Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had an enormous impact worldwide, and vaccination is believed to be the method that will control the pandemic. Several types of vaccines developed using different platforms have been authorized, but the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous prime–boost vaccination with different vaccines remain largely unclear. Areas covered Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, Research Square, and SSRN were searched to investigate the immunogenicity and reactogenicity associated with heterologous vaccination. As of 30 June 2021, four trials including 1,862 participants were identified. Heterologous administration of BNT162b2 (BNT) in ChAdOx1 (ChAd)-primed participants (ChAd/BNT) showed noninferior immunogenicity to homologous BNT administration (both prime and booster were BNT vaccines, BNT/BNT) with tolerable reactogenicity and higher T cell responses. Compared with homologous ChAdOX1 vaccination (ChAd/ChAd), heterologous ChAd/BNT was found to elicit higher immunogenicity (ChAd/BNT vs. ChAd/ChAd, antibody titer ratio: 9.2). Expert opinion Our systematic review found robust immunogenicity and tolerable reactogenicity of heterologous administration of a BNT162b2 boost in ChAdOx1-primed participants. An additional benefit of stronger T cellular immunity was also observed. Heterologous vaccination is a reasonable and feasible strategy to combat COVID-19. Further studies are warranted to confirm the benefits and identify the optimal combinations, doses, and intervals.

Recent prospective studies have shown that dysregulation of the immune system may precede the development of B‐cell lymphomas (BCL) in immunocompetent individuals. However, to date, the studies were restricted to a few immune markers, which were considered separately. Using a nested case–control study within two European prospective cohorts, we measured plasma levels of 28 immune markers in samples collected a median of 6 years before diagnosis (range 2.01–15.97) in 268 incident cases of BCL (including multiple myeloma [MM]) and matched controls. Linear mixed models and partial least square analyses were used to analyze the association between levels of immune marker and the incidence of BCL and its main histological subtypes and to investigate potential biomarkers predictive of the time to diagnosis. Linear mixed model analyses identified associations linking lower levels of fibroblast growth factor‐2 (FGF‐2 p = 7.2 × 10−4) and transforming growth factor alpha (TGF‐α, p = 6.5 × 10−5) and BCL incidence. Analyses stratified by histological subtypes identified inverse associations for MM subtype including FGF‐2 (p = 7.8 × 10−7), TGF‐α (p = 4.08 × 10−5), fractalkine (p = 1.12 × 10−3), monocyte chemotactic protein‐3 (p = 1.36 × 10−4), macrophage inflammatory protein 1‐alpha (p = 4.6 × 10−4) and vascular endothelial growth factor (p = 4.23 × 10−5). Our results also provided marginal support for already reported associations between chemokines and diffuse large BCL (DLBCL) and cytokines and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Case‐only analyses showed that Granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factor levels were consistently higher closer to diagnosis, which provides further evidence of its role in tumor progression. In conclusion, our study suggests a role of growth‐factors in the incidence of MM and of chemokine and cytokine regulation in DLBCL and CLL.

Background Although tinnitus has a prevalence between 20 and 42.8%, the currently recommended management for tinnitus, such as tinnitus support and psychologic therapies, are relatively time-consuming and expensive. Several new pharmacologic treatments designed for tinnitus patients without specific origin had been developed but their efficacy remains unclear. Methods The current Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different pharmacologic treatments for tinnitus management in tinnitus patients without specific or treatable origin (i.e. primary tinnitus). Databases were searched from inception to April 5 th , 2021. All network meta-analytic procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. We calculated the effect size of outcomes with different rating scales with standardized mean difference. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020177742. Findings Overall, 36 RCTs were included with 2,761 participants. The main results revealed that pharmacologic interventions with brain-acting effect (for example, amitriptyline, acamprosate, and gabapentin) and those with anti-inflammation/anti-oxidant effect (for example, intra-tympanic dexamethasone injection plus oral melatonin) were associated with superior improvement in tinnitus severity and response rate compared to placebo/control. Oral amitriptyline were associated with the highest improvement in tinnitus severity and the fourth highest response rate. None of the investigated interventions was associated with different changes in quality of life compared to placebo/control. All the investigated treatments were associated with similar drop-out rate to placebo/control. Interpretation The current NMA suggests a potential role for treatments with brain-acting effect (for example, amitriptyline, acamprosate, and gabapentin) or anti-inflammation/anti-oxidant effect (for example, intra-tympanic dexamethasone injection plus oral melatonin) as the preferable effective treatments for tinnitus without specific or treatable origin. Funding none.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and purpose: Sialorrhea often happens in patients with neurologic disorders, and botulinum toxin (BoNT), which inhibits acetylcholine activation, may be an effective treatment for drooling. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BoNT in adults and children with sialorrhea due to neurological disorders. Methods:The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies published before August 2021. The pooled estimate of outcomes was calculated using a random effect model. Results:The review included 17 studies involving 981 patients. Compared with placebo, both BoNT type A (BoNT-A) and BoNT type B (BoNT-B) alleviated drooling frequency and

Beta-adrenergic blocking agents (abbreviated as beta-blockers) have been used for treating various cardiovascular diseases. However, the potential for asthma exacerbation is one of the major adverse effects of beta-blockers. This study aimed to compare the level of risk for an asthma attack in patients receiving various beta-blockers. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either placebo-controlled or active-controlled design. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted under a frequentist model. The primary outcome was the incidence of asthmatic attack. A total of 24 RCTs were included. Overall NMA revealed that only oral timolol [risk ratio (RR) = 3.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–10.85)] and infusion of propranolol [RR = 10.19 (95% CI 1.29–80.41)] were associated with significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than the placebo, whereas oral celiprolol [RR = 0.39 (95% CI 0.04–4.11)], oral celiprolol and propranolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02–11.65)], oral bisoprolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02–11.65)], oral atenolol [RR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.20–1.28)], infusion of practolol [RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.03–25.14)], and infusion of sotalol [RR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.08–10.65)] were associated with relatively lower incidences of asthma attack than the placebo. In participants with a baseline asthma history, in addition to oral timolol and infusion of propranolol, oral labetalol, oxprenolol, propranolol, and metoprolol exhibited significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than did the placebo. In conclusion, oral timolol and infusion of propranolol were associated with a significantly higher risk of developing an asthma attack in patients, especially in those with a baseline asthma history, and should be avoided in patients who present a risk of asthma.Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020190540.

No abstract