Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics. Results Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials. Conclusions Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

Celiac disease (CeD) is an immune-mediated enteropathy, and unique in that the specific trigger is known: gluten. The current mainstay of therapy is a gluten-free diet (GFD). As novel therapies are being developed, complementary strategies are also being studied, such as modulation of the gut microbiome. The gut microbiota is involved in the initiation and perpetuation of intestinal inflammation in several chronic diseases. Intestinal dysbiosis has been reported in CeD patients, untreated or treated with GFD, compared to healthy subjects. Several studies have identified differential bacterial populations associated with CeD patients and healthy subjects. However, it is still not clear if intestinal dysbiosis is the cause or effect of CeD. Probiotics have also been considered as a strategy to modulate the gut microbiome to an anti-inflammatory state. However, there is a paucity of data to support their use in treating CeD. Further studies are needed with therapeutic microbial formulations combined with human trials on the use of probiotics to treat CeD by restoring the gut microbiome to an anti-inflammatory state.

We evaluated 123 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples, including neuroendocrine tumors, adult brain, mesonephric tissues, and from various other sites. A pre-B lymphoma cell line, Daudi, and a small cell carcinoma cell line, NCL-H128, were evaluated by Western blot. All tissues were immunostained by mouse monoclonal anti-Pax-5 antibody by using standard, synthetic polymer-based detection methods. Our study describes for the first time distribution of Pax-5 in adult brain tissue, including periaqueductal gray matter of the midbrain, area postrema of the medulla oblongata, and occasional cells of the spinal trigeminal nucleus (caudal nucleus). We confirm that Pax-5 is expressed regularly in poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumors but never in well-differentiated classic carcinoid tumors. Pax-5 expression also was found readily in benign and malignant mesonephric tissues and focally in müllerian duct-derived tissues and tumors. Expression of Pax-5 in the Daudi and NCL-H128 cell lines was confirmed by Western blot. Together, these results are important for correct interpretation of results in immunophenotyping of undifferentiated tumors, for diagnosis of mesonephric carcinoma, and, potentially, for correct classification of neuroendocrine tumors in small biopsy samples.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID‐19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID‐19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full‐text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta‐analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = −0.49 days [95% CI = −3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID‐19.

Rapid progress has been made to understand the pathophysiology of inflammatory bowel diseases and to identify new treatments. Interaction of the gut microbiota on the host inflammatory response has suggested that alternative therapies, such as probiotics, might have a complementary role in treating and preventing disease flares. Multiple probiotics and their formulations have been studied for both the induction and maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC); however, mainly Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 and VSL#3 have been shown to provide significant benefits for the prevention and treatment of mild to moderate UC. Although these data are promising, there is still a paucity of robust, randomized-controlled trials to suggest that probiotics be utilized as part of a standard treatment regimen. With continued research and a movement toward carefully selected, individualized management based on an individual's specific microbiota composition and function, probiotics may become an integral part of tailored therapy for UC.

Background The literature suggests an increased risk between anthropometrics including higher body mass index and lymphoma incidence; however, the association with physical activity remains unclear. A systematic review/meta-analysis was therefore performed to examine this association with physical activity (total, recreational or occupational). Methods PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were reviewed from inception to October 2019 identifying relevant observational studies. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) including subtypes diffuse large B cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) were analyzed. Included studies reported activity, lymphoma cases, effect size and variability measures, and were restricted to human subjects of any age. Data was pooled generating summary relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models with primary outcome of histologically confirmed incident lymphoma. Results One thousand four hundred studies were initially identified with 18 studies (nine cohort, nine case-control) included in final analysis. Comparing highest vs. lowest activity categories was protective for all lymphoma (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.81–0.98). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated effect persistence within case-control studies (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.96), but not cohort studies (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.84–1.07). Borderline protective effect was seen for NHL (RR 0.92, 95%CI 0.84–1.00), but not HL (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.50–1.04). Analysis by NHL subtype or gender showed no effect. Dose response analysis demonstrated a protective effect (p = 0.034) with a 1% risk reduction per 3 MET hours/week (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98–1.00). Conclusions Physical activity may have a protective effect against lymphoma development; further studies are required to generate recommendations regarding health policy. Trial registration This study was registered prospectively at PROSPERO: CRD42020156242.

No abstract

Background Budesonide-MMX has an established role in the management of relapsing mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Data regarding effectiveness and tolerability in real-life clinical practice are limited. Aim The aim of this study was to assess the use of budesonide-MMX in ulcerative colitis, as well as short-term effectiveness and tolerability in real-life practice. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis treated with budesonide-MMX at four tertiary inflammatory bowel disease centres in Italy from June 2016 to February 2018. Demographic and clinical features of patients, the use of budesonide-MMX, disease course and concomitant therapy were recorded. The primary outcome assessed was clinical remission at 2 months. Results A total of 82 patients with active mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis were included in the study with a mean age of 45.9 years and a median partial Mayo Score of 4 (interquartile range 3–5). A total of 41 patients were male. Overall, 36 had extensive colitis, 38 left-sided colitis and eight proctitis. Treatments at the time of inclusion included 10 patients receiving biologic therapy, seven azathioprine and 54 mesalazine or salazopyrin. The main reasons for the addition of budesonide-MMX were clinical relapse (47.5%) or inadequate response to current therapy (39.0%). In total, 50% of patients achieved clinical remission, whereas 9.8% had clinical improvement. No response was noted in 40.2% of subjects. Using multivariate binary logistic regression, a moderate degree of activity was the main independent predictor of non-response. Eight significant adverse effects were reported in six patients with three discontinuing treatment. Conclusion In real-life clinical practice, budesonide-MMX is commonly used in combination with other therapies, both for acute disease flares and for partial response to therapy.