Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Infect Genet Evol ; 96: 105106, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506080

ABSTRACT

Coronaviruses (especially SARS-CoV-2) are characterized by rapid mutation and wide spread. As these characteristics easily lead to global pandemics, studying the evolutionary relationship between viruses is essential for clinical diagnosis. DNA sequencing has played an important role in evolutionary analysis. Recent alignment-free methods can overcome the problems of traditional alignment-based methods, which consume both time and space. This paper proposes a novel alignment-free method called the correlation coefficient feature vector (CCFV), which defines a correlation measure of the L-step delay of a nucleotide location from its location in the original DNA sequence. The numerical feature is a 16×L-dimensional numerical vector describing the distribution characteristics of the nucleotide positions in a DNA sequence. The proposed L-step delay correlation measure is interestingly related to some types of L+1 spaced mers. Unlike traditional gene comparison, our method avoids the computational complexity of multiple sequence alignment, and hence improves the speed of sequence comparison. Our method is applied to evolutionary analysis of the common human viruses including SARS-CoV-2, Dengue virus, Hepatitis B virus, and human rhinovirus and achieves the same or even better results than alignment-based methods. Especially for SARS-CoV-2, our method also confirms that bats are potential intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Genome, Viral/genetics , Phylogeny , Sequence Analysis, DNA/methods , Coronavirus/genetics , Dengue Virus/genetics , Hepatitis B/genetics , Humans , Models, Genetic , Rhinovirus/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sequence Alignment
2.
Mil Med ; 2021 Sep 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437838

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a major impediment to achieving herd immunity and overcoming the current pandemic. Our aim was to decrease the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy through an education intervention. METHOD: An education intervention, consisting of a PowerPoint presentation addressing the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine concerns/myths and a question and answer panel comprising health care providers from various specialties, was implemented to address vaccine hesitancy among personnel associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through a series of virtual and in-person seminars. Participants completed a post-seminar survey as a retrospective self-assessment to identify attitudes and views surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the impact of the education intervention. Chi-squared test was used to examine relationships between categorical variables, and multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for vaccine hesitancy pre- and post-seminar. All analyses were done using SPSS Statistics Version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Institutional Review Board approval was not obtained before this study as it began as a non-research initiative and received non-research determination post hoc. RESULTS: Five hundred participants completed the survey. Mean age was 44.7 years with 13.4 and 86.6% medical and non-medical personnel, respectively. Nearly all (98.8%) had not received their first shot of the vaccine series. 402 (80.9%) were receptive to vaccination, and 95 (19.1%) were hesitant post-seminar. Of the 139 participants who reported they were initially hesitant after our intervention, 50 (36%) indicated that they were now receptive to the vaccine, while 89 (64%) remained hesitant. Of those 50, 48 (96%) had moderate to great amount of trust in COVID-19 vaccine information presented by physicians/other providers. Six respondents who wanted the vaccine before the intervention no longer wanted the vaccine. A medical occupation (OR = 4.85, 95% CI = 2.63-8.96, P < .001), little or no trust in COVID-19 vaccine information from physicians/other providers (OR = 19.48, 95% CI = 7.31-51.90, P < 0.001), and being age 30 or younger (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.02-3.2, P = 0.041) were independent predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Trust in providers was a significant factor in change of intent from vaccine hesitant to receptive post-intervention (OR 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.59, P = .008). Age and occupation were not significant factors associated with change in intent. CONCLUSION: Our education intervention was effective in reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Study limitations include applications toward other military and non-military populations, the possibility of nonresponse bias, and absence of prior validated interventions. Area for future studies includes improvement upon educational intervention, development of other effective methods, and application of intervention in other populations.

3.
Mil Med ; 2021 Jun 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266126

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 are essential tools in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019  (COVID-19) pandemic. However, hesitancy to vaccination is a major barrier to achieving herd immunity, particularly among a population working on a military base. To better understand the perceptions and concerns of these individuals, a voluntary survey was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interactive, online survey was constructed and disseminated to individuals associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Dayton, OH. Survey participation was voluntary with responses collected over the initial weeks in which WPAFB began to distribute COVID-19 vaccines in a series of phases. Although initially designed to collect demographic data and identify reasons for potential vaccine hesitancy among WPAFB 88th Medical Group personnel, the study population was expanded to include all WPAFB-affiliated personnel at the direction of base leadership. The chi-squared test was used to examine the relationships between categorical variables, while multivariable logistic regression was used to assess age and occupation as independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: A total of 816 individuals completed the survey, of whom 22.7% (n = 185) self-identified as vaccine hesitant (VH). The VH group had a lower mean age than the not vaccine hesitant (NVH) group (39.3 ± 14.2 vs. 45.9 ± 13.4, P < .001). Respondents whose occupation was medical were more likely to be VH than their non-medical colleagues (49% vs. 18%, P < .001). The VH group was more concerned about short-term side effects (43% vs. 26%, P < .001), long-term side effects (82% vs. 50%, P < 0.001), vaccine effectiveness (23% vs. 5%, P < .001), vaccine making them feel sick (22% vs. 13%, P = .002), being infected with COVID-19 from the vaccine (10% vs. 5%, P = 0.008), and worry about misinformation/political agenda (43% vs. 31%, P = 0.003). Younger respondents and medical personnel were more likely to be concerned about long-term side effects and vaccine effectiveness, and the younger group was also more likely to be concerned about pregnancy/breastfeeding issues and worry about misinformation/political agenda. Age (younger vs. older, odds ratio 2.15) and occupation (medical vs. non-medical, odds ratio 3.74) were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. The NVH group was more likely to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine to a friend or family member than the VH group (93% vs. 20%, P < .001) as were the older age group (79% vs. 67%, P = .001) and non-medical personnel (81% vs. 52%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age and medical occupation were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy and these individuals were less likely to recommend vaccination to a friend or family member. We also identified several key concerns related to vaccination hesitancy, in particular those related to short- and long-term side effects, and the spread of misinformation. Among military personnel, these findings carry important implications that may negatively impact mission readiness, a matter that merits further investigation. Our COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy findings can be used to guide targeted interventions at future vaccination campaigns in a military population.

4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e835-e843, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Health Personnel , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Management and Organization Review ; 17(1):6-15, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1131971

ABSTRACT

In the years that followed, China experienced a massive expansion in international trade and foreign direct investment as well as strong economic development, with average growth in its gross domestic product (GDP) of more than 9% between 2001 and 2019 (World Bank, 2021). What are the most salient contextual forces driving the trend toward de-globalization and global decoupling (e.g., geopolitical conflicts, GVCs or global supply chains, reshoring and relocation of manufacturing hubs, software development, electronic payment, platformization, and ecosystems)? 2. Technically, this might involve building platforms similar to Airbnb or Amazon, which connect manufacturers within a sector to a customized global supply chain that can accommodate sourcing redundancies or exclude suppliers in certain countries (e.g., Kenney & Zysman, 2020). [...]Krugman (2018, 2019) has recognized that the impact of China's rapid development, following its membership in the WTO in 2001, was unforeseen by many economists (including himself) in the 1990s and that the emergence of China as the world's factory contributed to the loss of jobs in US manufacturing.

6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e835-e843, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977365

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Health Personnel , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Management and Organization Review ; 16(3):503-509, 2020.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-827714

ABSTRACT

The two factors are interrelated with the former as the primary and the latter as the secondary concerning the vulnerability of global interdependence. Since the positive side of global interdependence is well-known, we focus on the ignored dark side as rooted not much in the magnitude of global interdependence, but primarily in its current form or pattern. [...]we call for a renewed debate over the diverse versions of capitalism, especially the balance between opposite features of multiple versions (Witt & Jackson, 2016;also see Redding, 2020;Zhou, 2020). [...]we also need to shift from overconcentration of global supply in one location (often rooted in tight coupling) to diversified sources, at both national and organizational levels. [...]Toyota proactively manages the risks to the entire system if any node in the supply network fails.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL