Shirin Cadri

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the investigation of potential treatment options to alleviate symptoms, reduce severe infection rates, and reduce mortality rates. Previous research on Nigella sativa, a phytomedicine with various therapeutic properties, has shown promise. This study aims to determine the efficacy of Nigella sativa as a treatment option for COVID-19 patients. Methods: We carried out a thorough systematic review of relevant literature from multiple databases until May 2024. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of Nigella sativa as a treatment for COVID-19. We utilized the Cochrane Revised Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2.0) to assess the quality of each included study. We carried out statistical analysis using RevMan version 5.4. Results: The meta-analysis included a total of six studies with a total of 1595 COVID-19 patients. The use of Nigella sativa significantly reduced the severity of infection symptoms (OR = 0.08, 95% CI [0.02 to 0.25], P < 0.0001) and demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality rates ( P = 0.383). Also, it significantly reduced CRP levels (MD = -3.287, 95% CI [-4.620 to -1.955], P < 0.00001) and the overall likelihood of patients experiencing headache (OR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.76 to 0.89], P < 0.00001). Furthermore, in contrast, our study found no statistically significant effect of Nigella sativa on common COVID-19 symptoms such as fever, cough, fatigue, and ferritin levels, a key inflammatory marker. Similarly, it had no effect on the occurrence of rhinorrhea or shortness of breath among patients. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that Nigella sativa is effective as a potential treatment option for COVID-19 patients. The use of this phytomedicine significantly reduces the likelihood of patients experiencing headaches and severe infection symptoms.

Background Various rejuvenation surgeries, including hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, aim to address mid-face volume loss. However, literature on the comparative efficacy and safety of different HA fillers for the zygomatic area remains limited. Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), adhering to NMA PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines. Searches were conducted on different bases. Eligible studies included patients with mid-face volume loss undergoing HA interventions. The primary outcome was the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at different time points and the incidence of adverse events. Results: Among 1742 articles, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria with a total of 579 patients. The studies evaluated Giselleligne, VYC-20, Neuramis Lidocaine and ART-Filler. Results showed that Giselleligne demonstrated superior safety compared to VYC-20, ART-Filler and Neuramis-Lidocaine (Risk Ratios (RR) = 0.27, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [0.14; 0.54]), (RR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17; 0.75], & RR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07; 0.67]) respectively However, there were no significant differences in the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale Assessment (GAIS) scores between HA fillers at 1, 3, and 6 months. Conclusion: While no significant differences were observed in efficacy among HA fillers, Giselleligne emerged as a potentially safer option for the cheeks volume restoration. The study emphasizes the need for further well-designed RCTs to explore the long-term safety and durability of HA fillers. These findings contribute valuable insights for clinicians and patients in making evidence-based decisions regarding mid-face rejuvenation options.

Introduction: Once the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, the world was waiting for the clue that would be able to cut down the progression of the disease. Vaccines play a crucial role in reducing the disease and saving many people worldwide. However, there are several side effects of these vaccines, like pain, fatigue, fever, and neurological defects like Bell’s palsy. In this systematic review, we presented evidence about the occurrence of Bell’s palsy followed by COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, EBSCO, and Web of Science (WOS) from inception till October 2022. The quality assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute, National Institute of Health, and Newcastle-Ottawa. The analysis was conducted on SPSS. Results: Thirty-five records were involved in our study. The results of our cases revealed that most of the patients (62.8%) experienced unilateral facial paralysis. Also, the majority of the cases were reported after the first dose, and most cases were after Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik V vaccines, respectively. The patients who were treated with corticosteroids, IVIG, and anti-viral drugs, showed marked recovery afterward. Conclusion: The rate ratio of Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination was 25.3 per 1,000,000. The ratio was higher after the first dose compared to the second dose and was higher among those who took Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine compared to other vaccines. However, this condition was reported in a small number of cases among a large number of vaccinated people worldwide. It is important to note that the benefits of getting vaccinated far outweigh any potential risks.