong> (grand total)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Back pain and\ndose number<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was also\nshown that 19.4% of individuals vaccinated with AstraZeneca developed the pain\nafter the first dose and 80.6% developed the pain after the second dose.\nRegarding Pfizer, around 27.8% of vaccinated individuals developed the pain\nafter the first dose and 72.2%  developed\nthe pain after the second dose (table-6). Statistical analysis was\ninsignificant at p<0.05. As a result, the there was no correlation between\nthe dosage number and the prevalence of back pain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 6: Association between back pain and Dose number of vaccine <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/strong>Vaccine<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Back pain after vaccination<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>Total raw<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chi square<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

First dose<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Second dose<\/strong><\/p>\n

n (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

AstraZeneca<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 (19.4)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29 (80.6)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.693<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.405<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pfizer<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 (27.8)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26 (72.2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total column<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72 (grand total)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

COVID-19 vaccine is known to cause several local and systemic side effects some of these are short-term and others occur as long-term complications. Low back pain was clearly and increasingly stated by a number of vaccinated individuals as a side effect1<\/sup>. In the current study, we analyzed the prevalence of back pain in individuals vaccinated with AstraZeneca and Pfizer in Sultanate of Oman. Two hundred individuals were enrolled in the study, vaccinated with AstraZeneca and Pfizer. The study revealed frequency of back pain among vaccinated subjects was 36%. In my point of view, this percentage cannot be ignored as it represents more than one third of participants. By comparing this frequency to the frequency of back pain caused by the infection itself in the study done by Mohammad Ali et al[12]<\/sup>, which was 24.4%, we found that back pain was more frequent among vaccinated subjects. We concluded that the back pain was more related to the vaccine rather than to the infection. Moreover, this can support our theory that the vaccine is associated with back pain because the vaccine  that is responsible for the back pain may be produced on a genetically modified basis that involves the virus that causes the infection itself6<\/sup>. Possible explanations for back pain after vaccination with these vaccines is the dysregulated immune response die to the infection caused by the vaccine and so-called vaccine-induced myalgia, transverse myelitis, spondylarthritis, or sciatica.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our finding\nsuggested that the low back pain was mostly intermittent, chronic dull aching in\nnature. As a result we can conclude that back pain that occurs after COVID-19\nvaccination is a long-term rather than a temporal side effect, pointing to a\npossible etiological factor of long-standing nature which may or may not be\ndose-related. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study also showed that the majority of individuals with back pain were in their thirties while those who were above 50-year-old were the least affected with the pain. Accordingly, it did not agree with Balsam et al. (2021) findings the back pain frequency was higher in participants aged more than 49 years15<\/sup>. Accordingly, our findings support the theory that these vaccines cause back pain as it affect individuals at a relatively younger age. This fact can make the vaccine a genuine contributor to the back pain because of the lesser probability of having the pain at a younger age due to other factors. The result that females were more affected than males was in agreement with Balsam et al. findings in both groups of age. There was no data regarding the pathophysiology behind women being more affected than males. Estrogen levels may play a role in the pathogenesis of low back pain as it increases pain sensitivity among menopausal women22<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study concluded that type of vaccine did not affect whether an individual will or will not develop the back pain. This is quite acceptable as both vaccine share some structural similarities and some common ingredients that help stabilize the vaccine. Most individuals developed the back pain after the second dose of both vaccines. This conclusion, though statistically insignificant, was in agreement with Nagla et al. (2021) study which found that the frequency was higher after the second dose1<\/sup>. The study, however, did not agree with the Balsam et al. findings which stated that around 10% of cases developed the back pain after the first dose, compared to around 7% after the second dose15<\/sup>. Our finding could be explained on the basis that the effect of the vaccine is of the dose-dependent type. Subsequently, the development of back pain can be classified as an \u201cadverse effect\u201d rather than a \u201cside effect\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no data regarding the pathophysiology of back pain following COVID-19 vaccine. Many studies reported transverse myelitis[16,17,18]<\/sup>, sciatica[19]<\/sup> and axial spondylarthritis20<\/sup> as possible complications of the vaccine. The possible causes of chronic back pain after vaccination was beyond the scope of the study. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were\nseveral limitations to this study. As a cross-sectional study, the temporal\nlink between the back pain and the vaccination cannot be determined because\nboth are examined at the same time. Another limitation is that the study cannot support conclusions on the risk of disease, nor on causal\nrelationships. This is\nbecause such studies offer a snapshot of a single moment in time; they do\nnot consider what happens before or after the snapshot is taken. Other\nlimitations included recall and selection bias, and limited time-points which\ndo not allow for causal conclusions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We recommend further\nlongitudinal studies that conduct several observations  over  a\nlonger period of time with an emphasis on the etiological background of the\nback pain after COVID-19 vaccination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current study has investigated the frequency of back pain among individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines. The prevalence of chronic low back pain among vaccinated individuals was 36%. Females were more affected than males. The most commonly affected age group was especially the 4th<\/sup> decade of life. Possibilities of long-standing background like transverse myelitis, sciatica or axial spondylarthritis should always be put into consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are no conflict of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funding Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are no funding sources<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Lienda Bashier Eltayeb. An update about Coronaviruses with Emphasis on Newly Emerged COVID 19. J Biochem Tech (2020) 11 (3): 14-20 ISSN: 0974-2328.<\/li>
  2. COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine analysis print. Medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA) COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine analysis print. https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/ government.<\/li>
  3. Pratibha Anand, Vincent P. Stahel; Review the safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. Patient Saf Surg. 2021; 15: 20.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  4. Pratibha Anand, Vincent P. Stahel; Review the safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. Patient Saf Surg. 2021; 15: 20.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  5. https:\/\/www.pfizer.com<\/li>
  6. COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca analysis print. Medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA) COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca analysis print. https:\/\/www.google.com. <\/li>
  7. Mao L, Jin H, Wang M, et al. Neurologic manifestations of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(6):683-690.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  8. Zhou L, Zhang M, Wang J, Gao J. Sars-Cov-2: underestimated damage to nervous system. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020;36:101642.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  9. Morgan Angotti et al. COVID-19 and its Impact on Back Pain. Global Spine J. 2022 Jan; 12(1): 5\u20137.Published online 2021 Sep26. doi: 10.1177\/21925682211041618.11.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  10. Mohammad Ali et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with low back pain: findings from a community-based case-control study. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Volume 122, September 2022, Pages 144-151.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  11. Subhashini Ganesan et al. Vaccine Side Effects Following COVID-19 Vaccination Among the Residents of the UAE-An Observational Study.
    Front Public Health. 2022 May 6;10:876336. doi: 10.3389\/fpubh.2022.876336.13.<\/li>
  12. Fahad Alhowaymel et al. Reported Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination among Adults in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. SAGE Open Nurs. 2022 Jan-Dec. doi: 10.1177\/23779608221103208.14.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  13. Nagla A. El-Shitany et al. Minor to Moderate Side Effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Among Saudi Residents: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Gen Med. 2021; 14: 1389\u20131401.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  14. Balsam Qubais Saeed et al. Side effects and perceptions following SINOPHARM Covid-19 vaccination. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Volume 111, P219-226, October 1, 2021.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  15. Erum at al. Acute transverse myelitis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a case report and review of literature. J Neurol. 2022; 269(3): 1121\u20131132. Published online 2021 Sep 5. doi: 10.1007\/s00415-021-10785-2.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  16. William Fitzsimmons, Christopher S. Nance. Sudden Onset of Myelitis after COVID-19 Vaccination: An Under-Recognized Severe Rare Adverse Event. http:\/\/ papers.ssrn.com. Date Written: May 5, 2021.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  17. Pagenkopf C, S\u00fcdmeyer M. A case of longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis following vaccination against Covid-19. J Neuroimmunol. 2021;358:577606. doi: 10.1016\/j.jneuroim.2021.577606.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  18. Singh Malhotra H, Gupta P, Prabhu V, Garg RK, Dandu H, Agarwal V. COVID-19 vaccination-associated myelitis. QJM. 2021 doi: 10.1093\/qjmed\/hcab069.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  19. Allen CM, Ramsamy S, Tarr AW, et al. Guillain\u2013Barr\u00e9 syndrome variant occurring after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Ann Neurol 2021.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  20. Axial Spondylarthritis and the COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know. https:\/\/creakyjoints.org. Published 04\/05\/21 by Kelsey Kloss.<\/li>
  21. Pain scale. Nature. Deborah Weatherspoon. Updated on September 18, 2018.<\/li>
  22. Valeri Nikolov, Miroslava Petkova. Pain sensitivity among women with low estrogen levels. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. Volume 5, 2010, Pages 289-293.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Coronavirus belongs to the family coronaviridae which contain glycoprotein […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[109],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol16no3"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51706","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51706"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51706\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56742,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51706\/revisions\/56742"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}