Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 92
Filter
1.
Frontiers in public health ; 10, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2073976

ABSTRACT

Background To curb the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, the Chinese government shut down Wuhan city from January 23rd to April 8th, 2020. The COVID-19 epidemic not only leads to widespread illness but also affects the diagnosis and treatment of hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. Objective To investigate the medical-seeking pattern and daily behavior changes in Hubei Province during the COVID-19 epidemic in Hubei Province during the lockdown. Methods We conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional, web-based investigation among 325 HSCT recipients by online questionnaires in Hubei Province during the COVID-19 epidemic. Results A total of 145 complete responses were collected both before and during the epidemic questionnaires. The participants from pre-epidemic group preferred to go to hospital (68.29%) when they experienced influenza-like symptoms. The majority of the patients elected to take oral drugs by themselves (40%) or consulted their attending physicians online or by telephone during the lockdown (23.33%). 64.83% had difficulties in purchasing drugs during the lockdown, which was significantly higher than the proportion of the pre-epidemic group (24.83%) (P < 0.05). The participants preferred to purchase drugs online (23.40%) and decrease or withdraw drugs (18.09%) during the epidemic. The number of participants received regular re-examinations during the epidemic decreased sharply. The proportion of wearing masks and isolating themselves at home increased significantly during the epidemic. No statistic difference was observed in the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)complications in participants between the during the epidemic group and the pre-epidemic group. In our study, six patients were confirmed to have COVID-19, and half of them died due to COVID-19-related complications. Conclusion The medical-seeking pattern and daily behavior of HSCT recipients changed during the lockdown;the methods of self-protection, online consultation and drug delivery can help patients receive necessary follow-up and reduce the occurrence of COVID-19.

2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(10)2022 Oct 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2071933

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Currently, reported COVID-19 deaths are inadequate to assess the impact of the pandemic on global excess mortality. All-cause excess mortality is a WHO-recommended index for assessing the death burden of COVID-19. However, the global excess mortality assessed by this index remains unclear. We aimed to assess the global excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies published in English between 1 January 2020, and 21 May 2022. Cross-sectional and cohort studies that reported data about excess mortality during the pandemic were included. Two researchers independently searched the published studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method was adopted to estimate pooled risk difference (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 79 countries from twenty studies were included. During the COVID-19 pandemic, of 2,228,109,318 individuals, 17,974,051 all-cause deaths were reported, and 15,498,145 deaths were expected. The pooled global excess mortality was 104.84 (95% CI 85.56-124.13) per 100,000. South America had the highest pooled excess mortality [134.02 (95% CI: 68.24-199.80) per 100,000], while Oceania had the lowest [-32.15 (95% CI: -60.53--3.77) per 100,000]. Developing countries had higher excess mortality [135.80 (95% CI: 107.83-163.76) per 100,000] than developed countries [68.08 (95% CI: 42.61-93.55) per 100,000]. Lower middle-income countries [133.45 (95% CI: 75.10-191.81) per 100,000] and upper-middle-income countries [149.88 (110.35-189.38) per 100,000] had higher excess mortality than high-income countries [75.54 (95% CI: 53.44-97.64) per 100,000]. Males had higher excess mortality [130.10 (95% CI: 94.15-166.05) per 100,000] than females [102.16 (95% CI: 85.76-118.56) per 100,000]. The population aged ≥ 60 years had the highest excess mortality [781.74 (95% CI: 626.24-937.24) per 100,000]. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled global excess mortality was 104.84 deaths per 100,000, and the number of reported all-cause deaths was higher than expected deaths during the global COVID-19 pandemic. In South America, developing and middle-income countries, male populations, and individuals aged ≥ 60 years had a heavier excess mortality burden.

