An investigation of a family COVID-19 cluster / 上海预防医学

Objective To investigate epidemic characteristics of a family cluster of COVID-19, and to provide reference in improving the criteria for exclusion diagnosis and medical observation of close contacts. Methods Field epidemiological method was used to investigate the cases and close contacts of a family cluster of COVID-19 in Pudong New Area.Descriptive analysis was conducted on epidemiological data.Real-time fluorescence quantitative RT-PCR was used to detect 2019-nCoV nucleic acid in the respiratory tract specimens. Results There were two confirmed cases and one suspected case in the family cluster.The source of infection was Case 1 with a living history in Wuhan, Hubei Province.Case 2 and Case 3, as close contacts, received 14-day medical observation in a centralized isolation site.Case 2 showed symptoms 4 days after the onset of Case 1, and the diagnosis of COVID-19 was excluded after two negative nucleic acid tests during the isolation period.However, after the expiration of isolation, Case 2 was diagnosed positively for COVID-19 and Case 3 was suspected first and then excluded. Conclusion Daily close contact is critical for COVID-19 transmission and is the major cause of family clustering.Once the close contacts show symptoms, diagnosis should be made by combining the results of nucleic acid test, chest CT test, serological test, etc.We suggest to grade the risk of infection for close contacts, and to strengthen the standard of medical observation for close contacts with high risk of infection.

Comparison of parathyroid hormone (1-34) and elcatonin in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: an 18-month randomized, multicenter controlled trial in China / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Recombinant human parathyroid hormone (1-34) (rhPTH (1-34)) is the first agent in a unique class of anabolic therapies acting on the skeleton. The efficacy and safety of long-term administration of rhPTH (1-34) in Chinese postmenopausal women had not been evaluated. This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of rhPTH (1-34) with elcatonin for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in 11 urban areas of China.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A total of 453 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were enrolled in an 18-month, multi-center, randomized, controlled study. They were randomized to receive either rhPTH (1-34) 20 µg (200 U) daily for 18 months, or elcatonin 20 U weekly for 12 months. Lumbar spine (L1-4) and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), fracture rate, back pain as well as biochemical markers of bone turnover were measured. Adverse events were recorded.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>rhPTH (1-34) increased lumbar BMD significantly more than did elcatonin after 6, 12, and 18 months of treatment (4.3% vs. 1.9%, 6.8% vs. 2.7%, 9.5% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.01). There was only a small but significant increase of femoral neck BMD after 18 months (2.6%, P < 0.01) in rhPTH groups. There were larger increases in bone turnover markers in the rhPTH (1-34) group than those in the elcatonin group after 6, 12, and 18 months (serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) 93.7% vs. -3.6%; 117.8% vs. -4.1%; 49.2% vs. -5.8%, P < 0.01; urinary C-telopeptide/creatinine (CTX/Cr) 250.0% vs. -29.5%; 330.0% vs. -41.4%, 273.0% vs. -10.6%, P < 0.01). rhPTH (1-34) showed similar effect of pain relief as elcatonin. The incidence of clinical fractures was 5.36% (6/112) in elcatonin group and 3.2% (11/341) in rhPTH (1-34) group (P = 0.303). Both treatments were well tolerated. Hypercaluria (9.4%) and hypercalcemia (7.0%) in rhPTH (1-34) group were transient and caused no clinical symptoms. Pruritus (8.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.044) and redness of injection site (4.4% vs. 0, P = 0.024) were more frequent in rhPTH (1-34). Nausea/vomiting (16.1% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.001) and hot flushes (7.1% vs. 0.6%, P < 0.001) were more common in elcatonin group.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>rhPTH (1-34) was associated with greater increases in lumbar spine BMD and bone formation markers. It could increase femoral BMD after 18 months of treatment. rhPTH could improve back pain effectively. The results of the present study indicate that rhPTH (1-34) is an effective, safe agent in treating Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.</p>

A randomized, multicenter controlled trial to compare the efficacy of recombinant human parathyroid hormone (1-34) with elcatonin in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in China / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Recombinant human parathyroid hormone (1-34) (rhPTH (1-34)) given by injection is a new seventh class drug of biological products, which is prepared by adopting gene recombination technique. rhPTH (1-34) is mainly used to treat osteoporosis, especially for postmenopausal women. This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of rhPTH (1-34) with elcatonin for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in 11 urban areas of China.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Two hundred and five women with osteoporosis were enrolled in a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, controlled study. They were randomized to receive either rhPTH (1-34) 20 microg (200 U) daily or elcatonin 20 U weekly. Lumbar spine (L1-4) and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), as well as biochemical markers of bone turnover were measured. Adverse events were recorded.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>rhPTH (1-34) increased lumbar BMD significantly more than did elcatonin at 3 months and 6 months (2.38% vs 0.59%, P < 0.05; 5.51% vs 1.55%, P < 0.01), but there were no significant increases of BMD in these two groups at femoral neck. There were larger mean increases in bone markers in the rhPTH (1-34) group than in the elcatonin group at 3 months and 6 months (serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) 36.79% vs 0.31%; 92.42% vs -0.17%; urinary N-telopeptide/creatinine (NTX/Cr) 48.91% vs -5.32%; 68.82% vs -10.86%). Both treatments were well tolerated and there were no significant differences detected between the two groups in the proportion of any adverse events and any serious adverse events (67.0% vs 59.0%; 0 vs 0).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>rhPTH (1-34) has more positive effects on bone formation, as shown by the larger increments of lumbar BMD and bone formation markers, than elcatonin, with only mild adverse events and no significant change in the liver, kidney or hematological indices.</p>