Our study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018112214). We followed a standardized methodology 7 and report findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (ie, PRISMA) 8 and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (ie, MOOSE) 9 recommendations. Search Strategy We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception through September 28, 2018, to identify metaanalyses of studies assessing the association between environmental factors and IBD. Search terms included inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis, combined with systematic review or meta-analysis. We excluded conference abstracts, letters, editorials, and articles published in languages other than English. The reference lists of the identified meta-analyses were screened for additional eligible articles. No other restrictions were imposed.

On the basis of a systematic review and meta-analysis, biologic agents increase the risk of opportunistic infections in patients with IBD, but not the risk of serious infections. It is necessary to continue to monitor the comparative and long-term safety profiles of these drugs.

The emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 made imperative the need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies are usually inconclusive, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. We used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA), and the Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA). We identified 38 studies containing data from 7848 individuals. Tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. All methods yield high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90%–94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. LFIA tests are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies but show lower sensitivity, and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.

Using random effect methods we found statistically significant association of IL-1A C[-889]T and IL-1B C[3953/4]T polymorphisms with chronic periodontal disease without any evidence of publication bias or significant statistical heterogeneity. A weak positive association was also found concerning IL-1B T[-511]C and chronic periodontal disease. No association was found for all the cytokines examined as far as the aggressive form of the disease is concerned. Future studies may contribute to the investigation of the potential multigenetic predisposition of the disease and reinforce our findings.

BackgroundDuring 2011, a dramatic increase (1600%) of reported HIV-1 infections among injecting drug users (IDUs) was noted in Athens, Greece. We herein assess the potential causal pathways associated with this outbreak.MethodsOur study employed high resolution HIV-1 phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses. We examined also longitudinal data of ecological variables such as the annual growth of gross domestic product (GDP) of Greece in association with HIV-1 and HCV sentinel prevalence in IDUs, unemployment and homelessness rates and HIV transmission networks in Athens IDUs before and during economic recession (2008–2012).ResultsIDU isolates sampled in 2011 and 2012 suggested transmission networks in 94.6% and 92.7% of the cases in striking contrast with the sporadic networking (5%) during 1998–2009. The geographic origin of most HIV-1 isolates was consistent with the recently documented migratory waves in Greece. The decline in GDP was inversely correlated with annual prevalence rates of HIV and HCV and with unemployment and homelessness rates in IDUs (all p<0.001). The slope of anti-HCV prevalence in the sentinel populations of IDUs and in “new” drug injectors was found 120 and 1.9-fold (p = 0.007, p = 0.08 respectively) higher in 2008–2012 (economic recession) compared with 2002–2006. The median (25th, 75th) size of transmission networks were 34 (12, 58) and 2 (2, 2) (p = 0.057) in 2008–2012 and 1998–2007, respectively. The coverage of harm reduction services was low throughout the study period.ConclusionsScaling-up harm reduction services and addressing social and structural factors related to the current economic crisis should be urgently considered in environments where HIV-1 outbreaks may occur.

HIV-HBV coinfection seems to affect all-cause mortality, and strategies to reduce liver damage in patients coinfected with HIV and HBV are justified.

With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the associated Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is an imperative need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies measuring the accuracy of the various tests are usually underpowered and inconsistent, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the literature search in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. For the statistical analysis we used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA) and the point-of-care (POC) Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA) that are based on immunochromatography. In total, we identified 38 eligible studies that include data from 7,848 individuals. The analyses showed that tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones, and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, irrespective of the method, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody type alone. All methods yielded high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods performed better in terms of sensitivity (90-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 86%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. POC tests (LFIA), that are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies show high specificity but lower sensitivity and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.

Summary Background Biological therapies have improved the care of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Tofacitinib, an oral small‐molecule Janus kinase inhibitor, is potentially a new treatment option. Aim To comparatively assess efficacy and harm of tofacitinib and biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab and vedolizumab) in adult patients not previously exposed to TNF antagonists. Methods We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, clinical trial registries, regulatory authorities' websites and major conference proceedings, through August 2017, to identify randomised, placebo‐controlled or head‐to‐head trials assessing tofacitinib or biologics as induction and/or maintenance therapy in moderate‐to‐severe UC. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and outcomes, and investigated each trial's risk‐of‐bias. We used conventional meta‐analysis to synthesise direct evidence, and network meta‐analysis for adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. Results Fifteen randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials (n = 3130) contributed data for induction: All treatments are superior to placebo. Indirect treatment comparisons showed that infliximab is better than adalimumab (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.36‐2.98) and golimumab (1.67, 1.08‐2.59) in clinical response, better than adalimumab (2.10, 1.21‐3.64) in clinical remission, and better than adalimumab (1.87, 1.26‐2.79) and golimumab (1.75, 1.13‐2.73) in mucosal healing. No indirect comparisons between tofacitinib and biologics reached statistical significance. Nine studies (n = 1776) contributed maintenance data showing that all treatments have higher clinical efficacy than placebo. Safety analyses indicated no increased rates of adverse events for the treatments under evaluation (except for infliximab), while vedolizumab may have an advantage regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events. Conclusions Tofacitinib and biologics are efficacious and safe for UC. Further high‐quality research is warranted to establish the best therapeutic option.