COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 exposure during pregnancy is related to adverse effects for both the mother and the infant. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has lowered the risk of symptomatic disease substantially. Recently published studies have evaluated the outcomes of women who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; systematic evidence regarding vaccination safety is crucial to ensure that COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from each database's inception through April 7, 2022. All interventional and observational studies comparing neonatal or pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccines during their pregnancy and unvaccinated pregnant women were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies comprising 756,098 pregnant mothers were included. The rate of neonates with 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (log RR -0.08 (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.00), (P = 0.03)) and pregnant mothers with preterm birth (log RR -0.11 (95% CI: -0.21 to -0.01), (P = 0.02)) was significantly lower among vaccinated group. No significant difference was observed in adverse neonatal outcomes (log RR -0.07 (95% CI: -0.17 to 0.03)), small for gestational age (log RR -0.06 (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.02)), caesarean delivery (log RR 0.05 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.15)), postpartum hemorrhage (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.02)), stillbirth (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.45)). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no evident differences were observed when comparing vaccinated pregnant mothers with those who had not received COVID-19 vaccines. Based on low certainty of evidence, vaccination during pregnancy was accompanied by a favorable Apgar score in neonates and fewer preterm births.

A twisting tale of misinformation: should ivermectin be approved as a treatment for COVID-19 disease?

This editorial examines what has caused the evidence around ivermectin to be so controversial, provides a brief analysis of recently published evidence, and highlights why it is important to learn lessons from ivermectin for future re-purposed drugs.

A twisting tale of misinformation: should ivermectin be approved as a treatment for COVID-19 disease?

Tweetable abstract This editorial examines what has caused the evidence around ivermectin to be so controversial, provides a brief analysis of recently published evidence, and highlights why it is important to learn lessons from ivermectin for future re-purposed drugs.

Reactivation of herpesviruses during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To provide a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the cumulative incidence (incidence proportion) of human herpesvirus (HHV) reactivation among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE up to 25 September 2022, with no language restrictions. All interventional and observational studies enrolling patients with confirmed COVID-19 and providing data regarding HHV reactivation were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. We included information from 32 studies. HHV reactivation was considered a positive polymerase chain reaction result taken at the time of COVID-19 infection. Most of the included patients were severe COVID-19 cases. The pooled cumulative incidence estimate was 38% (95% Confidence Intervals [CI], 28%-50%, I2  = 86%) for herpes simplex virus (HSV), 19% (95% CI, 13%-28%, I2  = 87%) for cytomegalovirus (CMV), 45% (95% CI, 28%-63%, I2  = 96%) for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), 18% (95% CI, 8%-35%) for human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), 44% (95% CI, 32%-56%) for human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-26%) for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8). There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry based on visual inspection and Egger's regression test for the results of HSV (p = 0.84), CMV (p = 0.82), and EBV (p = 0.27) reactivation. In conclusion, the identification of HHV reactivation in severe COVID-19 patients is helpful in the management of patients as well as the prevention of complications. Further research is required to elucidate the interaction between HHVs and COVID-19. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022321973.

Curcumin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Curcumin is a low-cost and easily accessible therapeutic option for COVID-19 patients. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effect of curcumin on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Various databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating curcumin use in COVID-19 patients. Results from 13 RCTs were pooled using R software version 4.1.0. Curcumin reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.20-0.72; moderate certainty of evidence), and patients with no recovery status (RR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42-0.70; moderate certainty of evidence) but had no effect on the incidence of mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, and the rate of a positive viral PCR test. The results of subgroup analysis suggested a higher benefit with early administration of curcumin (within 5 days of onset of symptoms) and with the use of combination regimens. Curcumin is likely to be of benefit in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients, but large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings. The limitations of our meta-analysis include the small sample sizes of the included RCTs and the variable formulations of curcumin used across the studies.

Ivermectin under scrutiny: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and possible sources of controversies in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence. METHODS: MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria. RESULTS: 19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality. CONCLUSION: Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.

Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes in patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the current evidence available to investigate clinical outcomes between patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess the quality. Data were pooled by the Restricted-maximum-likelihood random-effects approach. RESULTS: Total 11 studies comprising 7690415 individuals were included in this study. The log OR for the pooled data for all-cause mortality rate was -0.71 (95% CI: -1.38 to -0.03). Based on the pooled results, type 1 diabetic COVID-19 patients may have a better prognosis for mortality. There were no significant differences between groups in term of ICU-admission log OR -0.22 (95% CI: -0.81 to 0.37), and hospitalization log OR -0.48 (95% CI: -1.23 to 0.27). Based on our descriptives analyses after adjusting for age and comorbidities, the high-risk group in three studies was type 2 diabetes, and in five studies was type 1. Two studies reported no significant difference between these groups in relevant outcomes. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in disease severity between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Based on the unadjusted data available, the mortality rate for people with type 1 diabetes was shown to be lower than that for people with type 2. As data on these subjects is scarce, and the results obtained from studies are heterogeneous, further research with adequate sample sizes is needed to precisely compare the outcomes of COVID-19 between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Comparative study of CNR1 and CNR2 cannabinoid receptors expression levels in COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes mellitus: Recommendations for future research targets.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted researchers to look for effective therapeutic targets. The effect of endocannabinoid system against infectious diseases is investigated for several years. In this study, we evaluated the expression level of CNR1 and CNR2 genes in patients with COVID-19 with and without diabetes to provide new insights regarding these receptors and their potential effect in COVID-19 disease. METHODS: In this study, peripheral blood monocytes cells (PBMCs) were isolated from eight different groups including COVID-19 patients, diabetic patients, and healthy individuals. RNA were extracted to evaluate the expression level of CNR1 and CNR2 genes using real-time PCR. The correlation between the expression levels of these genes in different groups were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 80 samples were divided into 8 groups, with each group consisting of ten samples. When comparing severe and moderate COVID-19 groups to healthy control group, the expression levels of the CNR1 and CNR2 genes were significantly higher in the severe and moderate COVID-19 groups. There were no significant differences between the mild COVID-19 group and the healthy control group. It was found that the expression levels of these genes in patients with diabetes who were infected with SARS-COV-2 did not differ across COVID-19 groups with varying severity, but they were significantly higher when compared to healthy controls. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests the possible role of endocannabinoid system during SARS-COV-2 pathogenicity as the expression of CNR1 and CNR2 were elevated during the disease.