Epidemiological features and spatial-temporal distribution of visceral leishmaniasis in mainland China: a population-based surveillance study from 2004 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Although visceral leishmaniasis (VL) was largely brought under control in most regions of China during the previous century, VL cases have rebounded in western and central China in recent decades. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiological features and spatial-temporal distribution of VL in mainland China from 2004 to 2019. METHODS: Incidence and mortality data for VL during the period 2004-2019 were collected from the Public Health Sciences Data Center of China and annual national epidemic reports of VL, whose data source was the National Diseases Reporting Information System. Joinpoint regression analysis was performed to explore the trends of VL. Spatial autocorrelation and spatial-temporal clustering analysis were conducted to identify the distribution and risk areas of VL transmission. RESULTS: A total of 4877 VL cases were reported in mainland China during 2004-2019, with mean annual incidence of 0.0228/100,000. VL incidence showed a decreasing trend in general during our study period (annual percentage change [APC] = -4.2564, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.0856 to -0.2677). Among mainly endemic provinces, VL was initially heavily epidemic in Gansu, Sichuan, and especially Xinjiang, but subsequently decreased considerably. In contrast, Shaanxi and Shanxi witnessed significantly increasing trends, especially in 2017-2019. The first-level spatial-temporal aggregation area covered two endemic provinces in northwestern China, including Gansu and Xinjiang, with the gathering time from 2004 to 2011 (relative risk [RR] = 13.91, log-likelihood ratio [LLR] = 3308.87, P < 0.001). The secondary aggregation area was detected in Shanxi province of central China, with the gathering time of 2019 (RR = 1.61, LLR = 4.88, P = 0.041). The epidemic peak of October to November disappeared in 2018-2019, leaving only one peak in March to May. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that VL is still an important endemic infectious disease in China. Epidemic trends in different provinces changed significantly and spatial-temporal aggregation areas shifted from northwestern to central China during our study period. Mitigation strategies, including large-scale screening, insecticide spraying, and health education encouraging behavioral change, in combination with other integrated approaches, are needed to decrease transmission risk in areas at risk, especially in Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Gansu provinces.

Characteristics of Viral Shedding Time in SARS-CoV-2 Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The viral shedding time (VST) of SARS-CoV-2 mainly determines its transmission and duration of infectiousness. However, it was heterogeneous in the existing studies. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively summarize the VST of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, CNKI, CSTJ, and Wanfang up to October 25, 2020, for studies that reported VSTs of SARS-CoV-2. Pooled estimates and 95% CIs for the VSTs were calculated using log-transformed data. The VSTs in SARS-CoV-2 infections based on different demographic and clinical characteristics, treatments and specimens were stratified by subgroup analysis. Results: A total of 35 studies involving 3,385 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled mean VST was 16.8 days (95% CI: 14.8-19.4, I2 = 99.56%) in SARS-CoV-2 infections. The VST was significantly longer in symptomatic infections (19.7 days, 95% CI: 17.2-22.7, I2 = 99.34%) than in asymptomatic infections (10.9 days, 95% CI: 8.3-14.3, I2 = 98.89%) (P < 0.05). The VST was 23.2 days (95% CI: 19.0-28.4, I2 = 99.24%) in adults, which was significantly longer than that in children (9.9 days, 95% CI: 8.1-12.2, I2 = 85.74%) (P < 0.05). The VST was significantly longer in persons with chronic diseases (24.2 days, 95% CI: 19.2-30.2, I2 = 84.07%) than in those without chronic diseases (11.5 days, 95% CI: 5.3-25.0, I2 = 82.11%) (P < 0.05). Persons receiving corticosteroid treatment (28.3 days, 95% CI: 25.6-31.2, I2 = 0.00%) had a longer VST than those without corticosteroid treatment (16.2 days, 95% CI: 11.5-22.5, I2 = 92.27%) (P = 0.06). The VST was significantly longer in stool specimens (30.3 days, 95% CI: 23.1-39.2, I2 = 92.09%) than in respiratory tract specimens (17.5 days, 95% CI: 14.9-20.6, I2 = 99.67%) (P < 0.05). Conclusions: A longer VST was found in symptomatic infections, infected adults, persons with chronic diseases, and stool specimens.

Factors related to perceived stress during the COVID-19 epidemic context among the general population in China: A cross-sectional nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate factors related to high stress levels among the general population in China during the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic when its containment measures were in place and to identify the most stressed populations. METHODS: A nationwide study was conducted online among 5,039 adults in all 31 provinces in mainland China between March 1 and March 16, 2020. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to explore the related factors of high perceived stress. RESULTS: Among all respondents, 36.0% reported a high level of stress. Respondents in Hubei province (the epicenter) were more likely to report high stress levels than those in low epidemic areas. Respondents who went outside every day or every other day reported greater odds of experiencing a high level of stress than those who went outside every 8-14 days. People with higher risk perceptions were more prone to report high stress levels. Respondents aged 16-35 were more likely to report high stress than respondents aged 46 or older. Lower household income and lower health literacy were related to increased odds of reporting high stress levels. LIMITATIONS: We used a convenience sample and self-reported survey data. CONCLUSIONS: We identified risk factors for high stress levels related to the epidemic (epidemic intensity in residential areas, risk perception, and frequency of going outside) and other vulnerabilities (younger age, low household income, low health literacy). Our findings can directly inform interventions and policies for mitigating stress among the general population for this or future epidemics.

COVID-19 treatment: close to a cure? A rapid review of pharmacotherapies for the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).

Currently, there is no approved therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organization (WHO) therefore endorses supportive care only. However, frontline clinicians and researchers have been experimenting with several virus-based and host-based therapeutics since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in China. China's National Health Commission has issued the first COVID-19 treatment guidelines with therapy suggestions, which has inspired clinical studies worldwide. This review evaluates the major therapeutics. Key evidence from in vitro research, animal models and clinical research in emerging coronaviruses is examined. The antiviral therapies remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir and umifenovir, if considered, should be initiated before the peak of viral replication for an optimal outcome. Ribavirin may be beneficial as an add-on therapy but is ineffective as monotherapy. Corticosteroid use should be limited to specific co-morbidities. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is not recommended owing to lack of data in COVID-19. The traditional Chinese medicine Xuebijing may benefit patients with complications of bacterial pneumonia or sepsis. The efficacy of interferon is unclear owing to conflicting outcomes in coronavirus studies. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have shown in vitro inhibition of SARS-CoV-2, but studies on their clinical efficacy and whether the benefits outweigh the risk of dysrhythmias remain inconclusive. For patients who develop cytokine release syndrome, interleukin-6 inhibitors may be beneficial.