3.
J Clin Med ; 11(19)2022 Oct 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2066211

ABSTRACT

Age has been found to be the single most significant factor in COVID-19 severity and outcome. However, the age-related severity factors of COVID-19 have not been definitively established. In this study, we detected SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses and infectious disease-related blood indicators in 2360 sera from 783 COVID-19 patients, with an age range of 1-92 years. In addition, we recorded the individual information and clinical symptoms of the patients. We found that the IgG responses for S1, N, and ORF3a and the IgM for NSP7 were associated with severe COVID-19 at different ages. The IgM responses for the S-protein peptides S1-113 (aa 673-684) and S2-97 (aa 1262-1273) were associated with severe COVID-19 in patients aged <60. Furthermore, we found that the IgM for S1-113 and NSP7 may play a protective role in patients aged <60 and >80, respectively. Regarding clinical parameters, we analyzed the diagnostic ability of five clinical parameters for severe COVID-19 in six age groups and identified three-target panel, glucose, IL-6, myoglobin, IL-6, and NT proBNP as the appropriate diagnostic markers for severe COVID-19 in patients aged <41, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70, 71-80, and >80, respectively. The age-associated severity factors revealed here will facilitate our understanding of COVID-19 immunity and diagnosis, and eventually provide meaningful information for combating the pandemic.

4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Sep 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2065972

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still in a global pandemic state. Some studies have reported that COVID-19 vaccines had a protective effect against long COVID. However, the conclusions of the studies on the effect of COVID-19 vaccines on long COVID were not consistent. This study aimed to systematically review relevant studies in the real world, and performed a meta-analysis to explore the relationship between vaccination and long COVID. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and ScienceDirect from inception to 19 September 2022. The PICO (P: patients; I: intervention; C: comparison; O: outcome) was as follows: patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (P); vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines (I); the patients were divided into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (C); the outcomes were the occurrence of long COVID, as well as the various symptoms of long COVID (O). A fixed-effect model and random-effects model were chosen based on the heterogeneity between studies in order to pool the effect value. The results showed that the vaccinated group had a 29% lower risk of developing long COVID compared with the unvaccinated group (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.87, p < 0.01). Compared with patients who were not vaccinated, vaccination showed its protective effect in patients vaccinated with two doses (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.94, p < 0.01), but not one dose (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.07, p = 0.14). In addition, vaccination was effective against long COVD in patients either vaccinated before SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91, p < 0.01) or vaccinated after SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.92, p < 0.01). For long COVID symptoms, vaccination reduced the risk of cognitive dysfunction/symptoms, kidney diseases/problems, myalgia, and sleeping disorders/problems sleeping. Our study shows that COVID-19 vaccines had an effect on reducing the risk of long COVID in patients vaccinated before or after SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19. We suggest that the vaccination rate should be improved as soon as possible, especially for a complete vaccination course. There should be more studies to explore the basic mechanisms of the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccines on long COVID in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
5.
EClinicalMedicine ; 54:101668-101668, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2047130

ABSTRACT

Background Data on the long-term trajectories of lung function are scarce in COVID-19 survivors. Methods We re-analyzed the data from a prospective longitudinal cohort follow-up study of COVID-19 survivors over 2 years after infection. All participants were divided into scale 3, scale 4 and scale 5-6 groups according to seven-category ordinal scale. The changes of pulmonary function tests (PFTs), the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale, 6-min walking test health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across the three serial follow-up visits were evaluated, and compared among three groups. We performed liner regression to determine potential factors that were associated with changes of PFTs and distance walked in 6 minutes (6MWD). Findings In this study, 288 participants generally presented an improvement of PFTs parameters from 6 months to 1 year after infection. The scale 5-6 group displayed a significantly higher increase of PFTs compared with scale 3 and scale 4 groups (all p<0.0167), and corticosteroids therapy was identified as a protective factor for the PFTs improvement with a correlation coefficient of 2.730 (0.215–5.246) for forced vital capacity (FVC), 2.909 (0.383–5.436) for total lung capacity (TLC), and 3.299 (0.211–6.387) for diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLco), respectively. From 1-year to 2-year follow-up, the PFTs parameters generally decreased, which was not observed to be associated with changes of 6MWD and HRQoL. Dyspnea (mMRC≥1) generally decreased over time (23.3% [61/262] for 6-month, 27.9% [67/240] for 1-year, 13.4% [35/261] for 2-year), and 6MWD increased continuously (500.0 m vs 505.0 m vs 525.0 m). Interpretation Corticosteroids therapy during hospitalization was a protective factor for PFTs improvement from 6 months to 1 year. The relatively fast decline trend of PFTs from 1 year to 2 years needs to be paid attention and further validated in the future follow-up study. Fundings This work was supported by Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS 2021-I2M-1-048) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC0864700).

6.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(9)2022 Sep 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2044029

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) are unclear. We aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 1 January 2020 to 28 April 2022 and included observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and non-randomized clinical trials reporting extractable data about the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH. RESULTS: A total of 34 eligible studies covering 4517 PLWH were included. The pooled seroconversion rates among PLWH after the first and second doses were 67.51% (95% confident interval (CI) 49.09-85.93%) and 96.65% (95%CI 95.56-97.75%), respectively. The seroconversion was similar between PLWH and healthy controls after the first (risk ratio (RR) = 0.89, 95%CI 0.76-1.04) and the second (RR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.93-1.00) dose. Moreover, the geometric mean titer (GMT) showed no significant difference between PLWH and healthy controls after the first dose (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.30, 95%CI -1.11, 1.70) and the second dose (SMD = -0.06, 95%CI -0.18, 0.05). Additionally, the pooled incidence rates of total adverse events among PLWH after the first and the second dose were 46.55% (95%CI 28.29-64.82%) and 30.96% (95%CI 13.23-48.70%), respectively. There was no significant difference in risks of total adverse events between PLWH and healthy controls after the first (RR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.67-1.10) and the second (RR = 0.88, 95%CI 0.68-1.14) dose. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggested that the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH were acceptable. There was no significant difference in the seroconversion rates and incidence rates of adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines between PLWH and healthy controls.

7.
Land ; 11(8):1192, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2023850

ABSTRACT

Ecosystem service spatial transfer is considered a feature that can deliver ecosystem services at a distance to meet the demands in areas with uneven spatial distribution of natural and social economic development. The natural ES spatial transfer distance and intensity were simulated by using the modified breaking point model in the Central Plains urban agglomeration (CPUA) with the cities of Luoyang, Zhengzhou, Shangqiu, and Huaibei stretching across. It is shown that there is a spatial mismatch between ES supply from ecospace and its demands from cities;relying only on natural spatial transfer, none of the ESs of the ecospace can be transported to corresponding population centers;and a spatial gap between ES supply and demand is illustrated in urban agglomeration areas. Intercity cooperation in ecosystem management and landscape planning based on ES spatial transfer would be good choices for cities, giving full play to comparative advantages to achieve sustainable development for the entire CPUA.

8.
Front Psychiatry ; 13: 948036, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2022911

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in mental health issues, mainly depression and anxiety, prompted by stressors such as the need to maintain social distance, adapting to quarantine, and lockdown policies. Resilience may be vital in protecting individuals from mental disorders. However, few studies have examined the longitudinal relationships between resilience and mental disorders (i.e., depression and anxiety) among adolescents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: This study aimed to examine the association between resilience, depression, and anxiety among Chinese adolescents before and during COVID-19 using a longitudinal cross-lagged model. Methods: A total of 7,958 Chinese adolescents completed a baseline survey in the month before COVID-19 and were followed up after the COVID-19 lockdown. Structural equation modeling analyses were applied to evaluate the associations between resilience, depression, and anxiety after controlling for three covariates (i.e., gender, age, and COVID-19 effect). Results: A higher level of resilience before COVID-19 significantly predicted decreased severity of depression and anxiety after the lockdown. Moreover, the mean level of resilience and prevalence of mental disorders (i.e., depression and anxiety) among Chinese adolescents decreased after the lockdown. These findings suggest resilience is a vital protective factor against depression and anxiety among adolescents. Furthermore, younger participants and those less affected by the pandemic could be more resilient. No significant link was found between gender and resilience in the second wave. Conclusions: Resilience is an essential protective factor for reducing mental disorders among Chinese adolescents exposed to COVID-19. Resilience-related interventions should be developed to efficiently promote mental health recovery among youth during pandemics.

