Search

Introduction: This study examines the efficacy and safety of three COVID-19 booster vaccines including mRNA-based vaccines (BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer) and/or mRNA-1273 (Moderna)), Non-Replicating Viral-Vector vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AstraZeneca) and/or Ad26. COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson)), and Protein Subunit vaccine (SpikoGen) in immunosuppressed patients. Methods: Relevant articles were systematically searched using medical subject heading (MeSH) and keywords “COVID‐19” and “booster dose” or “booster vaccine” or ‘’fourth dose” in the online databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. To identify eligible studies, a two-phase screening process was implemented. Initially, three researchers evaluated the studies based on the relevancy of the title and abstract. Results: A total of 58 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The findings suggest that booster doses offer greater protection against the disease than the primary dose. The study also compared various vaccine types, revealing that viral vector and nucleic acid vaccines outperformed inactivated vaccines. Results indicated that individuals receiving booster doses experienced superior outcomes compared to those without boosters. Vaccination against COVID-19 emerged as the most effective preventive measure against infection and symptom severity. Elevated antibody levels post-booster dose vaccination in the population signaled robust immune responses, underscoring the benefits of supplementary vaccine doses. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights preliminary evidence supporting the immunologic outcomes and safety of COVID-19 vaccine boosters in enhancing immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. However, further research is needed to determine optimal timing intervals between primary vaccination series and boosters while considering global equity issues and variant-specific considerations.

Introduction: COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, commonly presents with symptoms such as fever and shortness of breath but can also affect other organs. There is growing evidence pointing to potential eye complications. In this article, we aim to systematically review the ocular manifestations of COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to explore the ocular manifestations of COVID-19. We searched online databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up to September 4, 2023. After a two-stage screening process and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, eligible articles were advanced to the data extraction phase. The PRISMA checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used for quality and bias risk assessments. Results: We selected and extracted data from 42 articles. Most of the studies were cross-sectional (n = 33), with the highest number conducted in Turkey (n = 10). The most frequent ocular manifestation was conjunctivitis, reported in 24 articles, followed by photophobia, burning, chemosis, itching, and ocular pain. Most studies reported complete recovery from these manifestations; however, one study mentioned visual loss in two patients. Conclusion: In general, ocular manifestations of COVID-19 appear to resolve either spontaneously or with supportive treatments. For more severe cases, both medical treatment and surgery have been employed, with the outcomes suggesting that complete recoveries are attainable.

Abstract Background and Aims Alteration in humans' gut microbiota was reported in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). The gut and upper respiratory tract (URT) microbiota harbor a dynamic and complex population of microorganisms and have strong interaction with host immune system homeostasis. However, our knowledge about microbiota and its association with SARS‐CoV‐2 is still limited. We aimed to systematically review the effects of gut microbiota on the SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and its severity and the impact that SARS‐CoV‐2 could have on the gut microbiota. Methods We searched the keywords in the online databases of Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane on December 31, 2021. After duplicate removal, we performed the screening process in two stages; title/abstract and then full‐text screening. The data of the eligible studies were extracted into a pre‐designed word table. This study adhered to the PRISMA checklist and Newcastle−Ottawa Scale Bias Assessment tool. Results Sixty‐three publications were included in this review. Our study shows that among COVID‐19 patients, particularly moderate to severe cases, the gut and lung microbiota was different compared to healthy individuals. In addition, the severity, and viral load of COVID‐19 disease would probably also be influenced by the gut, and lung microbiota's composition. Conclusion Our study concludes that there was a significant difference in the composition of the URT, and gut microbiota in COVID‐19 patients compared to the general healthy individuals, with an increase in opportunistic pathogens. Further, research is needed to investigate the probable bidirectional association of COVID‐19 and human microbiome.

Abstract Background and Aims To monitor the health status of pregnant women moment by moment, new technologies in the field of telemedicine can be used, such as virtual visits and virtual clinics. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, by using these technologies, useful and satisfactory services have been provided to pregnant mothers. The aim of this study is to specify the applications, features, and infrastructure of a comprehensive virtual clinic in the field of gynecological and pregnancy care. Methods A systematic review search was conducted through the scientific databases from February 2013 to February 2022 using Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. Furthermore, manual searches in Google Scholar and the reference lists of included studies were carried out. Results In this systematic review we included 16 articles that reported experiences in virtual clinics in pregnancy and postpartum healthcare. The involved studies were experimental, cohort, and cross‐sectional studies. The target group users were pregnant or women who gave birth and families of neonatal. The application of virtual clinics was for the visit, consultation, monitoring, follow‐up, and home care virtually. Highly satisfaction scores of caregivers after virtual visits and consultation were reported. There were some challenges during virtual visits and consultation; the most important challenge was a poor internet connection. Conclusion The reviewed studies show promising outcomes according to patient and provider satisfaction. We predict that telehealth will become a growingly significant part of gynecological care in the future.

Abstract Background and Aims Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are one of the major health concerns globally. Generally, prisoners are at higher risks for STIs due to risk factors including; drug‐use, high‐risk sexual behaviors, densely populated prisons, and poor living conditions. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the existing data on STI prevalence, and its associated risk factors among prisoners. Methods We conducted a systematic search of the literature using the keywords in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar online databases. We selected all the relevant original studies in English through title/abstract and full‐text screening process.‎ Results Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected and reviewed 32 studies out of 96 identified papers. The most important STI‐associated risk factors among prisoners were drug use, low educational levels, and unsafe sex. The prevalence of STIs was heterogenous in selected studies and was reported as follows; Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (0%−14.5%), hepatitis B viruses (HBV) (0.04%−27.23%), hepatitis C viruses (HCV) (0.17%−49.7%), Syphilis (0.2%−22.1%), Chlamydia Trachomatis (CT) (1.02%−6.7%), Gonorrhea (0.6%−7.8%), and herpes simplex virus‐2 (HSV‐2) 22.4%. Conclusion This systematic review indicates that the prevalence of STIs (HIV, HBV, HCV, Syphilis, Chlamydia Trachomatis, Gonorrhea, and HSV‐2) among prisoners appears to be higher than the general population, with drug abuse, low educational levels, and unsafe sex as major risk factors.

ABSTRACT Background and Objectives: Blood transfusion may induce some adverse effects on receivers. Some methods such as antibody screening and cross matching have been suggested to reduce the risk of transfusion complications. However, these methods require commercial antibody screening kits that may also need special equipment. The aim of this study was to introduce a new method for antibody screening that does not require a commercial kit, and could be used in any transfusion laboratory. Methods: We examined 350 samples that contained alloantibody and 350 control samples without the antibody. A solution containing two O+ and one O- samples were used instead of screening cells. Results: Sensitivity and specificity of the method were 73.32% and 45.15%, respectively. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 58.33% and 63.88%, respectively. Conclusion: Our new method can be used in basic hematology laboratories with some modifications. Keywords: Antibodies, Antigens, Coombs test.