Background: The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the value of regional cooperation in infectious disease prevention and control. We explored the literature on regional infectious disease control bodies, to identify lessons, barriers and enablers to inform operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body or network in southeast Asia. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to examine existing literature on regional infectious disease control bodies and networks, and to identify lessons that can be learned that will be useful for operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body such as the ASEAN Center for Public Health Emergency and Emerging Diseases. Results: Of the 57 articles included, 53 (93%) were in English, with two (3%) in Spanish and one (2%) each in Dutch and French. Most were commentaries or review articles describing programme initiatives. Sixteen (28%) publications focused on organisations in the Asian continent, with 14 (25%) focused on Africa, and 14 (24%) primarily focused on the European region. Key lessons focused on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability. Enablers and constraints were consistent across regions/organisations. A clear understanding of the regional context, budgets, cultural or language issues, staffing capacity and governmental priorities, is pivotal. An initial workshop inclusive of the various bodies involved in the design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation of programmes is essential. Clear governance structure, with individual responsibilities clear from the beginning, will reduce friction. Secure, long-term funding is also a key aspect of the success of any programme. Conclusion: Operationalisation of regional infectious disease bodies and networks is complicated, but with extensive groundwork, and focus on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability, it is achievable. Ways to promote success are to include as many stakeholders as possible from the beginning, to ensure that context-specific factors are considered, and to encourage employees through capacity building and mentoring, to ensure they feel valued and reduce staff turnover.

The aims of the study are to: (a) Describe the reactogenicity of WHO-approved two mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) and two non-RNA (Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinovac) vaccines among lactating mother and child pairs, and (b) Compare and contrast the reactogenicity between mRNA and non-mRNA vaccines. A cross-sectional, self-reported survey was conducted amongst 1784 lactating women who received COVID-19 vaccinations. The most common maternal adverse reaction was a local reaction at the injection site, and the largest minority of respondents, 49.6% (780/1571), reported experiencing worse symptoms when receiving the second dose compared to the first dose. Respondents reported no major adverse effects or behavioural changes in the breastfed children for the duration of the study period. Among respondents who received non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, a majority reported no change in lactation, but those who did more commonly reported changes in the quantity of milk supply and pain in the breast. The more commonly reported lactation changes (fluctuations in breast milk supply quantity and pain in the breast) for the non-mRNA vaccines were similar to those of respondents who received mRNA vaccines. Our study, with a large, racially diverse cohort, further augments earlier reported findings in that the COVID-19 vaccines tested in this study did not cause any serious adverse events in our population for the duration of our survey period, although long-term effects are yet to be studied.

The aims of the study are: a) Describe the reactogenicity of WHO-approved two mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) and two non-RNA vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinovac) among lactating mother and baby pairs; and b) compare and contrast the reactogenicity between mRNA and non-mRNA vaccines. A cross-sectional, self-reported survey was conducted amongst 1784 lactating women who received COVID-19 vaccinations. The most common maternal adverse reaction was a local reaction at the injection site; the largest minority of respondents, 43.7% (780/1784), reported experiencing worse symptoms when receiving the second dose compared to the first dose. There were no major reported adverse effects or behavioural changes in the breastfed infants. Among the respondents who received non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations, a majority reported no change in lactation but those who did more commonly reported an increase in milk supply, decrease in milk supply and pain in the breast. The more commonly reported lactation changes (fluctuations in breastmilk supply and pain in the breast) for the non-mRNA vaccines were similar to that of respondents who received mRNA vaccines. Our study, with a large cohort and wide geographical and racial mix, further augments earlier reported findings that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for breastfeeding mothers and her children.

the 100 patients enrolled in the study, mean gestational age was 32.5 weeks in milking group compared to 32.3 in control group.The mean airway pressure was measured and statistical differences between the two groups was found being lower in umbilical cord milking, mean 10 mmhg, compared to 17 mmhg in other group.