Sufficient Sleep, Time of Vaccination, and Vaccine Efficacy: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence and a Proposal for COVID-19 Vaccination

Introduction: The emergence of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) sparked an unprecedented effort to develop effective vaccines against the disease. Some factors may boost the vaccine efficacy, including sufficient sleep and morning vaccination. We aimed to conduct a rapid systematic review to summarize data regarding the association between sleep and time of vaccination with immunity after vaccination. Materials and Methods: The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, and three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched up to March 12, 2022. Results: Eight studies were included regarding the sleep and immune response after vaccination, of them, five studies were on influenza, two studies on hepatitis A (HAV), and one study on hepatitis B. Accordingly, six out of eight studies found a positive correlation between sleep and immune response after vaccination. Regarding the time of vaccination, seven studies were eligible to be included (two studies on influenza, one study on HAV and influenza, one study on BCG, one study on hexavalent vaccine, and two studies on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine). Among them, four out of seven studies (including a study on SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine) reported the priorities of morning versus afternoon vaccination regarding antibody production and immune response after vaccination. Conclusion: Taken together, cumulative evidence suggests that sufficient sleep and vaccination in the morning could enhance the immune response after vaccination. Hence, modulating the time of vaccination and sufficient sleep could a be simple and applicable strategy for increasing vaccine efficacy. Future studies could be performed with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to investigate the effects of time of vaccination and sufficient sleep on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Are Blastocystis hominis and Cryptosporidium spp. playing a positive role in colorectal cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Intestinal protozoa Blastocystis hominis and Cryptosporidium spp. are two influential factors in intestinal complications and malignancies. In present study, we estimated the pooled prevalence and odds ratio (OR) of the two parasites in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and their possible association with the deadly disease.

Method

Our systematic search was conducted for published researches between January 1, 2000 and April 30, 2022 by using four international databases include Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science as well as Google scholar search engine. The random- and fixed-effects models were used to estimate the pooled prevalence, OR, and 95% confidence interval (CI) by comprehensive meta-analysis (V2.2, Bio stat) software. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied.

Results

Thirteen papers (seven case–control and six cross-sectional studies) for B. hominis/CRC and six papers (two case–control and four cross-sectional studies) for Cryptosporidium spp./CRC were eligible to include in data synthesis. Pooled prevalence of B. hominis and Cryptosporidium spp. in CRC patients was calculated to be 26.8% (95% CI 19.4–35.7%) and 12.7% (95% CI 6.8–22.5%), respectively. Based on case–control studies, significant difference was found between case and controls in both protozoa (B. hominis OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.39–3.18% vs. Cryptosporidium spp. OR 5.06; 95% CI 1.8–13.6%). Considering the Blastocystis subtypes, ST1 (5/6; 83.33% studies) and ST3 (5/6; 83.33% studies) had the highest number of reports in CRC patients. Regarding the Cryptosporidium species, only C. parvum and C. hominis were reported.

Conclusion

Given the significant prevalence of both parasites in CRC patients and their statistically significant association, there is a need to pay more attention to these two intestinal parasites in under treatment patients.

Propofol + Granisetron vs. Propofol + Metoclopramide in Symptom Management of Acute Migraine Headache; a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

Acute headache is one of the most common reasons for emergency department (ED) visits. This study aimed to compare the combination of propofol and granisetron with propofol and metoclopramide in symptom management of acute migraine headache.

Methods

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 60 adult patients with acute migraine headache who referred to ED were randomly divided into two groups of propofol + metoclopramide and propofol + granisetron. Pain and nausea/vomiting severity as well as blood pressure were compared between groups 30, 45, and 60 minutes after treatment.

Results

The two groups had similar situation regarding mean age (p = 0.606), sex distribution (p = 0.793), baseline severity of pain (p = 0.642), frequency of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.488), and vital signs (p > 0.05). The severity of pain was similar in the two groups 30 (p = 0.731), 45 (p = 0.460), and 60 (p = 0.712) minutes after treatment. The number of patients with resistant nausea and vomiting 60 minutes after treatment was significantly higher in metoclopramide group (30.0% versus 10.0%; p = 0.033). Diastolic pressure 60 minutes after treatment (81.43 ±8.94 vs. 74.97 ± 4.8; p = 0.001) and heart rate 30 minutes after treatment (68.87 ±6.52 vs. 73.57± 7.62; p = 0.013) had statistically significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

The combination of propofol and granisetron was superior to propofol and metoclopramide in case of controlling nausea and vomiting of cases with acute migraine headache; meanwhile, no differences were observed in case of pain relief and hemodynamic status between the two groups.