9.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(17)2022 Aug 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2006023

ABSTRACT

As vaccine resources were distributed unevenly worldwide, sometimes there might have been shortages or delays in vaccine supply; therefore, considering the use of heterogeneous booster doses for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be an alternative strategy. Therefore, we aimed to review the data available to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of heterologous booster doses with homologous booster doses for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines. We searched relevant studies up to 27 April 2022. Random-effects inverse variance models were used to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of COVID-19 outcomes and odds ratio (OR) and its CI of safety events. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale and Cochrane Collaboration's tool were used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 23 studies involving 1,726,506 inoculation cases of homologous booster dose and 5,343,580 inoculation cases of heterologous booster dose was included. The VE of heterologous booster for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection (VEheterologous = 96.10%, VEhomologous = 84.00%), symptomatic COVID-19 (VEheterologous = 56.80%, VEhomologous = 17.30%), and COVID-19-related hospital admissions (VEheterologous = 97.40%, VEhomologous = 93.20%) was higher than homologous booster. Compared with homologous booster group, there was a higher risk of fever (OR = 1.930, 95% CI, 1.199-3.107), myalgia (OR = 1.825, 95% CI, 1.079-3.089), and malaise or fatigue (OR = 1.745, 95% CI, 1.047-2.906) within 7 days after boosting, and a higher risk of malaise or fatigue (OR = 4.140, 95% CI, 1.729-9.916) within 28 days after boosting in heterologous booster group. Compared with homologous booster group, geometric mean neutralizing titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibody for different SARS-CoV-2 variants and response rate of antibody and gama interferon were higher in heterologous booster group. Our findings suggested that both homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster doses had great effectiveness, immunogenicity, and acceptable safety, and a heterologous booster dose was more effective, which would help make appropriate public health decisions and reduce public hesitancy in vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , Fatigue , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Biomed Pharmacother ; 154: 113625, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2003886

ABSTRACT

The Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic urges researching possibilities for prevention and management of the effects of the virus. Carotenoids are natural phytochemicals of anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties and may exert potential in aiding in combatting the pandemic. This review presents the direct and indirect evidence of the health benefits of carotenoids and derivatives based on in vitro and in vivo studies, human clinical trials and epidemiological studies and proposes possible mechanisms of action via which carotenoids may have the capacity to protect against COVID-19 effects. The current evidence provides a rationale for considering carotenoids as natural supportive nutrients via antioxidant activities, including scavenging lipid-soluble radicals, reducing hypoxia-associated superoxide by activating antioxidant enzymes, or suppressing enzymes that produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). Carotenoids may regulate COVID-19 induced over-production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, pro-inflammatory enzymes and adhesion molecules by nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) and interleukins-6- Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (IL-6-JAK/STAT) pathways and suppress the polarization of pro-inflammatory M1 macrophage. Moreover, carotenoids may modulate the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors γ by acting as agonists to alleviate COVID-19 symptoms. They also may potentially block the cellular receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). These activities may reduce the severity of COVID-19 and flu-like diseases. Thus, carotenoid supplementation may aid in combatting the pandemic, as well as seasonal flu. However, further in vitro, in vivo and in particular long-term clinical trials in COVID-19 patients are needed to evaluate this hypothesis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Antioxidants/pharmacology , Antioxidants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Carotenoids/pharmacology , Carotenoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(8): e2228008, 2022 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1999802

ABSTRACT

Importance: Several studies were conducted to estimate the average incubation period of COVID-19; however, the incubation period of COVID-19 caused by different SARS-CoV-2 variants is not well described. Objective: To systematically assess the incubation period of COVID-19 and the incubation periods of COVID-19 caused by different SARS-CoV-2 variants in published studies. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched between December 1, 2019, and February 10, 2022. Study Selection: Original studies of the incubation period of COVID-19, defined as the time from infection to the onset of signs and symptoms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, 3 reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible studies in March 2022. The parameters, or sufficient information to facilitate calculation of those values, were derived from random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The mean estimate of the incubation period and different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Results: A total of 142 studies with 8112 patients were included. The pooled incubation period was 6.57 days (95% CI, 6.26-6.88) and ranged from 1.80 to 18.87 days. The incubation period of COVID-19 caused by the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants were reported in 1 study (with 6374 patients), 1 study (10 patients), 6 studies (2368 patients) and 5 studies (829 patients), respectively. The mean incubation period of COVID-19 was 5.00 days (95% CI, 4.94-5.06 days) for cases caused by the Alpha variant, 4.50 days (95% CI, 1.83-7.17 days) for the Beta variant, 4.41 days (95% CI, 3.76-5.05 days) for the Delta variant, and 3.42 days (95% CI, 2.88-3.96 days) for the Omicron variant. The mean incubation was 7.43 days (95% CI, 5.75-9.11 days) among older patients (ie, aged over 60 years old), 8.82 days (95% CI, 8.19-9.45 days) among infected children (ages 18 years or younger), 6.99 days (95% CI, 6.07-7.92 days) among patients with nonsevere illness, and 6.69 days (95% CI, 4.53-8.85 days) among patients with severe illness. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has evolved and mutated continuously throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, producing variants with different enhanced transmission and virulence. Identifying the incubation period of different variants is a key factor in determining the isolation period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Humans , Infectious Disease Incubation Period , Middle Aged , Pandemics
12.
Thyroid ; 32(9): 1051-1058, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1956555

ABSTRACT

Background: The safety of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines is widely appreciated. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on the thyroid. Methods: We performed two prospective clinical trials between April and June, 2021, enrolling recipients of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac). Thyroid function, antithyroid antibody levels, and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels were detected for each participant before receiving the first vaccine dose and 28 days after receiving the second vaccine dose. Results: A total of 657 recipients participated in the study. The overall median thyroid function and levels of antithyroid antibodies before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were within the normal range. Among the 564 participants with normal thyroid function at baseline, 36 (6.38% [confidence interval; CI 4.51-8.73]) developed thyroid dysfunction. Of the 545 recipients with negative antithyroid antibodies at baseline, none developed abnormal antibodies after vaccination. Notably, 75.27% (70/93 [CI 65.24-83.63]) of the 93 recipients with thyroid dysfunction returned to normal function after vaccination. The levels of antithyroid peroxidase antibody (96.20% [CI 89.30-99.21]) and antithyroglobulin antibody (TgAb; 88.31% [CI 78.97-94.51]) remained positive after vaccination in most patients with abnormal values at baseline. However, the TgAb levels in more than half of the patients (48/77) decreased. All of 11 abnormal thyrotropin receptor antibody levels at baseline decreased postvaccination. Conclusions: Vaccination with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had no significant adverse impact on thyroid function or antithyroid antibodies within the first 28 days after the second dose. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2100045109 and ChiCTR2100042222.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Autoimmunity , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Peroxidases , Prospective Studies , Receptors, Thyrotropin , SARS-CoV-2 , Thyroid Gland , Viral Vaccines/adverse effects
13.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(7)2022 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1939043

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Given the prevalence of the omicron variant and decreased immunity provided by vaccines, it is imperative to enhance resistance to COVID-19 in the old population. We planned to explore the hesitancy rate toward the booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and the association between risk perception and the abovementioned rate among people aged 60 and older. METHODS: This national cross-sectional study was conducted in mainland China from 25 May to 8 June 2022, targeting people who were 60 years old or above. Four dimensions were extracted from the Health Belief Model (HBM) to assess participants' perceived risk levels, including perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived barriers, and perceived benefit. An independent Chi-square test was used to compare the vaccine hesitancy rates among different groups stratified by characteristics. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to explore the associations between risk perception and hesitancy rate. RESULTS: Of 3321 participants, 17.2% (95% CI: 15.9-18.5%) were hesitant about booster shots of COVID-19 vaccines. Believing that they were ineligible for vaccination due to certain illnesses (38.3%), concern about vaccine safety (32.0%), believing the booster shots were unnecessary (33.1%), and their limitation on movements (28.0%) were the main reasons for vaccine hesitation. Adjusted by all the selected covariates, people with low perception level of susceptibility (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.00-1.92) and benefit (low: aOR = 3.31, 95% CI: 2.01-5.45; moderate: aOR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.75-2.85) were less likely to receiving the booster dose, and the same results were found in people with higher perceived barriers (moderate: aOR = 2.67, 95% CI: 2.13-3.35; high: aOR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.14-3.67). Our estimates were stable in all four models. CONCLUSIONS: In total, 17.2% of the people aged 60 years and older in China were hesitant about booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines, and it was closely associated with a lower level of perceived susceptibility and benefit, as well as a higher level of perceived barriers. Concerns about contraindications, vaccine safety, and limited movements were the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Targeted public health measure is a priority to improve the understanding of the elderly on their own susceptibility and vulnerability and clear the obstacles to vaccination.

