To provide a comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis regarding the cumulative incidence (incidence proportion) of human herpesvirus (HHV) reactivation among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE up to 25 September 2022, with no language restrictions. All interventional and observational studies enrolling patients with confirmed COVID‐19 and providing data regarding HHV reactivation were included. The random‐effects model was used in the meta‐analyses. We included information from 32 studies. HHV reactivation was considered a positive polymerase chain reaction result taken at the time of COVID‐19 infection. Most of the included patients were severe COVID‐19 cases. The pooled cumulative incidence estimate was 38% (95% Confidence Intervals [CI], 28%–50%, I2 = 86%) for herpes simplex virus (HSV), 19% (95% CI, 13%–28%, I2 = 87%) for cytomegalovirus (CMV), 45% (95% CI, 28%–63%, I2 = 96%) for Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV), 18% (95% CI, 8%–35%) for human herpesvirus 6 (HHV‐6), 44% (95% CI, 32%–56%) for human herpesvirus 7 (HHV‐7), and 19% (95% CI, 14%–26%) for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV‐8). There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry based on visual inspection and Egger's regression test for the results of HSV (p = 0.84), CMV (p = 0.82), and EBV (p = 0.27) reactivation. In conclusion, the identification of HHV reactivation in severe COVID‐19 patients is helpful in the management of patients as well as the prevention of complications. Further research is required to elucidate the interaction between HHVs and COVID‐19. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022321973.

Background We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence. Methods MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria. Results 19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR − 0.27 [95% CI − 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI − 0.18–0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI − 0.22–0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD − 0.40 [95% CI − 0.85–0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD − 0.36 [95% CI − 0.89–0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR − 0.67 [95% CI − 1.20 to − 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality. Conclusion Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.

Context: Iran was one of the first countries in the world to encounter acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in February 2020. Numerous efforts have been made worldwide to develop safe and effective vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Finally, several vaccines with different platforms have been licensed for use in various countries. The injection of these vaccines can lead to a range of unwanted side effects (mild to severe). Objectives: This study tried to collect the common adverse effects of the most frequently used COVID-19 vaccines in Iran and provide readers with relevant information and statistics. Methods: This review study collected papers by searching in foreign journals using databases, such as PubMed, PubMed Central, MEDLINE, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Embase, with the keywords of side effects, COVID-19, vaccine, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V, and Sinopharm, which were published within 2000-2021. Results: According to available information and studies, vaccines, unlike COVID-19, do not have any threatening and high-risk side effects, and their benefits outweigh their insignificant side effects. A total of 48 full-text studies and 10 valid websites with high citations and up-to-date information were selected. Among the relevant references, 26, 16, and 16 studies performed on AstraZeneca, Sputnik V, and Sinopharm vaccines were chosen for review, respectively. Conclusions: The findings of this study can reassure readers and be effective in combating misconceptions about vaccination. Undoubtedly, the main solution to overcome the economic damage and social health burden caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is to accelerate global vaccination.