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.

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.

A complementary critical appraisal on systematic reviews regarding the most efficient therapeutic strategies for the current COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This critical appraisal aims to clarify which systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatment are based on high-value evidence. Hereby, the most profitable medicines can be suggested. METHODS: The mesh terms of "COVID-19 drug treatment" (Supplementary Concept) and "COVID-19 drug treatment" were sequentially utilized as search strategies in Medline and Science direct on October 18, 2020. Searches were confined to systematic reviews/meta-analyses. The Cochrane database was searched on November 1, 2020 with "COVID." With adding up four articles from other resources, 84 systematic reviews were considered for initial screening. Finally, 22 articles fulfilled the criteria and were assessed using PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Increasing number of clinical trials from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are not only profitable but also deleterious. Lopinavir/ritonavir failed to maintain their initial efficacy in improving clinical symptoms and mortality rate. Steroids and tocilizumab were suggested in patients with intensely severe symptoms. Steroids reduced mechanical ventilation and death in severely ill patients. Plasma or immunoglobulins effects are absolutely controversial. Favorable impressions of remdesivir have been relied on for the early onset of this drug. Hypotension and abnormal liver function tests were realized as its side effects. Favipiravir has resulted in a higher viral clearance than remdesivir. However, this claim needs to be proved with subsequent clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, remdesivir and favipiravir are advantageous drugs that should be administered in the early phases. Their side effects are not well known and need to be found in the following research projects. Steroids and tocilizumab have been considered beneficial in the cytokine storm phase.