Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 19 de 19
Filter
2.
Science ; 380(6640): 11, 2023 04 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2285172

ABSTRACT

When the first cases of human infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were reported from Wuhan, China, in December 2019, there was quick agreement across scientific and health communities that understanding the facts about its emergence would help prevent future outbreaks. Never could I have imagined the degree of politicization that would cloud this quest. Over the past 39 months, while reported deaths from COVID-19 increased to nearly 7 million worldwide, science on the virus's origins has gotten smaller while the politics surrounding this question has grown ever bigger. Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) learned that scientists in China possessed data on viral samples from Wuhan that had been gathered in January 2020, which should have been shared immediately-not 3 years later-with the global research community. The lack of data disclosure is simply inexcusable. The longer it takes to understand the origins of the pandemic, the harder it becomes to answer the question, and the more unsafe the world becomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Information Dissemination , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , World Health Organization
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 72(5): 113-118, 2023 Feb 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2226323

ABSTRACT

After the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019, transmission expanded globally, and on January 30, 2020, COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency of international concern.* Analysis of the early Wuhan, China outbreak (1), subsequently confirmed by multiple other studies (2,3), found that 80% of deaths occurred among persons aged ≥60 years. In anticipation of the time needed for the global vaccine supply to meet all needs, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) Values Framework and a roadmap for prioritizing use of COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020 (4,5), followed by a strategy brief to outline urgent actions in October 2021.† WHO described the general principles, objectives, and priorities needed to support country planning of vaccine rollout to minimize severe disease and death. A July 2022 update to the strategy brief§ prioritized vaccination of populations at increased risk, including older adults,¶ with the goal of 100% coverage with a complete COVID-19 vaccination series** for at-risk populations. Using available public data on COVID-19 mortality (reported deaths and model estimates) for 2020 and 2021 and the most recent reported COVID-19 vaccination coverage data from WHO, investigators performed descriptive analyses to examine age-specific mortality and global vaccination rollout among older adults (as defined by each country), stratified by country World Bank income status. Data quality and COVID-19 death reporting frequency varied by data source; however, persons aged ≥60 years accounted for >80% of the overall COVID-19 mortality across all income groups, with upper- and lower-middle-income countries accounting for 80% of the overall estimated excess mortality. Effective COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for use in December 2020, with global supply scaled up sufficiently to meet country needs by late 2021 (6). COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective in reducing severe COVID-19, hospitalizations, and mortality (7,8); nevertheless, country-reported median completed primary series coverage among adults aged ≥60 years only reached 76% by the end of 2022, substantially below the WHO goal, especially in middle- and low-income countries. Increased efforts are needed to increase primary series and booster dose coverage among all older adults as recommended by WHO and national health authorities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , World Health Organization
4.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 23(5): 556-567, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184728

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The global surge in the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has resulted in many individuals with hybrid immunity (immunity developed through a combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against infection and severe disease caused by the omicron variant. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched for cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO COVID-19 database, and Europe PubMed Central from Jan 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022, using keywords related to SARS-CoV-2, reinfection, protective effectiveness, previous infection, presence of antibodies, and hybrid immunity. The main outcomes were the protective effectiveness against reinfection and against hospital admission or severe disease of hybrid immunity, hybrid immunity relative to previous infection alone, hybrid immunity relative to previous vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity relative to hybrid immunity with fewer vaccine doses. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool. We used log-odds random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022318605). FINDINGS: 11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1-83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4-35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4-99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9-98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5-52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0-57·3) at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: All estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection, and as a result might be able to extend the period before booster vaccinations are needed compared to individuals who have never been infected. FUNDING: WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Reinfection/prevention & control , Adaptive Immunity
5.
PLoS Med ; 19(11): e1004107, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2116445

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization's Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies-those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol-were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Child , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics
6.
BMJ Glob Health ; 7(8)2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2001824

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Estimating COVID-19 cumulative incidence in Africa remains problematic due to challenges in contact tracing, routine surveillance systems and laboratory testing capacities and strategies. We undertook a meta-analysis of population-based seroprevalence studies to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Africa to inform evidence-based decision making on public health and social measures (PHSM) and vaccine strategy. METHODS: We searched for seroprevalence studies conducted in Africa published 1 January 2020-30 December 2021 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Europe PMC (preprints), grey literature, media releases and early results from WHO Unity studies. All studies were screened, extracted, assessed for risk of bias and evaluated for alignment with the WHO Unity seroprevalence protocol. We conducted descriptive analyses of seroprevalence and meta-analysed seroprevalence differences by demographic groups, place and time. We estimated the extent of undetected infections by comparing seroprevalence and cumulative incidence of confirmed cases reported to WHO. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. RESULTS: We identified 56 full texts or early results, reporting 153 distinct seroprevalence studies in Africa. Of these, 97 (63%) were low/moderate risk of bias studies. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose from 3.0% (95% CI 1.0% to 9.2%) in April-June 2020 to 65.1% (95% CI 56.3% to 73.0%) in July-September 2021. The ratios of seroprevalence from infection to cumulative incidence of confirmed cases was large (overall: 100:1, ranging from 18:1 to 954:1) and steady over time. Seroprevalence was highly heterogeneous both within countries-urban versus rural (lower seroprevalence for rural geographic areas), children versus adults (children aged 0-9 years had the lowest seroprevalence)-and between countries and African subregions. CONCLUSION: We report high seroprevalence in Africa suggesting greater population exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and potential protection against COVID-19 severe disease than indicated by surveillance data. As seroprevalence was heterogeneous, targeted PHSM and vaccination strategies need to be tailored to local epidemiological situations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Africa/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Europe , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies
7.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(5): 803-819, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895988

ABSTRACT

We aimed to estimate the household secondary infection attack rate (hSAR) of SARS-CoV-2 in investigations aligned with the WHO Unity Studies Household Transmission Investigations (HHTI) protocol. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and medRxiv/bioRxiv for "Unity-aligned" First Few X cases (FFX) and HHTIs published 1 December 2019 to 26 July 2021. Standardised early results were shared by WHO Unity Studies collaborators (to 1 October 2021). We used a bespoke tool to assess investigation methodological quality. Values for hSAR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted or calculated from crude data. Heterogeneity was assessed by visually inspecting overlap of CIs on forest plots and quantified in meta-analyses. Of 9988 records retrieved, 80 articles (64 from databases; 16 provided by Unity Studies collaborators) were retained in the systematic review; 62 were included in the primary meta-analysis. hSAR point estimates ranged from 2% to 90% (95% prediction interval: 3%-71%; I 2 = 99.7%); I 2 values remained >99% in subgroup analyses, indicating high, unexplained heterogeneity and leading to a decision not to report pooled hSAR estimates. FFX and HHTI remain critical epidemiological tools for early and ongoing characterisation of novel infectious pathogens. The large, unexplained variance in hSAR estimates emphasises the need to further support standardisation in planning, conduct and analysis, and for clear and comprehensive reporting of FFX and HHTIs in time and place, to guide evidence-based pandemic preparedness and response efforts for SARS-CoV-2, influenza and future novel respiratory viruses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Pandemics
9.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(12): 3052-3062, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528794

ABSTRACT

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infects humans and dromedary camels and is responsible for an ongoing outbreak of severe respiratory illness in humans in the Middle East. Although some mutations found in camel-derived MERS-CoV strains have been characterized, most natural variation found across MERS-CoV isolates remains unstudied. We report on the environmental stability, replication kinetics, and pathogenicity of several diverse isolates of MERS-CoV, as well as isolates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, to serve as a basis of comparison with other stability studies. Although most MERS-CoV isolates had similar stability and pathogenicity in our experiments, the camel-derived isolate C/KSA/13 had reduced surface stability, and another camel isolate, C/BF/15, had reduced pathogenicity in a small animal model. These results suggest that although betacoronaviruses might have similar environmental stability profiles, individual variation can influence this phenotype, underscoring the need for continual global viral surveillance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Aerosols , Animals , Camelus , Humans , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/genetics , SARS-CoV-2 , Virulence , Zoonoses
10.
Science ; 374(6566): 377, 2021 Oct 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1483981

ABSTRACT

The past 30 years have exposed the global public health and economic threats posed by the emergence of infectious pathogens with epidemic and pandemic potential. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola, Marburg, Lassa, Nipah, Zika, and now SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) each have been the "Disease X" of their time. The risk of future emergence is driven by multiple forces, including climate change, ecosystem changes, and increasing urbanization. The next Disease X could appear at any time, and the world needs to be better prepared.

11.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(1): 7-13, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455561

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The declaration of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020 required rapid implementation of early investigations to inform appropriate national and global public health actions. METHODS: The suite of existing pandemic preparedness generic epidemiological early investigation protocols was rapidly adapted for COVID-19, branded the 'UNITY studies' and promoted globally for the implementation of standardized and quality studies. Ten protocols were developed investigating household (HH) transmission, the first few cases (FFX), population seroprevalence (SEROPREV), health facilities transmission (n = 2), vaccine effectiveness (n = 2), pregnancy outcomes and transmission, school transmission, and surface contamination. Implementation was supported by WHO and its partners globally, with emphasis to support building surveillance and research capacities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). RESULTS: WHO generic protocols were rapidly developed and published on the WHO website, 5/10 protocols within the first 3 months of the response. As of 30 June 2021, 172 investigations were implemented by 97 countries, of which 62 (64%) were LMIC. The majority of countries implemented population seroprevalence (71 countries) and first few cases/household transmission (37 countries) studies. CONCLUSION: The widespread adoption of UNITY protocols across all WHO regions indicates that they addressed subnational and national needs to support local public health decision-making to prevent and control the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Vaccine Efficacy , World Health Organization
12.
N Engl J Med ; 385(2): 179-186, 2021 Jul 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1358382

ABSTRACT

Viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by the current vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Moreover, if some variants of concern have increased transmissibility or virulence, the importance of efficient public health measures and vaccination programs will increase. The global response must be both timely and science based.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Mutation , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Virulence
13.
Euro Surveill ; 26(24)2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1314526

ABSTRACT

We present a global analysis of the spread of recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 variants and estimate changes in effective reproduction numbers at country-specific level using sequence data from GISAID. Nearly all investigated countries demonstrated rapid replacement of previously circulating lineages by the World Health Organization-designated variants of concern, with estimated transmissibility increases of 29% (95% CI: 24-33), 25% (95% CI: 20-30), 38% (95% CI: 29-48) and 97% (95% CI: 76-117), respectively, for B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1 and B.1.617.2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Basic Reproduction Number , Humans
15.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(4): e28945, 2021 04 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195985

ABSTRACT

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first web-based learning course on COVID-19 on January 26, 2020, four days before the director general of the WHO declared a public health emergency of international concern. The WHO is expanding access to web-based learning for COVID-19 through its open-learning platform for health emergencies, OpenWHO. Throughout the pandemic, OpenWHO has continued to publish learning offerings based on the WHO's emerging evidence-based knowledge for managing the COVID-19 pandemic. This study presents the various findings derived from the analysis of the performance of the OpenWHO platform during the pandemic, along with the core benefits of massive web-based learning formats.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Education, Distance , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , World Health Organization
17.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 26(6): 1102-1112, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-17702

ABSTRACT

Available animal and cell line models have suggested that specific therapeutics might be effective in treating Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We conducted a systematic review of evidence for treatment with pharmacologic and supportive therapies. We developed a protocol and searched 5 databases for studies describing treatment of MERS and deaths in MERS patients. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed by using ROBINS-I tool. We retrieved 3,660 unique citations; 20 observational studies met eligibility, and we studied 13 therapies. Most studies were at serious or critical RoB; no studies were at low RoB. One study, at moderate RoB, showed reduced mortality rates in severe MERS patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; no other studies showed a significant lifesaving benefit to any treatment. The existing literature on treatments for MERS is observational and at moderate to critical RoB. Clinical trials are needed to guide treatment decisions.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans
18.
J Infect Public Health ; 13(3): 418-422, 2020 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-7352

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of the reported laboratory-confirmed infections of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have occurred in healthcare settings, and healthcare workers constitute over one third of all secondary infections. This study aimed to describe secondary cases of MERS-CoV infection among healthcare workers and to identify risk factors for death. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on epidemiological data of laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV cases reported to the World Health Organization from September 2012 to 2 June 2018. We compared all secondary cases among healthcare workers with secondary cases among non-healthcare workers. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors for death. RESULTS: Of the 2223 laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV cases reported to WHO, 415 were healthcare workers and 1783 were non-healthcare workers. Compared with non-healthcare workers cases, healthcare workers cases were younger (P < 0.001), more likely to be female (P < 0.001), non-nationals (P < 0.001) and asymptomatic (P < 0.001), and have fewer comorbidities (P < 0.001) and higher rates of survival (P < 0.001). Year of infection (2013-2018) and having no comorbidities were independent protective factors against death among secondary healthcare workers cases. CONCLUSION: Being able to protect healthcare workers from high threat respiratory pathogens, such as MERS-CoV is important for being able to reduce secondary transmission of MERS-CoV in healthcare-associated outbreaks. By extension, reducing infection in healthcare workers improves continuity of care for all patients within healthcare facilities.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Health Personnel , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Adult , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Laboratories , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , World Health Organization
19.
Lancet ; 395(10229): 1063-1077, 2020 03 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-3836

ABSTRACT

The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is a lethal zoonotic pathogen that was first identified in humans in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in 2012. Intermittent sporadic cases, community clusters, and nosocomial outbreaks of MERS-CoV continue to occur. Between April 2012 and December 2019, 2499 laboratory-confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection, including 858 deaths (34·3% mortality) were reported from 27 countries to WHO, the majority of which were reported by Saudi Arabia (2106 cases, 780 deaths). Large outbreaks of human-to-human transmission have occurred, the largest in Riyadh and Jeddah in 2014 and in South Korea in 2015. MERS-CoV remains a high-threat pathogen identified by WHO as a priority pathogen because it causes severe disease that has a high mortality rate, epidemic potential, and no medical countermeasures. This Seminar provides an update on the current knowledge and perspectives on MERS epidemiology, virology, mode of transmission, pathogenesis, diagnosis, clinical features, management, infection control, development of new therapeutics and vaccines, and highlights unanswered questions and priorities for research, improved management, and prevention.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Epidemics , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Animals , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Camelus , Child , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Critical Care , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/transmission , Female , Global Health , Humans , Immunity, Innate/physiology , Immunocompromised Host , Infection Control , Plasma , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Risk Factors , Travel , Viral Vaccines , Zoonoses/transmission
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL