Investigation on sleep-related cognition of Chinese health care workers during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID pandemic has brought tremendous negative effects on the mental health of health care workers, such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. We conducted this study to evaluate the sleep-related cognition of Chinese health care workers (HCWs) during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic and analyze its association with sleep quality, so as to provide scientific reference for improving sleep of HCWs. Patients and methods: A total of 404 HCWs from Yijishan Hospital of Wuhu City, China were enrolled in the study, selected by randomized cluster sampling in May 2020. We made a questionnaire to collect the general demographic information of the participants. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and a brief version of Dysfunctional Beliefs and Attitudes about Sleep Scale (DBAS-16) were used to measure sleep quality and sleep-related cognition, respectively. Results: The results showed that 312 HCWs (77.2%) had false beliefs and attitudes about sleep, while only 92 HCWs (22.8%) had correct beliefs about sleep. In addition, we found that those HCWs who were older, married, with a bachelor's degree or higher, nurses, more daily working hours (> 8 h) and monthly night shifts (≥ 5 times), had higher DBAS-16 scores (all p < 0.05). However, we did not find significant differences between men and women in DBAS-16 scores. According to the definition of PSQI, a total of 1/4 of the HCWs are poor sleepers and their DBAS-16 score was higher than good sleepers (t = 7.622, p < 0.001). In the end, we confirmed a positive correlation between sleep cognition and sleep quality (r = 0.392, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Our study revealed false beliefs and attitudes about sleep were prevalent among HCWs during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, and these false beliefs about sleep were closely correlated to sleep quality. We recommend fighting against these false beliefs about sleep.

Antibody persistence and safety after heterologous boosting with orally aerosolised Ad5-nCoV in individuals primed with two-dose CoronaVac previously: 12-month analyses of a randomized controlled trial.

Antibody persistence and safety up to 12 months of heterologous orally administered adenovirus type-5 vector-based COVID-19 vaccine (Ad5-nCoV) in individuals who were primed with two-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) previously, has not been reported yet. This randomized, open-label, single-centre trial included Chinese adults who have received two-dose CoronaVac randomized to low-dose or high-dose aerosolised Ad5-nCoV group, or CoronaVac group. In this report, we mainly evaluated the geometric mean titres (GMTs) of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against live wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus and omicron BA.4/5 pseudovirus at 12 months after the booster dose and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) till month 12. Of 419 participants, all were included in the safety analysis and 120 (28.64%) were included in the immunogenicity analysis. Serum NAb GMT against live wild-type SARS-CoV-2 was 204.36 (95% CI 152.91, 273.14) in the low-dose group and 171.38 (95% CI 121.27, 242.19) in the high-dose group at month 12, significantly higher than the GMT in the CoronaVac group (8.00 [95% CI 4.22, 15.17], p < 0.0001). Serum NAb GMT against omicron BA.4/5 pseudovirus was 40.97 (95% CI 30.15, 55.67) in the low-dose group and 35.08 (95% CI 26.31, 46.77) in the high-dose group at month 12, whereas the GMT in the CoronaVac group was below the lower limit of detection. No vaccine-related SAEs were observed. Orally administered aerosolised Ad5-nCoV following two-dose CoronaVac priming has a good safety profile and is persistently more immunogenic than three-dose CoronaVac within 12 months after the booster dose.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05043259..

CoronaVac: A review of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the inactivated vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

CoronaVac, also known as the Sinovac inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has been widely implemented in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. We summarized the results of clinical trials and real-world studies of CoronaVac in this review. The overall efficacy for the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 (before the emergence of variants of concern) using two doses of 3 µg CoronaVac was 67.7% (95% CI, 35.9% to 83.7%). Effectiveness in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths was more prominent than that in preventing COVID-19. A third dose inherited the effectiveness against non-variants of concern and increased effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes caused by omicron variants compared to two doses. Most adverse reactions were mild. Few vaccine-related serious adverse reactions have been reported. Moreover, three-dose regimen significantly increased the seroconversion levels of neutralizing antibodies against omicron as compared to two-dose regimen. This review of CoronaVac may provide a scientific basis for optimizing global immunization strategies.

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous boost immunization with an adenovirus type-5-vectored and protein-subunit-based COVID-19 vaccine (Convidecia/ZF2001): A randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heterologous boost vaccination has been proposed as an option to elicit stronger and broader, or longer-lasting immunity. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous immunization with a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (Convidecia, hereafter referred to as CV) and a protein-subunit-based COVID-19 vaccine (ZF2001, hereafter referred to as ZF). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, in which healthy adults aged 18 years or older, who have received 1 dose of Convidecia, with no history of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were recruited in Jiangsu, China. Sixty participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either 1 dose of ZF2001 or placebo control (trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV)) administered at 28 days after priming, and received the third injection with ZF2001 at 5 months, referred to as CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D28-M5) and CV/ZF (D0-M5) regimen, respectively. Sixty participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either 1 dose of ZF2001 or TIV administered at 56 days after priming, and received the third injection with ZF2001 at 6 months, referred to as CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D56-M6) and CV/ZF (D0-M6) regimen, respectively. Participants and investigators were masked to the vaccine received but not to the boosting interval. Primary endpoints were the geometric mean titer (GMT) of neutralizing antibodies against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and 7-day solicited adverse reactions. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Between April 7, 2021 and May 6, 2021, 120 eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive ZF2001/ZF2001 (n = 40) or TIV/ZF2001 (n = 20) 28 days and 5 months post priming, and receive ZF2001/ZF2001 (n = 40) or TIV/ZF2001 (n = 20) 56 days and 6 months post priming. Of them, 7 participants did not receive the third injection with ZF2001. A total of 26 participants (21.7%) reported solicited adverse reactions within 7 days post boost vaccinations, and all the reported adverse reactions were mild, with 13 (32.5%) in CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D28-M5) regimen, 7 (35.0%) in CV/ZF (D0- M5) regimen, 4 (10.0%) in CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D56-M6) regimen, and 2 (10.0%) in CV/ZF (D0-M6) regimen, respectively. At 14 days post first boost, GMTs of neutralizing antibodies in recipients receiving ZF2001 at 28 days and 56 days post priming were 18.7 (95% CI 13.7 to 25.5) and 25.9 (17.0 to 39.3), respectively, with geometric mean ratios of 2.0 (1.2 to 3.5) and 3.4 (1.8 to 6.4) compared to TIV. GMTs at 14 days after second boost of neutralizing antibodies increased to 107.2 (73.7 to 155.8) in CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D28-M5) regimen and 141.2 (83.4 to 238.8) in CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D56-M6) regimen. Two-dose schedules of CV/ZF (D0-M5) and CV/ZF (D0-M6) induced antibody levels comparable with that elicited by 3-dose schedules, with GMTs of 90.5 (45.6, 179.8) and 94.1 (44.0, 200.9), respectively. Study limitations include the absence of vaccine effectiveness in a real-world setting and current lack of immune persistence data. CONCLUSIONS: Heterologous boosting with ZF2001 following primary vaccination with Convidecia is more immunogenic than a single dose of Convidecia and is not associated with safety concerns. These results support flexibility in cooperating viral vectored and recombinant protein vaccines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study on Heterologous Prime-boost of Recombinant COVID-19 Vaccine (Ad5 Vector) and RBD-based Protein Subunit Vaccine; ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04833101.

Heterologous AD5-nCOV plus CoronaVac versus homologous CoronaVac vaccination: a randomized phase 4 trial.

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and the waning of vaccine-elicited neutralizing antibodies suggests that additional coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses may be needed for individuals who initially received CoronaVac. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the recombinant adenovirus type 5 (AD5)-vectored COVID-19 vaccine Convidecia as a heterologous booster versus those of CoronaVac as homologous booster in adults previously vaccinated with CoronaVac in an ongoing, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel-controlled phase 4 trial ( NCT04892459 ). Adults who had received two doses of CoronaVac in the past 3-6 months were vaccinated with Convidecia (n = 96) or CoronaVac (n = 102). Adults who had received one dose of CoronaVac in the past 1-3 months were also vaccinated with Convidecia (n = 51) or CoronaVac (n = 50). The co-primary endpoints were the occurrence of adverse reactions within 28 d after vaccination and geometric mean titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibodies against live wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus at 14 d after booster vaccination. Adverse reactions after vaccination were significantly more frequent in Convidecia recipients but were generally mild to moderate in all treatment groups. Heterologous boosting with Convidecia elicited significantly increased GMTs of neutralizing antibody against SARS-CoV-2 than homologous boosting with CoronaVac in participants who had previously received one or two doses of CoronaVac. These data suggest that heterologous boosting with Convidecia following initial vaccination with CoronaVac is safe and more immunogenic than homologous boosting.

Investigation on sleep quality in Chinese medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The aims of this study were to evaluate the situation of sleep quality among Chinese medical staff during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) to assess sleep quality among medical staff from 8 May 2020 to 22 May 2020 in People's Republic of China. A total of 101 (25%) participants were poor sleepers, while 303 (75%) were good sleepers, as defined by PSQI. The PSQI scores were higher in high age, married, master/doctor, nurse, and frequent night shifts groups when compared with those in middle and low age, unmarried and divorced/widowed, bachelor or below, clinician and other job, low frequency night shifts, respectively (all p < 0.01). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that higher PSQI score was positively associated with higher educational background, age, and more frequent night shifts (all p < 0.001). Sleep quality of medical staff should be improved, especially for high age, married, master/doctor, nurse, and frequent night shifts groups.

Effects of four types of integrated Chinese and Western medicines for the treatment of COVID-19 in China: a network meta-analysis

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE Various integrated Chinese and Western medicines might be beneficial for the treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of lung computed tomography (CT) of four integrated Chinese and Western medicines in the treatment of COVID-19 using network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS Multiple databases were consulted to find randomized controlled trials of four different types of integrated Chinese and Western medicines for the treatment of COVID-19. NMA was conducted on the data using Stata (13.0) software. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated. The studies included in this paper were divided into a control group (Western medicine) and an observation group (one of four integrated Chinese and Western medicines). RESULTS 5 eligible publications were identified. A total of 598 cases were included in the study, and the results showed that the four types of integrated Chinese and Western medicines (symptomatic and supportive care with Qingfei Touxie Fuzheng, Lianhua Qingke, and Xuebijing) were significantly superior (P &lt;0.05) to symptomatic and supportive care alone, except for symptomatic and supportive care with Lianhua Qingwen. The combination of symptomatic and supportive care with Lianhua Qingke had the highest probability of being the most clinically efficacious intervention, with a surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve of 85.7. CONCLUSIONS A combination of symptomatic and supportive care with Lianhua Qingke is the best option among the four integrated Chinese and Western medicines considered for the treatment of COVID-19. RESUMO OBJETIVO Vários medicamentos chineses e ocidentais integrados podem ser benéficos para o tratamento da COVID-19. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar a eficácia da tomografia computadorizada (TC) de pulmão de quatro medicamentos chineses e ocidentais integrados para o tratamento da COVID-19 usando uma meta-análise em rede (NMA). MÉTODOS Vários bancos de dados foram consultados para encontrar ensaios clínicos randomizados de quatro tipos diferentes de medicamentos chineses e ocidentais integrados para o tratamento da COVID-19. A NMA foi realizada nos dados usando o software Stata (13.0). O odds ratio (OR) foi calculado. Os estudos incluídos neste artigo foram divididos em um grupo de controle (medicina ocidental) e um grupo de observação (um dos quatro medicamentos chineses e ocidentais integrados). RESULTADOS 5 publicações elegíveis foram identificadas. Um total de 598 casos foram incluídos no estudo, e os resultados mostraram que os quatro tipos de medicamentos chineses e ocidentais integrados (tratamento sintomático e de suporte com Qingfei Touxie Fuzheng, Lianhua Qingke e Xuebijing) foram significativamente superiores (P &lt;0,05) a somente cuidados sintomáticos e de suporte, exceto cuidados sintomáticos e de suporte com Lianhua Qingwen. A combinação de cuidados sintomáticos e de suporte com Lianhua Qingke teve a maior probabilidade de ser a intervenção clinicamente mais eficaz, com uma superfície abaixo da curva de classificação cumulativa (SUCRA) de 85,7. CONCLUSÕES Uma combinação de tratamento sintomático e de suporte com Lianhua Qingke é a melhor opção entre os quatro medicamentos integrados chineses e ocidentais considerados para o tratamento de COVID-19.

Effects of four types of integrated Chinese and Western medicines for the treatment of COVID-19 in China: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE Various integrated Chinese and Western medicines might be beneficial for the treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of lung computed tomography (CT) of four integrated Chinese and Western medicines in the treatment of COVID-19 using network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS Multiple databases were consulted to find randomized controlled trials of four different types of integrated Chinese and Western medicines for the treatment of COVID-19. NMA was conducted on the data using Stata (13.0) software. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated. The studies included in this paper were divided into a control group (Western medicine) and an observation group (one of four integrated Chinese and Western medicines). RESULTS 5 eligible publications were identified. A total of 598 cases were included in the study, and the results showed that the four types of integrated Chinese and Western medicines (symptomatic and supportive care with Qingfei Touxie Fuzheng, Lianhua Qingke, and Xuebijing) were significantly superior (P < 0.05) to symptomatic and supportive care alone, except for symptomatic and supportive care with Lianhua Qingwen. The combination of symptomatic and supportive care with Lianhua Qingke had the highest probability of being the most clinically efficacious intervention, with a surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve of 85.7. CONCLUSIONS A combination of symptomatic and supportive care with Lianhua Qingke is the best option among the four integrated Chinese and Western medicines considered for the treatment of COVID-19.