Since Dec. 2019 the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has infected millions and claimed life of several hundred thousand worldwide. However, so far no approved vaccine or drug therapy is available for treatment of virus infection. Convalescent plasma has been considered a potential modality for COVID-19 infection. One hundred eighty-nine COVID-19 positive patients including 115 patients in plasma therapy group and 74 patients in control group, registered in the hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 infection, entered this multi-center clinical study. Comparison of outcomes including all-cause mortality, total hospitalization days and patients’ need for intubation between the two patient groups shows that total of 98 (98.2 %) of patients who received convalescent plasma were discharged from hospital which is substantially higher compared to 56 (78.7 %) patients in control group. Length of hospitalization days was significantly lower (9.54 days) in convalescent plasma group compared with that of control group (12.88 days). Only 8 patients (7%) in convalescent plasma group required intubation while that was 20 % in control group. This clinical study provides strong evidence to support the efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients and recommends this treatment for management of these patients. Clinical efficacy, immediate availability and potential cost effectiveness could be considered as main advantages of convalescent plasma therapy.

Background Patients with cancer might be at an increased risk of infection with COVID-19 and a more severe disease course. However, different tumor types have differing susceptibility to the infection and COVID-19 phenotypes. Thus, the risk and prevalence of COVID-19 is not uniform across the different tumor types. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to estimate the risk and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed up to July 25, 2020, thorough PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, CNKI, CBM, China Science, Wan Fang, and SciELO databases. The risk of COVID-19 infection in CRC patients was performed based on the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results A total of six studies with 204 different cancer patients with COVID-19 and 92 CRC infected patients with COVID-19 were selected. Our results showed that the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in CRC patients was 45.1% in the global population. The pooled data showed that there is no a significant risk of infection with COVID-19 in CRC patients in the global population (OR = 0.261, 95% CI 0.099-0.533, p = 0.082). However, when subgroup analysis was performed based on country of origin, we found a significant correlation in Chinese CRC patients (OR = 0.221, 95% CI 0.146-0.319, p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions This study results revealed that Chinese CRC patients harbored a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. However, more multicenter, larger sample sizes and high-quality studies are required to verify this meta-analysis result.

Background:Intubated patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) are not able to take care of their mouth health, so they are at risk of bacterial colonization and dental plaques formation that can lead to systemic diseases such as pneumonia and gingivitis.Aims:In randomized, double-blind clinical study, the efficacy of natural herbal mouthwash containing Salvadora persica ethanol extract and Aloe vera gel was compared with chlorhexidine on gingival index (GI) of intubated patients in ICU.Materials and Methods:Seventy-six intubated patients (18–64 years old with mean age 40.35 ± 13.2) in ICU were admitted to this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: (1) Herbal mouthwash and (2) chlorhexidine solution. Before the intervention, the GIs was measured by modified GI device into two groups. The mouth was rinsed by mouthwashes every 2–3 h for 4 days. 2 h after the last intervention, GIs were determined.Results:Along with mechanical methods, herbal mouthwash in reducing GI was statistically significant than that of chlorhexidine (P < 0.05).Conclusion:The results of this study introduce a new botanical extract mouthwash with dominant healing effects on GI (1.5 ± 0.6) higher than that of synthetic mouthwash, chlorhexidine (2.31 ± 0.73).

Objective:Most patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU) have problems in using oral medication or ingesting solid forms of drugs. Selecting the most suitable dosage form in such patients is a challenge. The current study was conducted to assess the frequency and types of errors of oral medication administration in patients with enteral feeding tubes or suffering swallowing problems.Methods:A cross-sectional study was performed in the ICU of Shahid Sadoughi Hospital, Yazd, Iran. Patients were assessed for the incidence and types of medication errors occurring in the process of preparation and administration of oral medicines.Findings:Ninety-four patients were involved in this study and 10,250 administrations were observed. Totally, 4753 errors occurred among the studied patients. The most commonly used drugs were pantoprazole tablet, piracetam syrup, and losartan tablet. A total of 128 different types of drugs and nine different oral pharmaceutical preparations were prescribed for the patients. Forty-one (35.34%) out of 116 different solid drugs (except effervescent tablets and powders) could be substituted by liquid or injectable forms. The most common error was the wrong time of administration. Errors of wrong dose preparation and administration accounted for 24.04% and 25.31% of all errors, respectively.Conclusion:In this study, at least three-fourth of the patients experienced medication errors. The occurrence of these errors can greatly impair the quality of the patients’ pharmacotherapy, and more attention should be paid to this issue.

