Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background : Diabetic ketoacidosis, an early and common complication at the initial diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes Mel litus (T1DM), remains a significant clinical concern. The high prevalence of this complication in the pediatric population provided the rationale for conducting the present study. Aim: Our study aims to compare the incidence, clinical features, and physical measurements associated with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at the time of initial diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM), and to classify the severity of DKA based on selected laboratory findings. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of newly diagnosed T1DM with DKA in children aged less than 18 years old at National Center for Maternal and Child Health during the period 2017-2022. The study compared the analysis of medical and laboratory records from patients medical charts. The severity of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was classified based on laboratory criteria according to the 2022 guidelines of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD). The study data were analyzed using STATA-16.0. Results: During the period from 2017 to 2022, a total of 124 children under 18 years of age (mean age: 9.11±3.84 years) were newly diagnosed with T1DM and included in the study, of whom 67.7% (n=84) presented with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Of the children with DKA, 57.2% (n=48) had severe, 17.8% (n=15) had moderate, and 25.0% (n=21) had mild severity. Girls were more frequently affected (67.1%, n=47; p=0.871). Having a viral infection before the first diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (51.2%, n=43, p=0.011) and having high blood glucose levels at that time (25.8±9.32 mmol/l, p=0.012) were statistically significantly associated with diabetic ketoacidosis. The blood gas analysis of children with ketoacidosis showed pH 7.05±0.15, HCO3 8.68±4.27 mEq/l, and the group with severe ketoacidosis had higher blood potassium levels (4.08±0.8 mEq/l, 3.6±0.56 mEq/l, p=0.049) and blood glucose levels (28.37±9.23 mmol/L, 21.96±9.18 mmol/L, p=0.012) compared to the group with mild ketoacidosis. Conclusions 1. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was identified in 67.7% (n=84) of the children included in the study. 2. At the initial diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM), vomiting and fatigue were the predominant clinical manifestations of DKA. 3. Severe DKA was observed in 57.1% (n=48) of the participants, with elevated serum potassium and glucose levels noted as contributing factors to the severity of ketoacidosis.

Background: A drug related problem is defined by the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Association as an an event or circumstance involving drug therapy that actually or potentially interferes with desired health outcomes. One critical aspect of preventing such errors is proper dose adjustment, which plays a vital role in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. For instance, adjusting the dose of warfarin based on the patient’s INR level is essential. In a 1995 study conducted in England, clinical pharmacists recommended target doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for patients with chronic heart failure. As a result, patients experienced a significant reduction in pulmonary and peripheral edema, along with improved exercise test outcomes. At the Mongolian-Japanese Hospital of the Mongolian Medical University of Science and Technology, it is important to analyze dosage-related issues identified by clinical pharmacists and inform healthcare professionals about common dosage selection errors and associated risks. Aim: We analyzed issues related to medication dosage. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to examine problem related to dosage detected through prescription monitoring at the Mongolian Japanese Hospital of the Mongolian National University of Health Sciences from 2023 to 2024. Results: Out of a total of 2340 drug-related problem identified across five inpatient wards during this period, 581 (100%) were related to dosage. Clinical pharmacists performed prescription review on approximately 67% of all inpatients, which was consistent between years. However, medication-related problems tended to decrease from 41.1% (n=1499) in 2023 to 22.3% (n=841) in 2024 (p=0.05). The majority of dose-related problems, 75.6% (n=440), were overdoses. Medication-related problems were most common in the surgical department, with 59.5% (n=346) (p=0.001). The most frequent dosage-related errors involved exceeding the daily dose of diclofenac, administering higher- than-recommended doses of ceftriaxone, failing to adjust cefotaxime for renal function, and using inappropriate doses of metronidazole in patients with impaired liver function. The leading cause of these errors was failure to adhere to guideline-recommended dosing, which accounted for 71.3% (n=415) of cases (p=0.001). When dosage-related recommendations were provided to physicians before of treatment, acceptance rates increased by 14% (p=0.001). These interventions resulted in an estimated cost saving of 1.267.219₮ and a reduction of 363 injections. Conclusion Therefore, clinical pharmacist-led prescription review can help reduce the risk of dosage errors, lower associated healthcare costs, and alleviate the burden on medical staff.

Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, leading to tissue and organ damage. Globally, over 19 million people are affected by sepsis each year, with approximately 6 million deaths, making it the third leading cause of mortality (25%). Identifying factors influencing patient outcomes in sepsis and septic shock is therefore of critical importance. Aim: To investigate the factors associated with outcomes in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Mongolia-Japan Hospital (MJH) with diagnoses of sepsis and septic shock. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients admitted to the ICU of MJH with sepsis or septic shock during 2023–2024. We analyzed patient data including pre-existing comorbidities, number of infection foci, presence of multiple organ dysfunction, and initial laboratory parameters to determine associations with patient outcomes. Results: Among 430 patients admitted to the ICU during the study period, 136 (31.6%) were diagnosed with sepsis or septic shock. Of these, 94 patients (69.1%) recovered and 42 (30.8%) died. No significant differences were found between survivor and non-survivor groups in terms of comorbidities, white blood cell count, neutrophils, lymphocytes, mature granulocytes, C-reactive protein, or creatinine levels. However, multiple organ dysfunction (p<0.000), infection foci ≥2 (p<0.001), lactate ≥2 mmol/L (p<0.002), and platelet abnormalities (p<0.014) were significantly associated with mortality. The most common sources of infection were intra-abdominal infections (25.7%), pneumonia (25%), skin and soft tissue infections (22.5%), urinary tract infections (16.1%), abscesses (7.35%), tuberculosis (2.2%), and catheter-related bloodstream or neurologically-origin infections (0.73%). Conclusion Intra-abdominal infections and respiratory tract infections were the most common sources of sepsis among ICU patients. Multiple organ dysfunction, having two or more infection foci, elevated lactate levels (≥2 mmol/L), and platelet abnormalities were found to significantly increase the risk of mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Introduction: In 2020, about 3% of children and 5% of adolescents had metabolic syndrome, with some variation across countries and regions. The prevalence of overweight and obesity among children and adolescents aged 5-19 years has increased sharply from only 8% in 1990 to 20% in 2022. 3-5% of children and adolescents have hypertension, 10% 14% have changes in arterial pressure, and the prevalence has increased from 1.3% -6.0% These risk factors can lead to MetS, and although there are several studies by national researchers in adults, research on risk factors for MetS in childhood is rare. Aim: To evaluate the physical growth of children aged 6-17 and study the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among them. Materials and methods: A family health center-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted in the apartment district and ger district of Ulaanbaatar, using standardised measurement tools. A total of 622 participants aged 6-17 years were included in this study. Body weight, height, waist circumference, arterial blood pressure, and blood glucose of the participants were measured and the results of body measurements were estimated using the growth chart. Results and conclusions Among the participants, 48.2% (n=300) were male, 51.8% (n=322) were female. The rate of overweight and obesity among the study population is 20.26%, and male children are 2 times more obese than female children. 7.23% of the study participants. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 1% with 3 risk criteria according to the IDF 78.93% (n=491) have no risk, 19.33% (n=121) have 1 risk, and 0.48% (n=4) have 2 risks. Among the studied risk factors for metabolic syndrome, overweight, obesity, and central obesity were the predominant risk factors among children. One in five children is either overweight or obese, with boys being twice as likely to experience these conditions (p<0.001). In 1% of the study participants, metabolic syndrome with three risk factors was identified. Overweight, obesity, and metabolic syndrome were more prevalent among the 15-17 age group compared to other age groups (p<0.001).