14.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(7)2022 Jun 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1917863

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic infections are potential sources of transmission for coronavirus disease 2019, especially during the epidemic of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. We aimed to assess the percentage of asymptomatic infections among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals detected by gene sequencing or specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 26 November 2021 to 13 April 2022. This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022327894). Three researchers independently extracted data and two researchers assessed quality using pre-specified criteria. The pooled percentage with 95% confidence interval (CI) of asymptomatic infections of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron was estimated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included eight eligible studies, covering 7640 Omicron variant-positive individuals with 2190 asymptomatic infections. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 32.40% (95% CI: 25.30-39.51%) among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals, which was higher in the population in developing countries (38.93%; 95% CI: 19.75-58.11%), with vaccine coverage ≥ 80% (35.93%; 95% CI: 25.36-46.51%), with a travel history (40.05%; 95% CI: 7.59-72.51%), community infection (37.97%; 95% CI: 10.07-65.87%), and with a median age < 20 years (43.75%; 95% CI: 38.45-49.05%). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 32.40% among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals. The people who were vaccinated, young (median age < 20 years), had a travel history, and were infected outside of a clinical setting (community infection) had higher percentages of asymptomatic infections. Screening is required to prevent clustered epidemics or sustained community transmission caused by asymptomatic infections of Omicron variants, especially for countries and regions that have successfully controlled SARS-CoV-2.

15.
Front Psychol ; 13: 905417, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911101

ABSTRACT

The extensive changes in public and private life caused by the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic in China have created a "new normal." To understand urban residents' satisfaction with public sports services under these conditions and to identify factors that influence satisfaction, urban residents in several major Chinese cities were randomly sampled with an online questionnaire to measure their level of satisfaction with public sports services in China during the COVID-19 epidemic. With the response rate of 87.9%, 703 valid questionnaires out of 800 questionnaires distributed were analyzed. A structural equation model was constructed where health literacy and the residents' expectations were independent variables, residents' participation was a mediating variable, and residents' satisfaction was the dependent variable. Cronbach's α test and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test confirmed that the questionnaire was reliable and valid. Survey results suggest that young urban residents' participation in public sports services is influenced by personal health literacy and residents' expectations. Participation serves a mediating role between health literacy and residents' satisfaction, but not between residents' expectations and their satisfaction. Young urban residents' satisfaction with public sports services may be improved by increasing access to health information, improving hardware and software platforms to support those services, and catering the services to the interests of the population.

16.
Fundamental Research ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1895046

ABSTRACT

Introduction : On April 29, 2020, China entered a normalization stage of prevention and control. By December 2021, more than 40 outbreaks had occurred in China, which reflected the shortcomings of the pandemic prevention and control measures in China at that time. As the capital city of China, Beijing faces more pressure in epidemic prevention and control. Material and Methods : We used the COVID-19 cluster containment evaluation indicators to determine the effects of prevention and control measures on four COVID-19 outbreaks in Beijing. After considering the specificity and operability of evaluation indicators and the availability of evaluation data, the evaluation system in our study consisted of six dimensions: epidemic prevention and control effect, discovery and detection ability, precision prevention and control capability, public protection effect, medical treatment and nosocomial infection prevention and control ability, and information release and public opinion response ability. Results : The composite scores of the prevention and control effects of the Xinfadi, Shunyi, Daxing, and Ejina Banner–associated COVID-19 outbreaks in Beijing were 62, 82, 87, and 76, respectively. In the six dimensions, the epidemic prevention and control effect, discovery and detection ability, precision prevention and control capability, and public protection effect scores for the Xinfadi outbreak were lower than those for the Shunyi, Daxing and Ejina Banner–associated outbreaks. The medical treatment and nosocomial infection prevention and control ability scores for the outbreak associated with Ejina Banner were lower than those for the Xinfadi, Shunyi, and Daxing outbreaks. Conclusion : In managing cluster outbreaks, Beijing was able to detect index cases early enough to reduce the scale and duration of the outbreak and consistently release official information to reduce public panic, standardize the management of centralized quarantine sites to prevent cross-infection, adhere to the " dynamic COVID‐zero" strategy to accurately prevent and control outbreaks, reduce the societal influence of the pandemic, and coordinate the epidemic prevention and control and socio-economic development.

