Comparison the effects and side effects of Covid-19 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): a systematic scoping review.

Covid-19 is a pandemic disease that is more severe and mortal in people with immunodeficiency, such as those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). On the other hand, no definitive treatment has been identified for it and the best way to control it is wide spread vaccination. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and side effects of different vaccines in patients with IBD. Three Electronic databases [Medline (accessed from PubMed), Scopus, Science Direct, and Cochrane] were searched systematically without time limit, using MESH terms and the related keywords in English language. We focused on the research studies on the effect and side effects of Covid-19 vaccination in patients with IBD. Articles were excluded if they were not relevant, or were performed on other patients excerpt patients with IBD. Considering the titles and abstracts, unrelated studies were excluded. The full texts of the remained studies were evaluated by authors, independently. Then, the studies' findings were assessed and reported. Finally, after reading the full text of the remained articles, 15 ones included in data extraction. All included studied were research study, and most of them (12/15) had prospective design. Totally, 8/15 studies were performed in single-center settings. In 8/15 studies, patients with IBD were compared with a control group. The results were summarized the in two categories: (1) the effect of vaccination, and (2) side effects. The effect of vaccination were assessed in 13/15 studies. Side effects of Covid-19 vaccination in patients with IBD were reported in 7/15 studies. Patients with IBD can be advised that vaccination may have limited minor side effects, but it can protect them from the serious complications of Covid-19 and its resulting mortality with a high success rate. They should be also mentioned in booster doses.

Predictive determinants of overall survival among re-infected COVID-19 patients using the elastic-net regularized Cox proportional hazards model: a machine-learning algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Narrowing a large set of features to a smaller one can improve our understanding of the main risk factors for in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to derive a parsimonious model for predicting overall survival (OS) among re-infected COVID-19 patients using machine-learning algorithms. METHODS: The retrospective data of 283 re-infected COVID-19 patients admitted to twenty-six medical centers (affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) from 10 June to 26 December 2020 were reviewed and analyzed. An elastic-net regularized Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression and model approximation via backward elimination were utilized to optimize a predictive model of time to in-hospital death. The model was further reduced to its core features to maximize simplicity and generalizability. RESULTS: The empirical in-hospital mortality rate among the re-infected COVID-19 patients was 9.5%. In addition, the mortality rate among the intubated patients was 83.5%. Using the Kaplan-Meier approach, the OS (95% CI) rates for days 7, 14, and 21 were 87.5% (81.6-91.6%), 78.3% (65.0-87.0%), and 52.2% (20.3-76.7%), respectively. The elastic-net Cox PH regression retained 8 out of 35 candidate features of death. Transfer by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) (HR=3.90, 95% CI: 1.63-9.48), SpO2≤85% (HR=8.10, 95% CI: 2.97-22.00), increased serum creatinine (HR=1.85, 95% CI: 1.48-2.30), and increased white blood cells (WBC) count (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.03-1.15) were associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates in the re-infected COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The results of the machine-learning analysis demonstrated that transfer by EMS, profound hypoxemia (SpO2≤85%), increased serum creatinine (more than 1.6 mg/dL), and increased WBC count (more than 8.5 (×109 cells/L)) reduced the OS of the re-infected COVID-19 patients. We recommend that future machine-learning studies should further investigate these relationships and the associated factors in these patients for a better prediction of OS.

Methanol poisoning during COVID-19 pandemic; A systematic scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: In this systematic scoping review, it was aimed to assess the epidemiology of methanol poisoning, clinical findings and patients' management, causes, and recommendations regarding prevention or reduction of methanol poisoning during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Three Electronic databases [Medline (accessed from PubMed), Scopus, and Science Direct] were searched systematically from December 01, 2019 to September 10, 2020, using MESH terms and the related keywords in English language. Considering the titles and abstracts, unrelated studies were excluded. The full texts of the remained studies were evaluated by authors, independently. Then, the studies' findings were assessed and reported. RESULTS: Total of 86 articles were obtained within the first step of searching, and 64 ones remained after removing the duplications. Through the title and abstract screening, 35 were removed. Finally, after reading the full text of the remained articles, 15 ones included in data extraction. Most of the previous reported evidence (13/15) were letter to editor, commentary and short reports. None of them were interventional, and none of them followed the patients. Findings were summarized in four categories: 1) epidemiology; 2) clinical findings and patients' management; 3) causes; and 4) recommendation regarding prevention or reduction of methanol poisoning during COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The recent outbreak is the largest methanol mass poisoning outbreak throughout Iran and the world in recent decades. The causes of methanol poisoning during the COVID-19 pandemic are intertwined, and most of them are modifiable by health policy makers. Building trust, educating and warning, as well as controlling and monitoring are three main recommendation for prevention or reduction of methanol poisoning.

Investigation of plasma exchange and hemoperfusion effects and complications for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) disease: A systematic scoping review.

Some previous studies suggested that the plasma exchange (PE) and hemoperfusion (HP) played a cardinal role in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases by diminishing the cytokine storm. This study aimed to assess the effects of PE and HP on cytokine storms in patients with severe COVID-19 through a systematic scoping review. Four Electronic databases (Medline [accessed from PubMed], Scopus, Science Direct, and Cochrane library) were searched systematically on February 2, 2021, using MESH terms and related keywords in the English language. Considering the titles and abstracts, unrelated studies were excluded. The full texts of the remained studies were evaluated by authors, independently. Then, their findings were assessed and reported. A total of 755 articles were obtained within the first step of searching, and 518 remained after removing the duplications. Through the title and abstract screening, 438 were removed. Of the rest, 59 papers were excluded. Finally, after reading the full text of the remained articles, 21 were included in data extraction. Most of the previously reported evidence were case reports and case series. Findings were summarized in two categories. The first category encompassed nine studies regarding HP and continuous renal replacement therapy, and the second category included twelve studies about PE. The results revealed that HP and PE within the cytokine storm phase would be beneficial with a high probability in the treatment of severely ill COVID-19 patients. Highlights Some studies showed that plasma exchange (PE) and hemoperfusion (HP) played an important role in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 disease. The results of this systematic scoping review revealed that HP and PE within the cytokine storm phase would be beneficial with a high probability in the treatment of severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Burnout among Healthcare Providers of COVID-19; a Systematic Review of Epidemiology and Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: In the current systematic review, we intended to systematically review the epidemiology of burnout and the strategies and recommendations to prevent or reduce it among healthcare providers (HCPs) of COVID-19 wards, so that policymakers can make more appropriate decisions. METHODS: MEDLINE (accessed from PubMed), Science Direct, and Scopus electronic databases were systematically searched in English from December 01, 2019 to August 15, 2020, using MESH terms and related keywords. After reading the title and the abstract, unrelated studies were excluded. The full texts of the studies were evaluated by authors, independently, and the quality of the studies was determined. Then, the data were extracted and reported. RESULTS: 12 studies were included. Five studies investigated the risks factors associated with burnout; none could establish a causal relationship because of their methodology. No study examined any intervention to prevent or reduce burnout, and the provided recommendations were based on the authors' experiences and opinions. None of the studies followed up the participants, and all assessments were done according to the participants' self-reporting and declaration. Assessing burnout in the HCPs working in the frontline wards was performed in four studies; others evaluated burnout among all HCPs working in the regular and frontline wards. CONCLUSION: Paying attention to the mental health issues, reducing the workload of HCPs through adjusting their work shifts, reducing job-related stressors, and creating a healthy work environment may prevent or reduce the burnout.