Acute diarrhea is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children under five. Probiotics are beneficial for treating acute diarrhea in children, but unclear which specific probiotic is the most effective. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to examine the comparative effectiveness of probiotics. By searching EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library up to 31 March 2021, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on probiotics for treating acute diarrhea in children were included. Primary outcomes included the duration of diarrhea and diarrhea lasting ≥2 days, and secondary outcomes included the mean stool frequency on day 2 and duration of hospitalization, fever, and vomiting. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of outcomes according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guideline. Eighty-four studies with twenty-one different interventions in 13,443 children were included. For the primary outcomes, moderate evidence indicated that, Lactobacillus reuteri [mean difference (MD) = −0.84 day; 95% confidence interval (CI), −1.39, −0.29], Bifidobacterium lactis (MD = −0.98 day; 95%CI, −1.82, −0.14), Saccharomyces boulardii (MD = −1.25 day; 95%CI, −1.59, −0.91), Lactobacillus species (spp.) plus Bifidobacterium spp. plus Saccharomyces spp. (MD = −1.19 day; 95%CI, −1.81, −0.58), and Bacillus spp. plus Enterococcus spp. plus Clostridium spp. (MD = −1.1 day; 95%CI, −1.84, −0.35) significantly reduced the duration of diarrhea when compared with placebo. Saccharomyces boulardii [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.22; 95%CI, 0.11, 0.41] and Lactobacillus reuteri (OR = 0.23; 95%CI, 0.090, 0.60) significantly reduced the risk of diarrhea lasting ≥2 days when compared with placebo or no treatment, with moderate evidence. Among all probiotics, Saccharomyces boulardii may be the most effective in reducing both duration of diarrhea (compared with placebo) and risk of diarrhea lasting ≥2 days (compared with placebo or no treatment), with moderate evidence. To be conclusive, Saccharomyces boulardii may be the most effective probiotic for treating acute diarrhea in children, followed by several other single-strain and multi-strain probiotics.

Background: Gynecological cancers, including cervical cancer, ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer are leading causes of cancer-related death in women worldwide. Diet plays an important role in cancer development, which is widely accepted. However, the associations between dietary intakes and gynecological cancers remain unclear. Methods: A total of 12,437 women aged over 20 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), conducted from 2007–2016, were included in this study. The relationships between 30 dietary factors (4 macronutrients, 15 vitamins, 9 minerals, caffeine and alcohol) and gynecological cancers were assessed. Results: We observed negative correlations of intakes of phosphorus (odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI); 0.998 (0.996, 0.999), p = 0.002) with cervical cancer, and intakes of vitamin B12 (0.812 (0.714, 0.925), p = 0.002), phosphorus (0.997 (0.996, 0.999), p < 0.001) and alcohol (0.971 (0.950, 0.992), p = 0.009) with endometrial cancer. The data showed positive associations of intake of caffeine (1.002 (1.001, 1.003), p = 0.003) with cervical cancer, and intake of copper (2.754 (1.313, 5.778), p = 0.009) with endometrial cancer. In addition, we found potential negative correlations between intake of vitamin B1 (p = 0.025) and cervical cancer; zinc (p = 0.048) and ovarian cancer; and potassium (p = 0.032) and endometrial cancer. Potential positive associations were found between intake of calcium and cervical cancer (p = 0.026) and endometrial cancer (p = 0.034), and between sodium (p = 0.042) and endometrial cancer. Intakes of protein, total sugars, total fat, cholesterol, vitamin A, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin, lycopene, vitamin B2, niacin, vitamin B6, food folate, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, magnesium, iron and selenium showed no relationship with gynecological cancers (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Specific dietary factors were associated with gynecological cancers. More epidemiological studies are needed to validate our results.

Oncolytic virotherapy is a promising antitumor therapeutic strategy. It is based on the ability of viruses to selectively kill cancer cells and induce host antitumor immune responses. However, the clinical outcomes of oncolytic viruses (OVs) vary widely. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to illustrate the efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 31 January 2020. The data for objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were independently extracted by two investigators from 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In subgroup analyses, the objective response rate benefit was observed in patients treated with oncolytic DNA viruses (odds ratio (OR) = 4.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96–8.33; p = 0.0002), but not in those treated with oncolytic RNA viruses (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Moreover, the intratumoral injection arm yielded a statistically significant improvement (OR = 4.05, 95% CI: 1.96–8.33, p = 0.0002), but no such improvement was observed for the intravenous injection arm (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Among the five OVs investigated in RCTs, only talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) effectively prolonged the OS of patients (hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; p = 0.04). None of the oncolytic virotherapies improved the PFS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85–1.19, p = 0.96). Notably, the pooled rate of severe AEs (grade ≥3) was higher for the oncolytic virotherapy group (39%) compared with the control group (27%) (risk difference (RD), 12%; risk ratio (RR), 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17–1.78; p = 0.0006). This review offers a reference for fundamental research and clinical treatment of oncolytic viruses. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these results.

Observational studies have shown increased COVID-19 risk among cancer patients, but the causality has not been proven yet. Mendelian randomization analysis can use the genetic variants, independently of confounders, to obtain causal estimates which are considerably less confounded. We aimed to investigate the causal associations of cancers with COVID-19 outcomes using the MR analysis. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method was employed as the primary analysis. Sensitivity analyses and multivariable MR analyses were conducted. Notably, IVW analysis of univariable MR revealed that overall cancer and twelve site-specific cancers had no causal association with COVID-19 severity, hospitalization or susceptibility. The corresponding p-values for the casual associations were all statistically insignificant: overall cancer (p = 0.34; p = 0.42; p = 0.69), lung cancer (p = 0.60; p = 0.37; p = 0.96), breast cancer (p = 0.43; p = 0.74; p = 0.43), endometrial cancer (p = 0.79; p = 0.24; p = 0.83), prostate cancer (p = 0.54; p = 0.17; p = 0.58), thyroid cancer (p = 0.70; p = 0.80; p = 0.28), ovarian cancer (p = 0.62; p = 0.96; p = 0.93), melanoma (p = 0.79; p = 0.45; p = 0.82), small bowel cancer (p = 0.09; p = 0.08; p = 0.19), colorectal cancer (p = 0.85; p = 0.79; p = 0.30), oropharyngeal cancer (p = 0.31; not applicable, NA; p = 0.80), lymphoma (p = 0.51; NA; p = 0.37) and cervical cancer (p = 0.25; p = 0.32; p = 0.68). Sensitivity analyses and multivariable MR analyses yielded similar results. In conclusion, cancers might have no causal effect on increasing COVID-19 risk. Further large-scale population studies are needed to validate our findings.

Picornaviruses are associated with acute and chronic diseases. The clinical manifestations of infections are often mild, but infections may also lead to respiratory symptoms, gastroenteritis, myocarditis, meningitis, hepatitis, and poliomyelitis, with serious impacts on human health and economic losses in animal husbandry. Thus far, research on picornaviruses has mainly focused on structural proteins such as VP1, whereas the non-structural protein 2B, which plays vital roles in the life cycle of the viruses and exhibits a viroporin or viroporin-like activity, has been overlooked. Viroporins are viral proteins containing at least one amphipathic α-helical structure, which oligomerizes to form transmembrane hydrophilic pores. In this review, we mainly summarize recent research data on the viroporin or viroporin-like activity of 2B proteins, which affects the biological function of the membrane, regulates cell death, and affects the host immune response. Considering these mechanisms, the potential application of the 2B protein as a candidate target for antiviral drug development is discussed, along with research challenges and prospects toward realizing a novel treatment strategy for picornavirus infections.