Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a global pandemic that continues to cause numerous deaths to date. Four vaccines have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as of July 2021 to prevent the transmission of COVID-19: Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. These vaccines have shown great efficacy and safety profile. One side effect that has been widely reported is post-COVID-19 vaccination lymphadenopathy. Due to the mimicry of the lymphadenopathy for metastases in some oncologic patients, there have been reports of patients who underwent biopsies that showed pathologic confirmation of benign reactive lymphadenopathy secondary to the COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, understanding the incidence of lymphadenopathy post-COVID-19 vaccinations will help guide radiologists and oncologists in their management of patients, both present oncologic patients, and patients with concerns over their newly presenting lymphadenopathy.A systematic literature search was performed using several databases to identify relevant studies that reported lymphadenopathy post-COVID-19 vaccination. Our results revealed that several cases have been detected in patients undergoing follow-up fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography-computerized tomography scans where lymph nodes ipsilateral to the vaccine injection site show increased uptake of FDG. Thus, knowledge of the incidence of lymphadenopathy may help avoid unnecessary biopsies, interventions, and changes in management for patients, especially oncologic patients who are at risk for malignancies.

Since the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronarvirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) numerous research was undertaken to delineate the various effects of the virus which manifests in many ways all over the body. The association between the SARS‐CoV‐2 invasion mechanism and the RAAS receptors, created many debates about the possible consequences of using RAAS modulating drugs including the ACE inhibitors (ACEi) and the Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs) during the pandemic. Many clinical studies were conducted to assess the outcomes of COVID‐19 in patients who use ACEi/ARBs following the arguments claiming to discontinue these drugs as a precautionary measure. While several studies mainly analyzed the outcomes of the disease, this review aimed at comparing specific blood markers in both groups of COVID‐19 patients in order to gain a better insight into the interaction of ACEi/ARBs with the different body functions during the infection. Several databases were searched using a combination of keywords followed by screening and data extraction. Only 28 studies met our inclusion criteria, the majority of which showed no significant difference between the inflammation markers of COVID‐19 patients who used or did not use ACEi/ARBs. Interestingly, six studies reported lower inflammatory markers in COVID‐19 patients who used ACEi/ARBs and ten studies reported better outcomes among the same group. We therefore conclude that the use of ACEi/ARBs may not lead to worse prognosis of COVID‐19 and may even play a protective role against the hyperinflammatory response associated with COVID‐19. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19), induced by the SARS CoV‐2 virus, is responsible for a global pandemic following widespread transmission and death. Several vaccines have been developed to counter this public health crisis using both novel and conventional methods. Following approval based on promising efficacy and safety data, the AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, and SinoVac vaccines have been administered globally among different populations with various reported side effects. Reports of life‐threatening anaphylaxis following administration were of particular concern for both healthcare providers and the public. A systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, MedRxiv, and Lens.org databases identified relevant studies reporting anaphylaxis following vaccine administration. This systematic review includes 41 studies reporting anaphylaxis out of 19908 studies that were retrieved for screening. A total of 7942 cases, including 43 deaths, were reported across 14 countries. Most cases occurred following the administration of the first dose. Importantly, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks of anaphylaxis. Subsequently, as populations continue to get vaccinated, it is important for healthcare providers to be able to recognize individuals at risk of developing anaphylaxis. Furthermore, they must be familiar with both the clinical hallmarks and treatment of anaphylactic reactions to minimize long term sequalae and prevent death in vaccinated individuals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

No abstract