Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
biorxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | bioRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.11.17.516989

ABSTRACT

The never-ending emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variations of concern (VOCs) has challenged the whole world for pandemic control. In order to develop effective drugs and vaccines, one needs to efficiently simulate SARS- CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain (RBD) mutations and identify high-risk variants. We pretrain a large pro- tein language model on approximately 408 million pro- tein sequences and construct a high-throughput screen- ing for the prediction of binding affinity and antibody escape. As the first work on SARS-CoV-2 RBD mu- tation simulation, we successfully identify mutations in the RBD regions of 5 VOCs and can screen millions of potential variants in seconds. Our workflow scales to 4096 NPUs with 96.5% scalability and 493.9X speedup in mixed precision computing, while achieving a peak performance of 366.8 PFLOPS (reaching 34.9% theo- retical peak) on Pengcheng Cloudbrain-II. Our method paves the way for simulating coronavirus evolution in or- der to prepare for a future pandemic that will inevitably take place.

3.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.04.17.20064444

ABSTRACT

Background: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is usually used as supportive therapy, but the treatment of COVID-19 by IVIG is controversial. This rapid review aims to explore the clinical effectiveness and safety of IVIG in the treatment of children with severe COVID-19. Methods: We systematically searched the literature on the use of IVIG in patients with COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), including both adults and children. We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence and reported the main findings descriptively. Results: A total of 1519 articles were identified by initial literature search, and finally six studies, included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), four case series and one case report involving 198 patients. One case series showed the survival of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was not improved by IVIG. One case report showed high-dose IVIG could improve the outcome of COVID-19 adults. Three observational studies showed inconsistent results of the effect of IVIG on SARS patients. One RCT showed that IVIG did not reduce mortality or the incidence of nosocomial infection in adults with severe SARS. The quality of evidence was between low and very low. Conclusions: The existing evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy or safety of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19. Keywords: COVID-19; children; intravenous immunoglobulin; rapid review.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , Cross Infection , COVID-19
4.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.04.13.20064378

ABSTRACT

Abstract Background: Existing recommendations on whether mothers with COVID-19 should continue breastfeeding are still conflicting. We aimed to conduct a rapid review of mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19 during breastfeeding. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and preprint articles up to March 2020. We included studies relevant to transmission through milk and respiratory droplets during breastfeeding of mothers with COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 4481 records were identified in our literature search. Six studies (five case reports and one case series) involving 58 mothers (16 mothers with COVID-19, 42 mothers with influenza) and their infants proved eligible. Five case reports showed that the viral nucleic acid tests for all thirteen collected samples of breast milk from mothers with COVID-19 were negative. A case series of 42 influenza infected postpartum mothers taking precautions (hand hygiene and wearing masks) before breastfeeding showed that no neonates were infected with influenza during one-month of follow-up. Conclusions: The current evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleic acid has not been detected in breast milk. The benefits of breastfeeding may outweigh the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in infants. Mothers with COVID-19 should take appropriate precautions to reduce the risk of transmission via droplets and close contact during breastfeeding. Keywords: Breastfeeding; COVID-19; infant; mother-to-child transmission; rapid Review.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , Breast Neoplasms
5.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.03.17.20037432

ABSTRACT

Background No clinically proven effective antiviral strategy exists for the epidemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Umifenovir (Arbidol) (200mg*3/day) or Favipiravir (1600mg*2/first day followed by 600mg*2/day) for 10 days. The primary outcome was clinical recovery rate of Day 7. Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough, the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days. Results 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive Favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). Clinical recovery rate of Day 7 does not significantly differ between Favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (P=0.1396, difference of recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: -0.0305 to 0.2213). Favipiravir led to shorter latencies to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, P<0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, P<0.0001). No difference was observed of AOT or NMV rate (both P>0.05). The most frequently observed Favipiravir-associated adverse event was raised serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, P=0.0014). Conclusions Among patients with COVID-19, Favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinically recovery rate at Day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relief for pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused Favipiravir are mild and manageable. This trial is registered with Chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000030254).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , Fever
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL