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.

COVID-19 is a global pandemic with a daily increasing number of affected individuals. Thrombosis is a severe complication of COVID-19 that leads to a worse clinical course with higher rates of mortality. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that hyperinflammation plays a crucial role in disease progression. This review compiles clinical data of COVID-19 patients who developed thrombotic complications to investigate the possible role of hyperinflammation in inducing hypercoagulation. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Medline and Scopus to identify relevant clinical studies that investigated thrombotic manifestations and reported inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers in COVID-19 patients. Only 54 studies met our inclusion criteria, the majority of which demonstrated significantly elevated inflammatory markers. In the cohort studies with control, D-dimer was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with thrombosis as compared to the control. Pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and strokes were frequently reported which could be attributed to the hyperinflammatory response associated with COVID-19 and/or to the direct viral activation of platelets and endothelial cells, two mechanisms that are discussed in this review. It is recommended that all admitted COVID-19 patients should be assessed for hypercoagulation. Furthermore, several studies have suggested that anticoagulation may be beneficial, especially in hospitalized non-ICU patients. Although vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved and distributed in several countries, research should continue in the field of prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and its severe complications including thrombosis due to the emergence of new variants against which the efficacy of the vaccines is not yet clear.

Despite widespread mass rollout programs, the rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant called into question the effectiveness of the existing vaccines against infection, hospitalization, severity, and mortality compared to previous variants. This systematic review summarizes and compares the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, with respect to the above outcomes in adults, children, and adolescents. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken on several databases. Only 51 studies met our inclusion criteria, revealing that the protection from primary vaccination against Omicron infection is inferior to protection against Delta and Alpha infections and wanes faster over time. However, mRNA vaccine boosters were reported to reestablish effectiveness, although to a lower extent against Omicron. Nonetheless, primary vaccination was shown to preserve strong protection against Omicron-associated hospitalization, severity, and death, even months after last dose. However, boosters provide more robust and longer-lasting protection against hospitalizations due to Omicron as compared to only primary series.

Few guidelines exist for COVID-19 vaccination amongst cancer patients, fostering uncertainty regarding the immunogenicity, safety, and effects of cancer therapies on vaccination, which this review aims to address. A literature review was conducted to include the latest articles covering the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematologic cancers receiving various treatments. Lower seropositivity following vaccination was associated with malignancy (compared to the general population), and hematologic malignancy (compared to solid cancers). Patients receiving active cancer therapy (unspecified), chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunosuppressants generally demonstrated lower seropositivity compared to healthy controls; though checkpoint inhibition, endocrine therapy, and cyclin dependent kinase inhibition did not appear to affect seropositivity. Vaccination appeared safe and well-tolerated in patients with current or past cancer and those undergoing treatment. Adverse events were comparable to the general population, but inflammatory lymphadenopathy following vaccination was commonly reported and may be mistaken for malignant etiology. Additionally, radiation recall phenomenon was sporadically reported in patients who had received radiotherapy. Overall, while seropositivity rates were decreased, cancer patients showed capacity to generate safe and effective immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination, thus vaccination should be encouraged and hesitancy should be addressed in this population.

There is a limitation in the range of effectual antibiotics due to the Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) infection due to its innate antimicrobial resistance. Researchers have therefore been concentrating their efforts to discover advanced and cost effective antibacterial agents among the ever-increasing PA bacterial resistance strains. It has been discovered that various nanoparticles can be employed as antimicrobial agents. Here, we evaluated the antibacterial properties of the Zinc Oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs), which was biosynthesized, being examined on six hospital strains of PA alongside a reference strain (ATCC 27853). A chemical approach was applied to biosynthesize the ZnO NPs from Olea europaea was performed, and confirmed by using X-ray diffraction and Scanning Electron Microscopes. The nanoparticles then applied their antibacterial properties to examine them against six clinically isolated PA strains alongside the reference strain. This process tested for the results of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). The Growth, biofilm formation and eradication were analyzed. The influence of the differentiating degrees ZnO NPs in regard to Quorom sensing gene expression were further examined. The ZnO NPs exhibited a crystalline size and diameter (Dc) of 40–60 nm and both the MIC and MBC tests revealed positive outcomes of concentrations of 3 and 6 mg/ml for each PA strain, respectively. At sub inhibitory concentration, The ZnO NPs were found to significantly inhibit the growth and biofilm formation of all PA strains and decreases in the biomass and metabolic behavior of PA established biofilms; these decreases varied depending on the dosage. At ZnO NPs concentrations of 900 µg/ml, the expression of majority of quorum sensing genes of all strains were significantly reduced, at ZnO NPs concentrations of 300 µg/ml, few genes were significantly impacted. In conclusion, the treatment of PA and could be other antibiotic resistant bacteria can therefore be approached by using ZnO NPs as it has been uncovered that they withhold advanced antibacterial properties.

Aim: This study examined the various manifestations of COVID-19 in people's gastro-intestinal system and how gastro-intestinal involvement relates to the progression and outcome of the disease. Methodology: A questionnaire survey was used to collect data from 561 COVID-19 patients between February 6 and 6 April 2022. Laboratory data and clinical outcomes were obtained from the patients' medical records. Results: 39.9% of patients presented gastro-intestinal symptoms, mainly loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastro-intestinal symptoms were not linked to poorer outcomes such as mortality, ICU admission or length of hospital stays. Conclusion: gastro-intestinal symptoms were common among patients and may manifest with respiratory symptoms. We recommended clinicians to watch out for gastro-intestinal symptoms as related to COVID-19 infection.

ObjectivesThere are limited data from the Middle East on sex-related differences in short- and long-term stroke outcomes. We present 8 years of experience based on the Qatar stroke database.SettingThe Qatar stroke database prospectively collects data on all stroke patients admitted to Hamad General Hospital. For this study, we compared female and male acute ischemic stroke patients on their characteristics at admission, short-term outcomes [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score], and long-term outcomes [incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs)].ParticipantsA total of 7,300 patients [F: 1,406 (19.3%), M: 5,894 (80.7%); mean age 55.1 ± 13.3 (F: 61.6 ± 15.1, M: 53.5 ± 12.3; p < 0.001)] were admitted with acute ischemic stroke.ResultsSignificantly fewer women presented within 4.5 h of onset (F: 29% vs. M: 32.8%; p = 0.01). Although women were more likely to experience severe stroke (NIHSS >10; F: 19.9% vs. M: 14.5%; p < 0.001), fewer were treated with thrombolysis (F: 9.8% vs. M: 12.1%; p = 0.02). Women experienced more medical complications (F: 11.7% vs. M: 7.4%; p < 0.001) and tended to have a more prolonged length of stay in the hospital (F: 6.4 ± 7.6 days vs. M: 5.5 ± 6.8 days; p < 0.001).Primary and secondary outcome measuresGood outcomes at 90 days (mRS score of 0–2) were less frequent in women (F: 53.3% vs. M: 71.2%; p < 0.001). Fewer female patients were taking antiplatelets (F: 78% vs. M: 84.8%; p < 0.001) or statins (F: 81.2% vs. M: 85.7%; p < 0.001). Significantly more female patients experienced a MACE (F: 12.6% vs. M: 6.5%; p < 0.001).ConclusionOlder age at presentation contributes to poor outcomes following acute stroke in women. Other contributing factors include delays in admission to the hospital, lower rates of thrombolysis, and lower rates of provision of preventative treatments.