Background and objective More than five million individuals died because of problems connected to COVID-19. SARS-Cov-2 poses a particular challenge to expectant mothers, who comprise one of the most vulnerable segments of the population. Our aim is to demonstrate the maternal and neonatal safety of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, Ovid, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases from inception till December 2021 and then updated it in April 2022. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Square and grey literature. Cohort, case–control studies, and randomized controlled trials detecting the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy were included. We used the Cochrane tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADE scale to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4. Results We included 13 studies with a total number of 56,428 patients. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: miscarriage (1.56% vs 0.3%. RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.54 to 2.78); length of maternal hospitalization (MD 0.00; 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08); puerperal fever (1.71% vs 1.1%. RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.67 to 1.61); postpartum hemorrhage (4.27% vs 3.52%. RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.65 to 1.09); instrumental or vacuum-assisted delivery (4.16% vs 4.54%. RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.56); incidence of Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min (1.47% vs 1.48%. RR 0.86; 95%CI 0.54 to 1.37); and birthweight (MD -7.14; 95%CI -34.26 to 19.99). Conclusion In pregnancy, the current meta-analysis shows no effect of SAR-CoV-2 vaccination on the risk of miscarriage, length of stay in the hospital, puerperal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, birth weight, or the incidence of an Apgar score of ≤ 7 at 5 min.

Background Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the most serious diabetic complications. DFU is an open wound that usually occurs in the foot sole due to poor blood glucose control, peripheral neuropathy, and poor circulation. The human amniotic allograft membrane is a biological wound dressing derived from the amniotic membrane. It contains amino acids, nutrients, cytokines, and growth factors that make the growth process easier. Objective To compare dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft (DHACA) plus the standard of wound care (SOC) with the SOC alone. Methods We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science till April 2021 using relevant keywords. All search results were screened for eligibility. We extracted the data from the included trials and pooled them as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager software (ver. 5.4). Results The pooled effect estimate from 11 RCTs showed that DHACA was superior to SOC regarding the complete wound healing in both 6th and 12th week (RR = 3.78; 95% CI: [2.51, 5.70]; P < 0.00001) and (RR = 2.00; 95% CI: [1.67, 2.39], P < 0.00001 respectively). Also, the analysis favored the DHACA regarding the mean time to heal in the 12th-week (MD = -12.07, 95%CI: [-19.23, -4.91], P = 0.001). The wound size reduction was better with DHACA (MD = 1.18, 95%CI: [-0,10, 2.26], P = 0.03). Conclusion Using DHACA with SOC is safer and more effective than using SOC alone for DFU patients.

Objective This study aims to identify the risk factors for cardiovascular mortality in melanoma patients. Methods Data of melanoma patients were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. We used Person's chi-square test to assess the relationships between categorical variables. We used Kaplan-Meier test in the univariate analysis and Cox regression test for the multivariate analysis. Analyses were conducted using the SPSS software. ResultsWe analyzed data of 194 503 melanoma patients. Among them, 28 818 (14.8 %) died due to cardiovascular diseases. Cardiovascular-specific survival was higher in younger patients, women, married, localized disease, superficial spreading melanoma and in patients who had surgery. It was lower in patients who received chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The multivariate analysis revealed a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality in patients aged 50-64 years [hazard ratio (HR), 7.297; 95% confidence interval (CI), 6.68-7.97], patients aged ≥65

Herpes Zoster (HZ) is the reactivation of a previous infection with varicella‐zoster virus (VZV) which shares the same mode of transmission as HZ. It presents with painful erythematous vesicles in a dermatome which is characterized by a burning sensation before and after the rash. Any conditions with suppressed cellular immunity example diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cardiovascular diseases, chronic steroid uses, malignancy, etc. causes reactivation of the virus. Impaired immune responses in asthma patients either in any age group may increase their susceptibility to HZ infection owing to skewed Th1/Th2 immunity, resulting in predominant Th2 conditions and an unwarranted Th2 cell response against respiratory allergens. Similarly, many studies have delineated the association of asthma with HZ. However, the relation between steroid use in asthma and HZ is uncertain, its immunosuppressive effect might be responsible for increased susceptibility to the infection. As HZ increases the economic burden and morbidity, its prevention should use vaccines. There are two types of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved vaccine available against HSV one of which is given as a single dose vaccine called Zostavax, for people 50–59 years but its efficacy falls after 3rd dose and on the subsequent 4th dose and is also contraindicated in human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, pregnancy and people taking immunosuppressive drugs. Shingrix is preferred by FDA which is a two doses vaccine that is given 6 months apart for people above 50 years and to immunocompromised people. Hence, proper counseling and education about the risks of herpes should be informed to the patients with timely utilization of the vaccine.

Background: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13. It is approved for treating asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. There is a conflict in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of dupilumab. Thus, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe asthma.Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov registry) were searched until January 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that compared dupilumab with the placebo in moderate to severe asthma patients. We extracted the data at 12 and 24 weeks and analyzed them using review manager 5.4.Findings: Thirteen trials were included. Dupilumab significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, asthma control questionnaire score, the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide level, and immunoglobulin E level at 12 and 24 weeks (p &lt; 0.05). However, it was associated with increased blood eosinophils at 12 and 24 weeks. Dupilumab was generally a safe agent for asthmatic patients. It showed no significant difference compared with the placebo regarding most adverse events.Conclusion: Dupilumab improves pulmonary function and reduces local and systemic inflammatory markers with minimal adverse events in patients with moderate to severe asthma.