Heterogeneity assessment of vaccine‐induced effects using point‐of‐care surrogate neutralization test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

IntroductionCoronavirus disease (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has become a global pandemic even after vaccination. We aimed to identify immunological heterogeneity over time in vaccinated healthcare workers using neutralization antibodies and neutralizing activity tests.MethodsSerum samples were collected from 214 healthcare workers before vaccination (pre) and on days 22, 90, and 180 after receiving the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine (day 0). Neutralization antibody (NAb, SARS‐CoV‐2 S‐RBD IgM/IgG) titers and two kinds of surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) were analyzed (UMIN000043851).ResultsThe NAb (SARS‐CoV‐2 S‐RBD IgG) titer peaked on day 90 after vaccination (30,808.0 μg/ml ± 35,211; p < 0.0001) and declined on day 180 (11,678.0 μg/ml ± 33,770.0; p < 0.0001). The neutralizing activity also peaked on day 90 and declined with larger individual differences than those of IgG titer on day 180 (88.9% ± 15.0%, 64.8% ± 23.7%, p < 0.0001). We also found that the results of POCT‐sVNT (immunochromatography) were highly correlated with those of conventional sVNT (ELISA).ConclusionsNeutralizing activity is the gold standard for vaccine efficacy evaluation. Our results using conventional sVNT showed large individual differences in neutralizing activity reduction on day 180 (64.8% ± 23.7%), suggesting an association with the difference in vaccine efficacy. POCT‐sVNT is rapid and user‐friendly; it might be used for triage in homes, isolation facilities, and event venues without restrictions on the medical testing environment.     

COVID‐19 vaccine‐related new‐onset lichen planus

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines significantly impacted world health and well‐being. However, various adverse events have been observed following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccination. Cutaneous reactions have been prevalent following many vaccines, including COVID‐19 vaccines. Here, we present a case of new‐onset lichen planus in a patient who received the COVID‐19 vaccine at the same time as being infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. A 52‐year‐old woman presented to the clinic with extensive pruritic skin lesions. The eruptions had appeared a week after her second dose of the Sinopharm COVID‐19 vaccine. She mentioned a history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection approximately 10 days following the first dose of her vaccine, causing a 1‐month delay in getting the second dose. Her past medical history was not significant. On examination, erythematous and squamous papules were demonstrated predominantly on the extremities, including inguinal and axillary folds. Moreover, desquamation of the lips was visible, and buccal lesions were also found. After consultation with a dermatologist, a skin biopsy was indicated for the patient, but she refused to undergo the procedure. Therefore, considering the typical appearance of the eruptions, lichen planus was suspected, for which she was treated with oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.     

COVID‐19 in HIV‐positive patients: A systematic review of case reports and case series

IntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) are two viral diseases for which there are currently no definitive treatments. Nowadays, because of the health system''s focus on the COVID‐19 epidemic, the control of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has received less attention. In this review, we will discuss the characteristics of COVID‐19 in HIV‐positive patients.Material and MethodsUsing the PRISMA guideline, the databases of Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched systematically from January 1, 2019 to February 24, 2021. The following keywords were used: “Human Immunodeficiency Virus,” “acquired immune deficiency syndrome,” “HIV,” “AIDS,” “COVID‐19,” “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2,” “novel coronavirus,” “SARS‐CoV‐2,” “nCoV disease,” “SARS2,” and “2019‐nCoV disease.”ResultsTwenty‐one percent of studies were conducted in the USA (n = 13), 16% in China (n = 10), and 13% in Italy (n = 8), respectively. The majority of the patients were men (74.3%). Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was used in 47.4% of patients, emtricitabine in 58.4%, and lamivudine in 34.8% to treat HIV. Symptoms of HIV patients with COVID‐19 included coughing (81.3%), fever (62.8%), and dyspnea (60%). Hydroxychloroquine (39.34%) and azithromycin (36.58%) were the common treatment options for COVID‐19. The total death rate in HIV‐positive patients with COVID‐19 was about 9%.ConclusionIn the current systematic review, we demonstrated that HIV‐positive patients co‐infected with COVID‐19 have high comorbidity of hypertension and diabetes mellitus. HIV/COVID‐19 co‐infection might have negatively influenced the HIV treatment and diagnosis, which indicates the need to regularly screen HIV patients in the COVID‐19 pandemic.     

Smaller reaction volume of triplex taqman real‐time reverse transcription‐PCR assays for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has had a devastating impact on public health services worldwide. Currently, there are no standard remedies or therapies for COVID‐19. it is important to identify and diagnose COVID‐19 to control the spread. But clinical symptoms of COVID‐19 are very similar to those of other respiratory viruses.ResultsAs a result, the diagnosis of COVID‐19 relies heavily on detecting pathogens. We established a bunch of triplex new TaqMan real‐time PCR assays. Three sets of primers and probes (targeting the ORF1ab, N, and E genes, respectively) are poorly consistent with other human coronaviruses and the human influenza virus. The sensitivity of established PCR assays notices as few as 100 copies per PCR of the ORF1ab, N, and E genes. Meanwhile, standard curves concluded from constant PCR reaction all showed glorious linear correlations between Ct values and the polymer loading copy variety (correlation coefficient (R²) of ORF1ab, N, and E genes is 0.996, 0.991, and 0.998, respectively). Surveillance of RNA‐based pseudovirus demonstrated that they were identified to be positive with respect to SARS‐CoV‐2 and that established PCR assays are achievable.ConclusionThe assays established provide a smaller reaction volume for diagnosing COVID‐19.     

Clinical symptoms,diagnosis, treatment,and outcome of COVID‐19‐associated encephalitis: A systematic review of case reports and case series

IntroductionSince COVID‐19 outbreak, various studies mentioned the occurrence of neurological disorders. Of these, encephalitis is known as a critical neurological complication in COVID‐19 patients. Numerous case reports and case series have found encephalitis in relation to COVID‐19, which have not been systematically reviewed. This study aims to evaluate the clinical symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of COVID‐19‐associated encephalitis.MethodsWe used the Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to search for reports on COVID‐19‐associated encephalitis from January 1, 2019, to March 7, 2021. The irrelevant studies were excluded based on screening and further evaluation. Then, the information relating diagnosis, treatment, clinical manifestations, comorbidities, and outcome was extracted and evaluated.ResultsFrom 4455 initial studies, 45 articles met our criteria and were selected for further evaluation. Included publications reported an overall number of 53 COVID‐19‐related encephalitis cases. MRI showed hyperintensity of brain regions including white matter (44.68%), temporal lobe (17.02%), and thalamus (12.76%). Also, brain CT scan revealed the hypodensity of the white matter (17.14%) and cerebral hemorrhages/hemorrhagic foci (11.42%) as the most frequent findings. The IV methylprednisolone/oral prednisone (36.11%), IV immunoglobulin (27.77%), and acyclovir (16.66%) were more preferred for COVID‐19 patients with encephalitis. From the 46 patients, 13 (28.26%) patients were died in the hospital.ConclusionIn this systematic review, characteristics of COVID‐19‐associated encephalitis including clinical symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome were described. COVID‐19‐associated encephalitis can accompany with other neurological symptoms and involve different brain. Although majority of encephalitis condition are reversible, but it can lead to life‐threatening status. Therefore, further investigation of COVID‐19‐associated encephalitis is required.     

Clinical manifestations,treatment options,and comorbidities in COVID‐19 relapse patients: A systematic review

IntroductionInterest revolving around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) reinfection is escalating rapidly. By definition, reinfection denotes severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), PCR redetection, and COVID‐19 recurrence within three months of the initial symptoms. The main aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate the features of COVID‐19 relapse patients.Materials and methodsFor this study, we used a string of terms developed by a skilled librarian and through a systematical search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for eligible studies. Clinical surveys of any type were included from January 2019 to March 2021. Eligible studies consisted of two positive assessments separated by a negative result via RT‐PCR.ResultsFifty‐four studies included 207 cases of COVID‐19 reinfection. Children were less likely to have COVID‐19 relapse. However, the most patients were in the age group of 20–40 years. Asthenia (66.6%), headache (66.6%), and cough (54.7%) were prevalent symptoms in the first SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Asthenia (62.9%), myalgia (62.9%), and headache (61.1%) were most frequent in the second one. The most common treatment options used in first COVID‐19 infection were lopinavir/ritonavir (80%), oxygen support (69.2%), and oseltamivir (66.6). However, for the treatment of second infection, mostly antibiotics (100%), dexamethasone (100%), and remdesivir (80%) were used. In addition, obesity (32.5%), kidney failure (30.7%), and hypertension (30.1%) were the most common comorbidities. Unfortunately, approximately 4.5% of patients died.ConclusionWe found the potency of COVID‐19 recurrence as an outstanding issue. This feature should be regarded in the COVID‐19 management. Furthermore, the first and second COVID‐19 are similar in clinical features. For clinically practical comparison of the symptoms severity between two epochs of infection, uniform data of both are required. We suggest that future studies undertake a homogenous approach to establish the clinical patterns of the reinfection phenomena.     

Comorbidities and mortality rate in COVID‐19 patients with hematological malignancies: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

IntroductionThe global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). It seems that there is an association between blood cancer and an increased risk of severe COVID‐19. This study aimed to review the literature reporting the COVID‐19 outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies.Material and methodsIn this systematic review and meta‐analysis, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using the following keywords: COVID‐19, SARS‐CoV‐2, blood cancer, myeloma, lymphoma, and leukemia. All the published articles in English from January 1, 2019, until March 10, 2021 were collected and evaluated.ResultsIn total, 53 studies with 2395 patients were included based on inclusion criteria. Most of these studies took place in Spain (14.81%), followed by the USA (11.11%), China (9.26%), and the UK (9.26%). More than half of COVID‐19 patients with hematological malignancy were male (56.73%). Oxygen therapy played an important role in COVID‐19 treatment. Moreover, anticoagulant therapies such as enoxaparin and heparin were two great assists for these patients. Fever (74.24%), cough (67.64%), and fatigue (53.19%) were the most reported clinical manifestations. In addition, hypertension and dyslipidemia were the most common comorbidities. The mortality rate due to COVID‐19 in patients with hematological malignancies was 21.34%.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that hematologic cancer patients were more susceptible to a severe COVID‐19 than patients without blood cancer. Thus, the management of COVID‐19 in these patients requires much more attention, and their screening should perform regularly.     

Hypersensitivity in the lungs is responsible for acute respiratory failure in COVID‐19 patients: Case series of patients who received high‐dose/short‐term methylprednisolone

BackgroundCOVID‐19 is a highly contagious respiratory disease caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Patients with severe disease have a high fatality rate and face a huge medical burden due to the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Hypoxic respiratory failure is the major cause of death in these patients. There are currently no specific anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 drugs, and the effect of corticosteroids is still controversial.MethodsThe clinical data of 102 COVID‐19 patients, including 27 patients with severe disease, were analyzed. The serum levels of total IgE and anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 specific IgE were compared in healthy controls and COVID‐19 patients, changes in the level of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 specific IgE and clinical response to methylprednisolone (MP) treatment were analyzed, and the effect of high‐dose/short‐term MP therapy for patients with critical illness and respiratory failure was determined.ResultsCOVID‐19 patients had elevated serum levels of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 specific IgE, and patients with severe disease, especially critical illness, had even higher levels. Application of short‐term/high‐dose MP significantly reduced the level of these IgE antibodies and also blocked the progression of hypoxic respiratory failure. Hypoxic respiratory failure in patients with COVID‐19 is related to pulmonary hypersensitivity.ConclusionsHypersensitivity in the lungs is responsible for acute respiratory failure in COVID‐19 patients. Application of high‐dose/short‐term MP appears to be an effective life‐saving method for COVID‐19 patients who have hypoxic respiratory failure.     

Possible HSP reactivation post‐COVID‐19 vaccination and booster

A 45‐year‐old woman with a history of Henoch‐Schönlein (HSP) purpura received COVID‐19 vaccination. The patient showed HSP reactivation after COVID‐19 vaccination and booster. In HSP, autoimmune memory of vasculitis persists and might be reactivated with COVID‐19 vaccination.     

Allergy to polyethylene glycol and polysorbates in a patient cohort: Diagnostic work‐up and decision points for vaccination during the COVID‐19 pandemic

BackgroundDuring the COVID‐19 pandemic focus has been on polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate as these excipients are constituents in the first vaccines and possible elicitors of allergic reactions to the vaccines. We aimed to evaluate the possibility of vaccinating patients with PEG and/or polysorbate allergy against COVID‐19.MethodsTwenty‐five patients with a history of an allergic reaction to drugs, vaccines and mouth hygiene products containing PEG or polysorbate and sensitization (skin test or in vitro test) or a positive challenge were included. We re‐evaluated 19 of 21 patients diagnosed before 2021 and four new patients by skin prick tests (SPT) and Basophil Histamine Release (BaHR) for PEGs, polysorbates and approved COVID‐19 vaccines as well as measurement of specific IgE (PEG 2000, 10,000). Patients were offered vaccination based on decision points from the primary diagnosis and re‐evaluation.ResultsMost common primary elicitors were depot‐steroids and laxatives. Most patients had experienced more than one reaction. SPT was superior to BaHR test although many SPTs became negative over time. After careful re‐evaluation three patients were successfully vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Three were vaccinated before referral. Eleven were offered the Johnson‐Johnson vaccine; four were vaccinated successfully, seven abstained. Six patients could not be vaccinated with PEG or polysorbate containing vaccines.ConclusionHypersensitivity to excipients in COVID‐19 vaccines constitutes a risk to patients with allergy to PEG or polysorbates. After diagnostic evaluation, a safe COVID‐19 vaccine could be offered to most patients, the remainders will await new vaccines containing different excipients.     

Hematological changes associated with COVID‐19 infection

BackgroundThe unresolved COVID‐19 pandemic considerably impacts the health services in Iraq and worldwide. Consecutive waves of mutated virus increased virus spread and further constrained health systems. Although molecular identification of the virus by polymerase chain reaction is the only recommended method in diagnosing COVID‐19 infection, radiological, biochemical, and hematological studies are substantially important in risk stratification, patient follow‐up, and outcome prediction.AimThis narrative review summarized the hematological changes including the blood indices, coagulative indicators, and other associated biochemical laboratory markers in different stages of COVID‐19 infection, highlighting the diagnostic and prognostic significance.MethodsLiterature search was conducted for multiple combinations of different hematological tests and manifestations with novel COVID‐19 using the following key words: “hematological,” “complete blood count,” “lymphopenia,” “blood indices,” “markers” "platelet" OR "thrombocytopenia" AND "COVID‐19," "coronavirus2019," "2019‐nCoV," OR "SARS‐CoV‐2." Articles written in the English language and conducted on human samples between December 2019 and January 2021 were included.ResultsHematological changes are not reported in asymptomatic or presymptomatic COVID‐19 patients. In nonsevere cases, hematological changes are subtle, included mainly lymphocytopenia (80.4%). In severe, critically ill patients and those with cytokine storm, neutrophilia, lymphocytopenia, elevated D‐dimer, prolonged PT, and reduced fibrinogen are predictors of disease progression and adverse outcome.ConclusionMonitoring hematological changes in patients with COVID‐19 can predict patients needing additional care and stratify the risk for severe course of the disease. More studies are required in Iraq to reflect the hematological changes in COVID‐19 as compared to global data.     

Neurological manifestations in patients with COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

IntroductionThe intensification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) complications, severe symptoms, and high mortality rate has led researchers to focus on this significant issue. While respiratory and cardiac complications have been described as high‐risk manifestations in patients with COVID‐19, neurological complications can also enhance mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of neurological complications arises from SARS‐CoV‐2 and assess the mortality rate from neurological complications.Material and MethodsLiterature review was conducted by searching in PubMed/Medline, Web of Sciences, and Embase. After performing search strategies with relevant terms, a number of articles were excluded, including review articles, systematic review or meta‐analysis, duplicate publication of same researchers, congress abstracts, animal studies, case reports, case series, and articles reporting a history of neurological features prior to COVID‐19 infection. After retrieving the data, statistical analysis was performed using the STATA Version 14 software.ResultsFrom 4455 retrieved publications, 20 articles were selected for further analysis. Among 18,258 included patients, 2791 showed neurological symptoms, which were classified into different groups. Headache, confusion, and fatigue were reported as the most non‐specific neurological features in confirmed COVID‐19 patients. Psychiatric symptoms, CNS disorders, cerebrovascular disorders, CNS inflammatory disorders, PNS disorders, neuromuscular disorders, etc., were defined as specific neurological manifestations. The pooled prevalence of neurological manifestations and mortality rate of COVID‐19 patients with neurological features were estimated to be 23.0% (95% CI: 17.8–29.2) and 29.1% (95% CI: 20.3–39.8), respectively.ConclusionNeurological manifestations may commonly happen in patients with COVID‐19. This study reported a high prevalence of neurological complications and mortality rates in COVID‐19 patients. Therefore, patients with COVID‐19 who indicated neurological symptoms should be taken seriously and should receive early treatment to prevent undesirable events.     

Orbital inflammatory disease following mRNA SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine

A 65‐year‐old woman reported orbital symptoms two days after her first dose and presented exacerbation of signs after the second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. The temporal relationship between the COVID‐19 vaccination and orbital symptoms suggests a probable link between SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA vaccine and this orbital inflammatory disease.     

Lichen planus flare following COVID‐19 vaccination: A case report

We report the third case of cutaneous lichen planus (LP) following COVID‐19 BNT162b2 vaccination in a 59‐year‐old woman with previous LP. The reactivation of LP in patients with dormant LP suggests a possible vaccine‐induced immune dysregulation. We suggest that the already described vaccine‐induced upregulation of Th1 response may play a relevant role in LP reactivation, through an increase in inflammatory cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of LP. Interestingly, LP has already been associated with vaccinations and viral infections including COVID‐19 disease. However, the exact mechanism underlying LP (re)activation after Pfizer‐BiotNtech COVID‐19 vaccination is still widely unknown and needs to be further investigated.     

COVID‐19–infected woman along with tuberculosis and psychogenic non‐epileptic seizures: A case report

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, we should not forget about chronic, underlying and important diseases, especially diseases that cause immune system deficiency, of which TB is one and may be missed. Also, we should pay attention to the past medical history of the patients and their drug‐drug interactions during the treatment period of COVID‐19. Our main clinical message is that diseases such as TB, which weaken the immune system, may predispose a person to COVID‐19 infection and COVID‐19 may exacerbate TB and it’s mortality. On the other hand, diseases that target the lung tissue such as TB and COVID‐19, may have synergistic effects and increase mortality (for a patient whose lung capacity is reduced due to TB, superimposed COVID‐19 can worsen the situation). In addition, it may be necessary to take more serious considerations for COVID‐19 in low socio‐economy countries, such as Afghanistan, where TB is more prevalent     

Patients with suspected allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines can be safely revaccinated after diagnostic work‐up

BackgroundWhen initiating the Danish vaccination program against COVID‐19, the incidence of anaphylaxis was estimated to be 10 times higher compared to other virus‐based vaccines. In this study, we present data on patients referred with suspected allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines. The main purpose of the study is to investigate the incidence and severity of the allergic reactions, and to evaluate the safety of revaccination.MethodsAll patients in the region of Southern Denmark with case histories of allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines in a defined period are included in this study. Diagnostic work up consisted of a detailed case history, evaluation of Brighton level of diagnostic certainty and World Allergy Organization grade of anaphylaxis and skin prick testing‐ and basophil histamine release testing with COVID‐19 vaccines and relevant drug excipients. Patients were revaccinated at the Allergy Center when possible.ResultsSixty‐one patients are included in this study. In 199,377 doses administered, nine patients fulfilled the criteria of anaphylaxis when using the Brighton Criteria (incidence being 45 per million). Of 55 patients with reactions to the first dose, 52 patients were revaccinated without adverse reactions. We found no proven cases of immediate anaphylaxis due to COVID‐19 vaccines. By skin prick test, we diagnosed three patients with drug excipient allergy and further a patient with mastocytosis was found.ConclusionsAnaphylactic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines are rare and the incidence is similar to what is seen with other virus‐based vaccines. Revaccination is safe in the majority of patients; however, allergological evaluation is important since some prove to have drug excipient allergy.     

Worldwide prevalence of microbial agents’ coinfection among COVID‐19 patients: A comprehensive updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

BackgroundTo provide information about pathogens’ coinfection prevalence with SARS‐CoV‐2 could be a real help to save patients’ lives. This study aims to evaluate the pathogens’ coinfection prevalence among COVID‐19 patients.MethodIn order to find all of the relevant articles, we used systematic search approach. Research‐based databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus, without language restrictions, were searched to identify the relevant bacterial, fungal, and viral coinfections among COVID‐19 cases from December 1, 2019, to August 23, 2021. In order to dig deeper, other scientific repositories such as Medrxiv were probed.ResultsA total of 13,023 studies were found through systematic search. After thorough analysis, only 64 studies with 61,547 patients were included in the study. The most common causative agents of coinfection among COVID‐19 patients were bacteria (pooled prevalence: 20.97%; 95% CI: 15.95–26.46; I ²: 99.9%) and less frequent were virus coinfections (pooled prevalence: 12.58%; 95% CI: 7.31–18.96; I ²: 98.7%). The pooled prevalence of fungal coinfections was also 12.60% (95% CI: 7.84–17.36; I ²: 98.3%). Meta‐regression analysis showed that the age sample size and WHO geographic region did not influenced heterogeneity.ConclusionWe identified a high prevalence of pathogenic microorganism coinfection among COVID‐19 patients. Because of this rate of coinfection empirical use of antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral treatment are advisable specifically at the early stage of COVID‐19 infection. We also suggest running simultaneously diagnostic tests to identify other microbiological agents’ coinfection with SARS‐CoV‐2.     

An overview on inactivated and live‐attenuated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines

After about 2 years since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2), first infections were detected in Wuhan city of China in December 2019, which was followed by a worldwide pandemic with a record of 5.41 million deaths. Due to urgent need for the development of a safe and effective vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), attempts for producing efficient vaccines are inexhaustibly continuing. According to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO) on COVID‐19 vaccine tracker and landscape, there are 149 vaccine candidates all over the world. Inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines as a conventional vaccine platform consist of whole virus particles grown in cell culture and inactivated by chemicals. Because of benefits such as antigenic similarity to real virion inducing humoral and cellular immune responses and ease for transport and storage, these vaccines, including the vaccines produced by Bharat Biotech, Sinopharm, and Sinovac, are in use at large scales. In this study, we have a review on inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines that are passing their phase 3 and 4 clinical trials, population which was included in the trials, vaccine producers, the efficiency, adverse effects, and components of vaccines, and other vaccine features.