Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Transbound Emerg Dis ; 68(6): 2998-2999, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526434
2.
ACS Med Chem Lett ; 12(11): 1838-1844, 2021 Nov 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1507014

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has stimulated the search for effective drugs for its prevention and treatment. Natural products are an important source for new drug discovery. Here, we report that, NK007(S,R), a tylophorine malate, displays high antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 with an EC50 0.03 µM in vitro, which is substantially lower than that of remdesivir (EC50: 0.8 µM in vitro), the only authorized drug to date. The histopathological research revealed that NK007(S,R) (5 mg/kg/dose) displayed a protection effect in lung injury induced by SARS-CoV-2, which is better than remdesivir (25 mg/kg/dose). We also prepared two nanosized preparations of NK007(S,R), which also showed good efficacy (EC50: NP-NK007, 0.007 µM in vitro; LP-NK007, 0.014 µM in vitro). Our findings suggest that tylophora alkaloids, isolated from the traditional Chinese medicine Cynanchum komarovii AL, offer a new skeleton for the development of anticoronavirus drug candidate.

3.
Adv Skin Wound Care ; 34(7): 356-363, 2021 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191097

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between wearing protective masks and goggles and skin injuries in medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter online survey. Respondents voluntarily completed the questionnaire on their smartphones. Ordinal and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify factors related to skin injuries. RESULTS: In total, 1,611 respondents wore protective masks combined with goggles in 145 hospitals in China; 1,281 skin injuries were reported (overall prevalence, 79.5%). Multiple concomitant skin injuries (68.5%) and injuries in four anatomic locations (24.0%) were the most common, followed by injuries in three (22.8%), two (21.7%), and one location (11.0%). Multinomial logistic regression indicated that sweating increased the risk of injuries in one to four anatomic locations (95% confidence interval for odds ratio 16.23-60.02 for one location and 38.22-239.04 for four locations), and wearing an N95 mask combined with goggles and a daily use longer than 4 hours increased the risk of injuries in four locations (95% confidence interval for odds ratio 1.18-5.31 and 1.14-3.93, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of skin injuries among medical staff wearing protective masks combined with goggles was very high. These were mainly device-related pressure injuries, moisture-associated skin damage, and skin tears. The combination of various factors resulted in skin injuries at multiple sites. Preventing and managing sweating should be a focus for medical staff who wear protective masks combined with goggles for more than 4 hours.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices/adverse effects , Masks/adverse effects , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Facial Injuries/etiology , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Pressure Ulcer/etiology , Sweating
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e041880, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1090935

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To explore the association between N95 respirator wearing and device-related pressure injury (DRPI) and to provide a basis for protecting medical staff from skin injuries. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, multicentre study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medical staff of 60 hospitals were selected from 145 designated medical institutions located in the epidemic area where the patients with COVID-19 were treated in China. RESULTS: In total, 1761 respondents wore N95 respirators (use alone 20.8%; combination use 79.2%), and the prevalence of DRPI was 59.2% (95% CI 56.93 to 61.53). A daily wearing time of >4 hours (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35), wearing a N95 respirator in combination with goggles both with the presence of sweating (OR 13.40, 95% CI 7.34 to 23.16) and without the presence of sweating (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.14) and wearing only a N95 respirator with the presence of sweating (OR 9.60, 95% CI 7.00 to 13.16) were associated with DRPI. A correspondence analysis indicated that if there was no sweating, regardless of whether the N95 respirator was worn by itself or in combination with goggles, single-site DRPI mainly occurred on the nose bridge, cheek and auricle. If there was sweating present, regardless of whether the N95 was worn by itself or in combination with goggles, multiple DRPI sites occurred more often on the face. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DRPI among medical staff caused by N95 respirators was very high, which was mainly associated with a longer daily wearing time and interaction with sweating. The nasal bridge, cheeks and auricles were the primary protection locations found.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , N95 Respirators/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Injuries/epidemiology , Adult , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Pressure , Sweating
5.
Natl Sci Rev ; 8(3): nwaa291, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977391

ABSTRACT

Minks are raised in many countries and have transmitted severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to humans. However, the biologic properties of SARS-CoV-2 in minks are largely unknown. Here, we investigated and found that SARS-CoV-2 replicates efficiently in both the upper and lower respiratory tracts, and transmits efficiently in minks via respiratory droplets; pulmonary lesions caused by SARS-CoV-2 in minks are similar to those seen in humans with COVID-19. We further found that a spike protein-based subunit vaccine largely prevented SARS-CoV-2 replication and lung damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection in minks. Our study indicates that minks are a useful animal model for evaluating the efficacy of drugs or vaccines against COVID-19 and that vaccination is a potential strategy to prevent minks from transmitting SARS-CoV-2.

7.
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) ; 9(7): 357-364, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-627115

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the prevalence, characteristics, and preventive status of skin injuries caused by personal protective equipment (PPE) in medical staff. Approach: A cross-sectional survey was conducted online for understanding skin injuries among medical staff fighting COVID-19 in February 8-22, 2020. Participants voluntarily answered and submitted the questionnaire with cell phone. The questionnaire items included demographic data, grade of PPE and daily wearing time, skin injury types, anatomical sites, and preventive measures. Univariable analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to explore the risk factors associated with skin injuries. Results: A total of 4,308 respondents were collected from 161 hospitals and 4,306 respondents were valid. The overall prevalence of skin injuries was 42.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.30-44.30) with three types of device-related pressure injuries, moist-associated skin damage, and skin tear. Co-skin injuries and multiple location injuries were 27.4% and 76.8%, respectively. The logistic regression analysis indicated that sweating (95% CI for odds ratio [OR] 87.52-163.11), daily wearing time (95% CI for OR 1.61-3.21), male (95% CI for OR 1.11-2.13), and grade 3 PPE (95% CI for OR 1.08-2.01) were associated with skin injuries. Only 17.7% of respondents took prevention and 45.0% of skin injuries were treated. Innovation: This is the first cross-sectional survey to understand skin injuries in medical staff caused by PPE, which is expected to be a benchmark. Conclusion: The skin injuries among medical staff are serious, with insufficient prevention and treatment. A comprehensive program should be taken in the future.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Medical Staff , Occupational Injuries , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral , Skin/injuries , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Odds Ratio , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Prevalence , Respiratory Protective Devices , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Int Wound J ; 17(5): 1300-1309, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-245059

ABSTRACT

Since December 2019, the medical staff fighting against COVID-19 frequently reported the device-related pressure injury (DRPI) caused by personal protective equipment (PPE). We conducted a cross-sectional survey online to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of DRPI among medical staff. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were employed to explore the risk factors associated with DRPI. A total of 4308 participants were collected and 4306 participants were valid from 161 hospitals in China. The overall prevalence of DRPI caused by PPE among medical staff was 30.03% (95% CI 28.69%-31.41%). The prevalence of male was more than that of female (42.25%, 95% CI 37.99-46.51% vs 26.36%, 95% CI 26.93-29.80%, P < .001).The categories were mainly stages 1 and 2, and the common anatomical locations were nose bridge, cheeks, ears, and forehead. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk factors were sweating (OR = 43.99, 95% CI 34.46-56.17), male (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.12-1.99), level 3 PPE (OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.14-1.83), and longer wearing time (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.97-1.68). The prevalence of DRPI was high among medical staff wearing PPE against COVID-19, and the risk factors were sweating, male, wearing level 3 PPE, and longer wearing time. Comprehensive preventive interventions should be taken.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Medical Staff, Hospital , Nursing Staff, Hospital , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Pressure Ulcer/etiology , Adult , COVID-19/transmission , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Facial Injuries/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , Sweating , Time Factors
9.
Transbound Emerg Dis ; 67(4): 1745-1749, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-71843

ABSTRACT

The pandemic SARS-CoV-2 has been reported in 123 countries with more than 5,000 patients died from it. However, the original and intermediate hosts of the virus remain unknown. In this study, 1,914 serum samples from 35 animal species were used for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies using double-antigen sandwich ELISA after validating its specificity and sensitivity. The results showed that no SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were detected in above samples which excluded the possibility of 35 animal species as intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2. More importantly, companion animals including pet dogs (including one dog the SARS-CoV-2 patient kept and two dogs which had close contact with it) and cats, street dogs and cats also showed serological negative to SARS-CoV-2, which relieved the public concerns for the pets as SARS-CoV-2 carriers.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/veterinary , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Animals , Animals, Wild , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Cats , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/veterinary , Dogs , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/veterinary , Pets , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL