Background: With the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inability of healthcare systems to control the disease, various therapeutic theories with controversial responses have been proposed. Plasmapheresis was administered as a medication.However, the knowledge of its efficacy and indications is inadequate. This study evaluated the use of plasmapheresis in critically ill patients with cancer. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 86 patients with malignancies, including a control group (N=41) and an intervention group (N=45) with severe COVID-19 during 2020-21. Both groups were treated with routine medications for COVID-19 management according to national guidelines, and plasmapheresis was applied to the intervention group. C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, hemoglobin, and white blood cell, polymorphonuclear, lymphocyte, and platelet levels were measured at admission and at the end of plasmapheresis. Other variables included neutrophil recovery, intensive care unit admission, intubation requirements, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization outcomes. Results: CRP (P ＜0.001), D-dimer (P ＜0.001), ferritin (P =0.039), and hemoglobin (P =0.006) levels were significantly different between the groups after the intervention. Neutrophil recovery was remarkably higher in the case than in the control group (P ＜0.001). However, plasmapheresis did not affect the length of hospital stay (P =0.076), which could have significantly increased survival rates (P ＜0.001). Conclusion Based on the study findings, plasmapheresis led to a significant improvement in laboratory markers and survival rate in patients with severe COVID-19. These findings reinforce the value of plasmapheresis in cancer patients as a critical population suffering from neutropenia and insufficient immune responses.

Co-infection with hepatitis B and C among HIV infected patients are prevalent among high-risk populations. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence of HIV, HCV and HBV co-infections among high-risk populations in Iran. We systematically searched the national and international electronic databases until 2016. The primary outcome was the prevalence of HIV, HBV, HCV and HIV co-infections in different high-risk populations in Iran. All English and Persian studies conducted on Iranian high-risk groups were included in the study. The review was reported based on PRISMA guidelines and data were analysed at 95% confidence level using random effect models.Overall, 916 relevant papers were recognised and 14 articles were included in the metaanalysis. The pooled estimates of HBV/HCV, HCV/HIV, HBV/HIV and HBV/HCV/HIV were 1.3% (95%CI: 0.5–2.1), 16.3% (95%CI: 1.1–31.6), 0.5% (95%CI: 0–1.4) and 0.5% (95%CI: 0.2–0.8), respectively. Based on subgroup analysis, there was a higher proportion of all co-infections from the years 2010–2016 as compared to that of the years 2003–2009. Our results highlighted that HCV/HIV co-infection in Iranian high-risk groups including injection drug users (IDUs) and prisoners is common. In addition, the increasing trend of coinfections should be considered alarming for policymakers.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the specificity, sensitivity, cost, and turn-around time of three methods of gene polymorphism analysis and to study the relationship between IL28B rs12979860 and SVR rate to pegIFN-α/RVB therapy among patients with chronic hepatitis C. Methods: A total of 100 samples from chronic hepatitis C patients were analyzed in parallel using the three methods: direct sequencing, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS)-PCR. Results: The different profiles for IL28B rs12979860 alleles (CC, CT, and TT) obtained with PCR-RFLP, ARMS-PCR, and direct sequencing were consistent among the three methods. Prevalence of rs12979860 genotypes CC, CT and TT in HCV genotype 1a was 10(19.6%), 35(68.6%), and six (11.8%), respectively, and in HCV genotype 31, it was 13(26.5%), 31(63.3%), and five (10.2%), respectively. No significant difference was seen between rs12979860 genotype and HCV genotype (p = 0.710). Conclusion Screening by ARMS – PCR SNOP detection represents the most efficient and reliable method to determine HCV polymorphisms in routine clinical practice.