The current pandemic coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is still a global medical and economic emergency with over 244 million confirmed infections and over 4.95 million deaths by October 2021, in less than 2 years. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS), and COVID-19 are three recent coronavirus pandemics with major medical and economic implications. Currently, there is no effective treatment for these infections. One major pathological hallmark of these infections is the so-called 'cytokine storm,' which depicts an unregulated production of inflammatory cytokines inducing detrimental inflammation leading to organ injury and multiple organ failure including severe pulmonary, cardiovascular, and kidney failure in COVID-19. Several studies have suggested the potential of curcumin to inhibit the replication of some viruses similar to coronaviruses. Multiple experimental and clinical studies also reported the anti-inflammatory potential of curcumin in multiple infectious and inflammatory disorders. Thus, we hypothesized that curcumin may provide antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects for treating COVID-19. Although these studies suggest that curcumin could serve as an adjuvant treatment for COVID-19, its molecular mechanisms are still debated, especially its potential to modulate the toll-like receptors/TIR-domain-containing adapter-inducing interferon-β/nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (TLR/TRIF/NF-κB) pathway. The preliminary results showed that curcumin modulates the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) pathway, a common pathway controlling cytokine production in multiple infectious and inflammatory disorders. Here, we hypothesize and discuss whether curcumin treatment may provide antiviral and anti-inflammatory clinical advantages for treating COVID-19 by modulating the TLR/TRIF/NF-κB pathway. We also review the current data on curcumin and discuss potential experimental and clinical studies that require defining its potential clinical implications in COVID-19.

This is a comprehensive review based on the published papers in the field of COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination. Many efforts have been made to develop vaccines to combat this pandemic. Since December 2020, more than 200 vaccines have been tested in various research stages and in clinical trials on humans, of which eight vaccines reached phase four clinical trials in humans and approved by FDA and EUA. After the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine that had the highest efficacy (95%), the efficacy of the other vaccines are as follows: Moderna 94.5%, Sputnik V 91%, Novavax 89.7%, Sinopharm 79.3%, Oxford/AstraZenaca 70.4%, Johnson and Johnson 66.9%, and Sinovac 50.7%. At present, protein-based vaccines, with 35% of all available COVID-19 vaccines, are the most common technique in the vaccine production, and then there are vaccines of non-replicating viral vector (13.3%), mRNA1 (12.1%), DNA (10.2%), replicating viral vector (9.8%), and inactivated vaccines (8.2%). The most frequently recognized adverse effects within 7 days of each vaccine dose involved fever, fatigue, headache, chill, and myalgia. The mRNA-based vaccines were associated with a higher occurrence of local side effects (78.3 vs. 70.4%; Sig. = 0.064), whereas the viral vector-based vaccine was associated with a higher prevalence of systemic side effects (87.2 vs. 61%; Sig. < 0.001). Based on the evidence and articles in the field of vaccination, AstraZeneca-Oxford and Sinopharm vaccines reported the highest and lowest side effects, respectively. Because of being emerging, pathogenicity, and high infectivity of COVID-19, vaccination against the disease to prevent its incident rate and decrease the prevalence rate is recommended immediately. Being informed of various aspects of the existing vaccines such as efficacy, effectiveness, safety, etc.can accelerate to make effective and useful choices and consequently have a vaccinated community against the epidemic.

Background: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a mysterious and highly infectious disease that was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The virus poses a great threat to global health and the economy. Currently, in the absence of effective treatment or vaccine, leveraging advanced digital technologies is of great importance. In this respect, the Internet of Things (IoT) is useful for smart monitoring and tracing of COVID-19. Therefore, in this study, we have reviewed the literature available on the IoT-enabled solutions to tackle the current COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: This systematic literature review was conducted using an electronic search of articles in the PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases to formulate a complete view of the IoT-enabled solutions to monitoring and tracing of COVID-19 according to the FITT (Fit between Individual, Task, and Technology) model. Results: In the literature review, 28 articles were identified as eligible for analysis. This review provides an overview of technological adoption of IoT in COVID-19 to identify significant users, either primary or secondary, required technologies including technical platform, exchange, processing, storage and added-value technologies, and system tasks or applications at “on-body,” “in-clinic/hospital,” and even “in-community” levels. Conclusions: The use of IoT along with advanced intelligence and computing technologies for ubiquitous monitoring and tracking of patients in quarantine has made it a critical aspect in fighting the spread of the current COVID-19 and even future pandemics.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen responsible for an acute respiratory disease designated COIVD-19, which has spread throughout the world. Despite all the struggles with this virus, still, the majority of societies are affected by COVID-19, which raises many questions such as are these ways of management enough, which is crucial in order to contain the virus spread, and which is not effective. In this systemic review, we tried to summarize the data on different ways of managing COVID-19 outbreaks. Through understanding the efficacy and downsides of different approaches to manage COVID-19, public health officials, governing bodies, and health care administrators may be better equipped with the tools necessary to best manage COVID-19 and pandemics. Methods: This systematic review was carried out by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. Articles were selected using several databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, all peer-reviewed and published articles from December 1, 2019 to April 23, 2020 that met the inclusion criteria were selected. Results: The majority of the included articles were mathematical modeling, cohort studies (n = 9), cross-sectional (n = 6), and one case series. Most articles originated from China and then Singapore. The measures that have been practiced in these articles consisted of close contact tracing and case isolation, quarantine, strict surveillance, lockdown, and travel surveillance. Conclusions: The most effective approach is at least the combination of case detection and isolation, and contact tracing or containment measures. In the literature, travel controls seem to be ineffective, personal hygiene should be tough and emphasized.

Despite the reduction of mortality secondary to cardiovascular diseases observed in the last decades, ischemic heart disease remains the most common cause of death worldwide. Among the spectrum of ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction accounts for most deaths. Since the introduction of the coronary care units in the 1960s, and until the latest antithrombotic drugs, myocardial infarction survival improved by 40–50%. However long-term mortality after myocardial infarction has not improved as short-term mortality. Moreover, the decline of mortality has apparently reached a “plateau” in the past 15 years. In this review we describe the steps of the improvement in ischemic heart disease mortality, from the bed rest to the possible future of treating microcirculation. In fact, coronary artery disease is not only a disease of large vessels that can be visualized with coronary angiography. The small network of pre-arterioles and arterioles that supply the myocardium can be also affected in ischemic heart disease. Thus, despite the introduction of effective recanalization strategies for epicardial coronary arteries such as thrombolysis and, more recently, primary percutaneous intervention, some patients may not achieve effective myocardial reperfusion due to microvascular dysfunction or damage after myocardial myocardial infarction. This phenomenon is named no reflow. We believe that no reflow, through the incomplete reperfusion that can account for a higher rate of adverse event in the follow up, should be regarded as one of the open issues in the modern treatment of myocardial infarction.

Background: Health managers often do not have adequate information for decision making on what strategy makes an effective impact on suicide prevention. Despite the availability of global Suicide Prevention Programs (SPP), no previous investigation has developed combinations of a review study with expert opinions. This study was aimed to identify effective programs for suicide prevention. Methods: We used two methods for selecting the effective SPP. (1) review of systematic reviews: we systematically searched to find relevant review studies through Medline, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and gray literatures. (2) Expert panel opinions: effective programs identified from the previous step were combined with expert views via the Hanlon method. Results: A total of 27 since some of them were reports met the inclusion criteria. After full-text screening 9 records included. We found the following 12 SPP for prioritizing and rating the most effective interventions by an expert panel: (1) case management of Suicide Attempters (SAs), (2) identification and treatment of depression, (3) registry for suicide, (4) identifying local determinants of Suicidal behavior (SB), (5) public awareness campaigns, (6) gatekeepers' training, (7) conducting research, (8) school-based training, (9) improving knowledge and attitudes, (10) restricting access to means, (11) at-risk people screening, (12) mass media. Conclusions: Seven effective SPP identified after combined 12 included interventions with expert panel opinion: (1) Case management of SAs, (2) Identification and treatment of depression, (3) Improving a registry for suicide, (4) Identifying local determinants of SB, (5) Public awareness campaigns, (6) Training gatekeepers, and (7) Conducting research.

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most frequent cancer in Iranian females. Due to the changes in lifestyle and reproductive risk factors, the BC incidence rate has been rapidly increasing. Knowing risk factors of BC could significantly contribute to improve preventive behaviors. To investigate the relationship between menstrual and reproductive factors and BC in Iranian female population. Methods: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SID as well as references of included studies were searched. Among relevant published observational studies, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled risk estimates for the risk factors were determined using random-effects models due to the presence of substantial heterogeneity (P < 0.05). Results: All of the selected studies had case–control design. There was a positive relationship between maternal age at first pregnancy and risk of BC (OR = 1.79 95% CI: 1.36–2.35). Also, menopausal status was associated with higher risk of BC (OR = 1.60 95% CI: 1.18–2.17), whereas, there was no association between menarche age and increased risk of BC (OR = 0.55 95% CI: 0.29–1.03). History of abortion (OR = 1.21 95% CI: 0.97–1.5), nulliparity (OR = 1.43 95% CI: 0.89–2.31), and breastfeeding history (OR = 0.68 95% CI: 0.42–1.09) were not associated with BC risk. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that age at the first pregnancy and menopausal status were significantly associated with BC risk among Iranian women, whereas menarche age, nulliparity, and history of breastfeeding were not. In regard to the history of abortion, our findings revealed no association with BC, but in high-quality studies, this relationship was significant.