Background The presence of comorbidity poses a major clinical challenge in the care and treatment of COVID-19 patients. Moreover, having one or more comorbidities could be a life-threatening situation in COVID-19 patients. Cancer is substantially associated with significant morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients. However, there is not sufficient data to conclude that cancer patients have a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. In this study, we reviewed cancer comorbidity and risk of mechanical ventilation or death in patients with confirmed COVID-19. Methods A comprehensive systematic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, and CNKI, to find articles published until August 01, 2020. All relevant case series, case reports, systematic and narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective and retrospective studies that reported clinical characteristics and epidemiological information of cancer patients infected with COVID-19 were included in the study. Results A total of 12 cohort studies exclusively on cancer patients with confirmed COVID-19 were selected. Conclusions According to the findings of this study, cancer was not among the most prevalent underlying diseases in patients with confirmed COVID-19. Moreover, cancer patients infected with COVID-19 had the lowest risk of mechanical ventilation or death than the non-cancer infected patients.

Background:Some studies have investigated the association of GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTM3, and GSTP1 polymorphisms with susceptibility to osteosarcoma; however, these studies results are inconsistent and inconclusive. In order to drive a more precise estimation, the present case-control study and meta-analysis was performed to investigate association of GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTM3, and GSTP1 polymorphisms with osteosarcoma.Methods:Eligible articles were identified by a search of several electronic databases for the period up to May 5, 2018. Odds ratios were pooled using either fixed-effects or random effects models.Results:Finally, a total of 24 case-control studies with 2,405 osteosarcoma cases and 3,293 controls were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, significantly increased osteosarcoma risk was found when all studies were pooled into the meta-analysis of GSTT1 (Null vs. Present: OR= 1.247 95% CI 1.020-1.524, P= 0.031) and GSTP1 polymorphism (B vs. A: OR= 8.899 95% CI 2.722-29.094, P≤0.001). In the stratified, significantly increased osteosarcoma risk was observed for GSTT1 polymorphism among Asians (Null vs. Present: OR= 1.300 95% CI 1.034-1.635, P= 0.025), but not among Caucasians.Conclusions:This meta-analysis demonstrated that GSTP1 and GSTT1 null genotype are associated with the risk of osteosarcoma. Future large well-designed epidemiological studies are warranted to validate our results.

Background:A number of case-control studies were conducted to investigate the association of angiotensin converting enzyme insertion/deletion (ACE I/D) polymorphism with breast cancer. But the results remain controversial. This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the association of ACE I/D polymorphism with breast cancer.Method:A comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Google Scholar, SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge databases for studies published up to June 01, 2018 was performed. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. Publication bias of literatures was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger’s test.Results:A total of 20 studies including 2846 breast cancer cases 9299 controls meeting the predefined criteria were involved in the meta-analysis. Overall, the ACE I/D polymorphisms was significantly associated with breast cancer under the allele model (I vs. D: OR= 0.803, 95% CI 0.647-0.996, p=0.046), the homozygote model (II vs. DD: OR= 0.662, 95% CI 0.462-0.947, p=0.024), the heterozygote model (ID vs. DD: OR= 0.707, 95% CI 0.528-0.946, p=0.020), the dominant model (II+ID vs. DD: OR= 0.691, 95% CI 0.507-0.941, p=0.019). In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, a significant association was found among Asian and Caucasian populations, but not among mixed populations.Conclusions:This meta-analysis suggests that ACE I/D polymorphism may be associated with increased risk of breast cancer, especially among Asian and Caucasians. However, well-designed studies with larger sample size and more ethnic groups are needed to further validate the results.

Objective:Epidemiological studies have suggested that the promoter region polymorphisms of interleukin-10 (IL-10) gene may be associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. However, those studies results are controversial. Thus, a comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the association of promoter region polymorphisms of IL-10 gene with susceptibility to lung cancer. Methods:a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI databases was performed to find all eligible studies up to September 15, 2018. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of such association. Results:A total number of 19 case-control studies with 4084 cases and 6,131 controls were selected. The overall meta-analysis results showed that the -592A>C polymorphism was significantly associated with lung cancer risk under four genetic models, i.e., allele (CT vs. TT: OR= 1.17, 95% CI 1.01-1.35, p=0.02), homozygote (CC vs. AA: OR= 1.64, 95% CI 1.29-2.02, p≤0.001), heterozygote (CA vs. AA: OR= 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.50, p≤0.001), and dominant (CC+CA vs. AA: OR= 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.54, p=0.001). However, there was no significant association between -819T>C and -1082A>G polymorphisms of IL-10 and lung cancer risk. Similarly, subgroup analyses by ethnicity detected significant association between IL-10 -592A>C and lung cancer among Asians and Caucasians. Conclusions:Our meta-analysis suggests that the IL-10 -592A>C polymorphism might be risk factor for lung cancer, especially among Asian and Caucasians. In contrast, the IL-10 -819T>C and -1082A>G polymorphisms are not significantly associated with increased risk of lung cancer.