17.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(11)2022 06 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1884136

ABSTRACT

We aimed to review the data available to evaluate the long-term consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 6 months and above. We searched relevant observational cohort studies up to 9 February 2022 in Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the Pooled Prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of long-term consequences. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 40 studies involving 10,945 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were included. Of the patients, 63.87% had at least one consequence at the 6 month follow-up, which decreased to 58.89% at 12 months. The most common symptoms were fatigue or muscle weakness (PP 6-12 m = 54.21%, PP ≥ 12 m = 34.22%) and mild dyspnea (Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, mMRC = 0, PP 6-12 m = 74.60%, PP ≥ 12 m = 80.64%). Abnormal computerized tomography (CT; PP 6-12 m = 55.68%, PP ≥ 12 m = 43.76%) and lung diffuse function impairment, i.e., a carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) of < 80% were common (PP 6-12 m = 49.10%, PP ≥ 12 m = 31.80%). Anxiety and depression (PP 6-12 m = 33.49%, PP ≥ 12 m = 35.40%) and pain or discomfort (PP 6-12 m = 33.26%, PP ≥ 12 m = 35.31%) were the most common problems that affected patients' quality of life. Our findings suggest a significant long-term impact on health and quality of life due to COVID-19, and as waves of ASRS-CoV-2 infections emerge, the long-term effects of COVID-19 will not only increase the difficulty of care for COVID-19 survivors and the setting of public health policy but also might lead to another public health crisis following the current pandemic, which would also increase the global long-term burden of disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Dyspnea/epidemiology , Dyspnea/etiology , Humans , Pandemics , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2
18.
China CDC Wkly ; 4(18): 393-394, 2022 May 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1870335
19.
Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai) ; 54(4): 556-564, 2022 Apr 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862958

ABSTRACT

Age has been found to be one of the main risk factors for the severity and outcome of COVID-19. However, differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses among COVID-19 patients of different age groups remain largely unknown. In this study, we analyzed the IgG/IgM responses to 21 SARS-CoV-2 proteins and 197 peptides that fully cover the spike protein against 731 sera collected from 731 COVID-19 patients aged from 1 to We show that there is no overall difference in SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in COVID-19 patients in the 4 age groups. By antibody response landscape maps, we find that the IgG response profiles of SARS-CoV-2 proteins are positively correlated with age. The S protein linear epitope map shows that the immunogenicity of the S-protein peptides is related to peptide sequence, disease severity and age of the COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the enrichment analysis indicates that low S1 IgG responses are enriched in patients aged <50 and high S1 IgG responses are enriched in mild COVID-19 patients aged >60. In addition, high responses of non-structural/accessory proteins are enriched in severe COVID-19 patients aged >70. These results suggest the distinct immune response of IgG/IgM to each SARS-CoV-2 protein in patients of different age, which may facilitate a deeper understanding of the immune responses in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Age Factors , Antibody Formation , COVID-19 , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Middle Aged , Peptides , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
20.
Journal of Management in Engineering ; 38(4):1-15, 2022.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1852628

ABSTRACT

The COVID pandemic has given rise to the necessity of social distancing regulations, which has brought the importance of workspace management on the construction site to an unprecedented level. Understanding and visualizing the interaction and tradeoff among space, time, and workforce is critical for construction managers to schedule and deliver projects on time. Therefore, the objectives of this research are to investigate how the critical path method (CPM) and Takt-time planning methods utilize space, time, and workforce differently, develop a tool to visualize the space–time–workforce interactions, and investigate the space–time–workforce tradeoff based on different managers' preferences. This research selected a high-rise office building project and collected 889 sets of productivity data of five specialty trades. The research built a simulation model to investigate productivity and project performance under 267 scenarios of different combinations of the three resources. A dynamic tool was then developed to visualize workspace, time, and workforce interactions. Finally, a Choquet integral–based evaluation and decision tool was developed. The simulation results show that the Takt-time planning method can reduce up to 80% of workspace overlap compared with the actual production plan with less than 20% of duration extension. The contributions to the body of knowledge are (1) creating a visual framework for managers to understand the interaction and tradeoff among space, time, and workforce quickly and accurately, and (2) developing an innovative Choquet integral approach for managers to evaluate planning strategies according to project preferences. The framework and analysis method can be adapted to other construction projects to assist managers to visualize and optimize the space–time–workforce tradeoff under uncertain project drivers. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Management in Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL