Search

Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer and Dextranomer-Hyaluronic Acid for endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux.MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of science, Ovid, Cochrane databases, Google scholar have been searched for studies published until January 2022 in any language. Studies that compared the success rate for endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children with two bulking agents, namely, "polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer." and "Dextranomer-Hyaluronic Acid" were included for this analysis.Nine studies were included in data synthesis for this meta-analysis. Pooled data with a total of 763 ureters in PPC group and 718 ureters in Dx/HA group indicated that ureters in PPC group were more likely to undergo complete reflux resolution than Dx/HA (OR 3.80, 95% CI: 2.71; 5.31). Among subgroup of patients with high grade reflux, PPC injection had more resolution rate compared to Dx/HA patients (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.19-7.16). In total, 95.81% of the PPC group and 86.52% of the Dx/HA group experienced success after the third injection. However a concerning complication of endoscopic treatment which is ureterovesical junction obstruction (UVJO) was more prevalent in PPC group. So the possible benefits arising from endoscopic treatment with PPC could be offset by the costs of re-implantation surgery or stenting in the case of UVJO.These data indicate that PPC injection for vesicoureteral reflux treatment was associated with a higher success rate, but concerningly, UVJO incidence was higher in the PPC group which might negate the possible benefits of PPC injection However, due to the lack of studies with long-term follow-up, we couldn't reach a definitive conclusion about the superiority of one of the bulking agents over the other.

Annually, millions of people suffer from skin scars' psychological and physical disadvantages. Pathologic scars prevention is challenging and requires developing feasible and effective therapeutic strategies. Regarding promising results of losartan (an angiotensin 1 receptor inhibitor) on skin scar in preclinical studies, we aimed to assess the losartan ointment's impact on surgical scars in a clinical setting.Twenty-four patients with surgical wounds were enrolled from Razi hospital's plastic and reconstructive surgery department. The patients were trained to apply ointments 14-18 days post-surgery on the determined scar side, twice a day for 6 months. Two dermatologists independently evaluated scar formation at 3 and 6-month follow-ups using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score.Twenty-four female patients with cosmetic surgeries were included. The mean VSS score of losartan-treated sides was 7.1 ± 2.06 (at month 3) and 5.21 ± 1.71 (at month 6) that significantly were different from placebo-treated sides (9.77 ± 1.55 and 8.31 ± 1.88 at 3 and 6 months, respectively) (P value lt; 0.001 and lt; 0.001, respectively, for months 3 and 6). The subset analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in height (P value lt; 0.001 at 3 and 6 months), pliability (P value lt; 0.001 at 3 and 6 months), and vascularity (P value lt; 0.001 at 3 and 6 months) subsets at losartan compared to placebo-treated side. Losartan ointment was well tolerated with no complication.Losartan ointment successfully improved scar formation in mammoplasty and abdominoplasty patients. The losartan preventive effect should be confirmed in future large-scale studies with long-term follow-ups.This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Background:: Iran, which is regarded as an endemic region for brucellosis, ranks second in brucella prevalence in the world. Pulmonary involvement is a rare complication of brucellosis. In this article, we aimed to report a case of systemic brucellosis complicated with brucella pneumonia. Case Presentation: A 39-years-old man was referred to the emergency department with weakness, productive coughs and severe weight loss during 8 months. Agglutination tests for brucellosis showed high titers suggestive for brucella infection. After 6 days of treatment, the patients’ clinical state improved significantly. Conclusion:: The patient had systemic signs and bone marrow suppression with pulmonary involvement that his diagnosis confirmed with delay after one year, but with treatment, he had a very good outcome.

Introduction: Levamisole (LVM) demonstrated clinical benefit in a trial in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in a larger sample size needs to be confirmed. Methods In this randomized open-label trial, we enrolled non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at nine health centers in Tehran province, Iran, in 2021. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a 10-day course of LVM with standard care (n = 185), or standard care (n = 180) in a 1:1 ratio. On days 1 to 10, LVM was administered orally at a dosage of 50 mg. The participants were called and followed on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 14. The outcomes were general health condition, hospitalization rate, sign and symptoms, and adverse events (AEs). Generalized Estimating Equations model was used for analysis. Results Among 507 randomized patients, 473 started the experiment and received LVM in addition to standard care or received only the standard care (median age, 40 [IQR, 32-50.75] years; 164 [44.9%] women; 9.4% had diabetes, 8.8% hypertension, 1.6% cardiovascular disease), and 346 (98%) completed the trial. Compared to control group, LVM decreased the general health condition of the patients (B=-0.635; CI= -0.041, -0.329; P= 0.000). Patients in the LVM with standard care group had significantly lower odds of developing fever (OR= 0.260; 95% CI= ‎0.11‎‎3‎-0.59‎‎9‎; P = .002), chills (OR= 0.223; 95% CI= ‎‎0.07‎‎6‎-‎0.64‎‎8‎; P = 0.006), fatigue (OR= 0.576; 95% CI= ‎0.34‎‎6‎-‎0.96‎‎0‎‎; P = ‎0.034), and myalgia (OR= 0.54‎‎4‎; 95% CI= ‎0.31‎‎7‎-‎0.93‎‎2‎‎; P =0.027). During the therapy, there was no significant difference in the parameters of dyspnea, cough, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, sore throat, hyposmia, dysgeusia, and anorexia (P > 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the rate of hospitalization. Although the intervention group had greater AEs than the control group, yet, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions LVM has clinical benefit in improving health condition of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. Trial Registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials: IRCT20201124049480N1; Registration date: 28/03/2021.

OBJECTIVEPredicting neurological recovery following traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) is a complex task considering the heterogeneous nature of injury and the inconsistency of individual studies. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on neurological recovery following TSCI by use of a meta-analytical approach, and to identify injury, treatment, and study variables with prognostic significance.METHODSA literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed, and studies reporting follow-up changes in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) or Frankel or ASIA motor score (AMS) scales were included in the meta-analysis. The proportion of patients with at least 1 grade of AIS/Frankel improvement, and point changes in AMS were calculated using random pooled effect analysis. The potential effect of severity, level and mechanism of injury, type of treatment, time and country of study, and follow-up duration were evaluated using meta-regression analysis.RESULTSA total of 114 studies were included, reporting AIS/Frankel changes in 19,913 patients and AMS changes in 6920 patients. Overall, the quality of evidence was poor. The AIS/Frankel conversion rate was 19.3% (95% CI 16.2–22.6) for patients with grade A, 73.8% (95% CI 69.0–78.4) for those with grade B, 87.3% (95% CI 77.9–94.8) for those with grade C, and 46.5% (95% CI 38.2–54.9) for those with grade D. Neurological recovery was significantly different between all grades of SCI severity in the following order: C > B > D > A. Level of injury was a significant predictor of recovery; recovery rates followed this pattern: lumbar > cervical and thoracolumbar > thoracic. Thoracic SCI and penetrating SCI were significantly more likely to result in complete injury. Penetrating TSCI had a significantly lower recovery rate compared to blunt injury (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.92; p = 0.006). Recovery rate was positively correlated with longer follow-up duration (p = 0.001). Studies with follow-up durations of approximately 6 months or less reported significantly lower recovery rates for incomplete SCI compared to studies with long-term (3–5 years) follow-ups.CONCLUSIONSThe authors’ meta-analysis provides an overall quantitative description of neurological outcomes associated with TSCI. Moreover, they demonstrated how neurological recovery after TSCI is significantly dependent on injury factors (i.e., severity, level, and mechanism of injury), but is not associated with type of treatment or country of origin. Based on these results, a minimum follow-up of 12 months is recommended for TSCI studies that include patients with neurologically incomplete injury.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues devastating effects on healthcare systems. Such a crisis calls for an urgent need to develop a risk stratification tool. The present chapter aimed to identify laboratory and clinical correlates of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. To this end, we conducted a systematic evaluation of studies that investigated laboratory abnormalities in patients with COVID-19 and compared i. patients with a severe form of disease and patients with a non-severe form of the disease, ii. patients who were in critical condition and patients who were not in critical condition, and iii. patients who survived and patients who died. We included 54 studies in the data synthesis. Compared to patients with a non-severe form of COVID-19, patients who had a severe form of disease revealed higher values for white blood cells (WBC), polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN), total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, troponin, procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and D-dimer. By contrast, platelet count, lymphocyte count, and albumin levels were decreased in patients with a severe form of COVID-19. Also, patients with a severe phenotype of disease were more likely to have diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and malignancy. Compared to patients who survived, patients who died had higher WBC, PMN, total bilirubin, ALT, procalcitonin, IL-6, creatinine, PT, lymphocyte count, platelet count, and albumin. Also, non-survivors revealed a higher prevalence of diabetes, chronic heart disease, COPD, cerebrovascular disease, and CKD. Meta-analyses identified several laboratory parameters that might help the prediction of severe, critical, and lethal phenotypes of COVID-19. These parameters correlate with the immune system function, inflammation, coagulation, and liver and kidney function.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues devastating effects on healthcare systems. Such a crisis calls for an urgent need to develop a risk stratification tool. The present chapter aimed to identify laboratory and clinical correlates of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. To this end, we conducted a systematic evaluation of studies that investigated laboratory abnormalities in patients with COVID-19 and compared i. patients with a severe form of disease and patients with a non-severe form of the disease, ii. patients who were in critical condition and patients who were not in critical condition, and iii. patients who survived and patients who died. We included 54 studies in the data synthesis. Compared to patients with a non-severe form of COVID-19, patients who had a severe form of disease revealed higher values for white blood cells (WBC), polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN), total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, troponin, procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and D-dimer. By contrast, platelet count, lymphocyte count, and albumin levels were decreased in patients with a severe form of COVID-19. Also, patients with a severe phenotype of disease were more likely to have diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and malignancy. Compared to patients who survived, patients who died had higher WBC, PMN, total bilirubin, ALT, procalcitonin, IL-6, creatinine, PT, lymphocyte count, platelet count, and albumin. Also, non-survivors revealed a higher prevalence of diabetes, chronic heart disease, COPD, cerebrovascular disease, and CKD. Meta-analyses identified several laboratory parameters that might help the prediction of severe, critical, and lethal phenotypes of COVID-19. These parameters correlate with the immune system function, inflammation, coagulation, and liver and kidney function.

Due to the rapidly spreading of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) worldwide, there is an urgent need to develop efficient vaccines and specific antiviral treatments. Pathways of the viral entry into cells are interesting subjects for targeted therapy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The present study aims to provide a systematic evaluation of the most recent in vitro and in vivo investigations targeting SARS-CoV-2 cell entry. A systematic search was carried out in major medical sources, including MEDLINE (through PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE. Combinations of the following search terms were used: SARS-CoV-2, in vitro, in vivo, preclinical, targeted therapy, and cell entry. A modified version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation assessment tools were applied for evaluating the risk of bias of in vitro and in vivo studies, respectively. A narrative synthesis was performed as a qualitative method for the data synthesis of each outcome measure. A total of 2,649 articles were identified through searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Biorxiv. Finally, 22 studies (one in vivo study and 21 in vitro studies) were included. The spike (S) glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2 was the main target of investigation in 19 studies. SARS-CoV-2 can enter into the host cells through endocytosis or independently. SARS-CoV-2 S protein utilizes angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 or CD147 as its cell-surface receptor to attach host cells. It consists of S1 and S2 subunits. The S1 subunit mediates viral attachment to the host cells, while the S2 subunit facilitates virus-host membrane fusion. The cleavage of the S1-S2 protein, which is required for the conformational changes of the S2 subunit and processing of viral fusion, is regulated by the host proteases, including cathepsin L (during endocytosis) and type II membrane serine protease (independently). Targeted therapy strategies against SARS-CoV-2 cell entry mechanisms fall into four main categories: strategies targeting virus receptors on the host, strategies neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, strategies targeting virus fusion to host cells, and strategies targeting endosomal and non-endosomal dependent pathways of virus entry. Inhibition of the viral entry by targeting host or virus-related components remains the most potent strategy to prevent and treat COVID-19. Further high-quality investigations are needed to assess the efficacy of the proposed targets and develop specific antivirals against SARS-CoV-2.