Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 20
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324478

ABSTRACT

Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia occasionally exacerbates to critical condition that is hard to manage. We aim to describe exacerbations of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia among inpatients. Methods We included confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients with pneumonia exacerbation admitted to Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital, Hubei Province, China between January 6 and February 17, 2020 and discharged or died before February 25. Their demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, laboratory tests, CT manifestations, complications and clinical outcomes were collected. Results A total of 158 patients were collected, among them 107 patients were stable and discharged after recovery, 24 patients were already critically severe at hospital admission. 14 patients were excluded for insufficient clinical data. Eventually, 13 confirmed cases were included. The mean age was 65 (± 9.81) years. Ten of the 13 (76.9%) patients were female. Nine (69.2%) had underlying comorbidities. Fever and cough were the most common symptoms (12/13, 92.3%). 10/13(76.9%) patients had their exacerbation in the second week of disease course. All patients had both negative and positive nucleic acid test (NAT) results during the course. Increased range of ground-glass opacity (GGO) on CT imaging are consistent to disease exacerbation. ARDS, MODS, respiratory failure were found in 5/13(38.5%), 3/13(23.1%), 6/13(46.2%) patients respectively. Five (38.5%) patients did not survive. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia exacerbations often occurs in the second week of disease course. Negative NAT result could not exclude exacerbation. CT manifestation is consistent with disease progression. Early admissions have positive effects on reducing complications and mortality.

3.
Engineering (Beijing) ; 7(7): 958-965, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482579

ABSTRACT

The longitudinal immunologic status of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients and its association with the clinical outcome are barely known. Thus, we sought to analyze the temporal profiles of specific antibodies, as well as the associations between the antibodies, proinflammatory cytokines, and survival of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A total of 1830 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were recruited. The temporal profiles of the virus, antibodies, and cytokines of the patients until 12 weeks since illness onset were fitted by the locally weighted scatter plot smoothing method. The mediation effect of cytokines on the associations between antibody responses and survival were explored by mediation analysis. Of the 1830 patients, 1435 were detectable for SARS-CoV-2, while 395 were positive in specific antibodies only. Of the 1435 patients, 2.4% presented seroconversion for neither immunoglobulin G (IgG) nor immunoglobulin M (IgM) during hospitalization. The seropositive rates of IgG and IgM were 29.6% and 48.1%, respectively, in the first week, and plateaued within five weeks. For the patients discharged from the hospital, the IgM decreased slowly, while high levels of IgG were maintained at around 188 AU·mL-1 for the 12 weeks since illness onset. In contrast, in the patients who subsequently died, IgM declined rapidly and IgG dropped to 87 AU·mL-1 at the twelfth week. Elevated interleukin-6, interleukin-8, interleukin-10, interleukin-1ß, interleukin-2R, and tumor necrosis factor-α levels were observed in the deceased patients in comparison with the discharged patients, and 12.5% of the association between IgG level and mortality risk was mediated by these cytokines. Our study deciphers the temporal profiles of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies within the 12 weeks since illness onset and indicates the protective effect of antibody response on survival, which may help to guide prognosis estimation.

4.
JAMA ; 323(19): 1915-1923, 2020 May 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441893

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic, and it is unknown whether a combination of public health interventions can improve control of the outbreak. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of public health interventions with the epidemiological features of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan by 5 periods according to key events and interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, individual-level data on 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between December 8, 2019, and March 8, 2020, were extracted from the municipal Notifiable Disease Report System, including patients' age, sex, residential location, occupation, and severity classification. EXPOSURES: Nonpharmaceutical public health interventions including cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction, social distancing, home confinement, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections (defined as the number of cases per day per million people), across age, sex, and geographic locations were calculated across 5 periods: December 8 to January 9 (no intervention), January 10 to 22 (massive human movement due to the Chinese New Year holiday), January 23 to February 1 (cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction and home quarantine), February 2 to 16 (centralized quarantine and treatment), and February 17 to March 8 (universal symptom survey). The effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (an indicator of secondary transmission) was also calculated over the periods. RESULTS: Among 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the median patient age was 56.7 years (range, 0-103; interquartile range, 43.4-66.8) and 16 817 (51.6%) were women. The daily confirmed case rate peaked in the third period and declined afterward across geographic regions and sex and age groups, except for children and adolescents, whose rate of confirmed cases continued to increase. The daily confirmed case rate over the whole period in local health care workers (130.5 per million people [95% CI, 123.9-137.2]) was higher than that in the general population (41.5 per million people [95% CI, 41.0-41.9]). The proportion of severe and critical cases decreased from 53.1% to 10.3% over the 5 periods. The severity risk increased with age: compared with those aged 20 to 39 years (proportion of severe and critical cases, 12.1%), elderly people (≥80 years) had a higher risk of having severe or critical disease (proportion, 41.3%; risk ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 3.31-3.95]) while younger people (<20 years) had a lower risk (proportion, 4.1%; risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.70]). The effective reproduction number fluctuated above 3.0 before January 26, decreased to below 1.0 after February 6, and decreased further to less than 0.3 after March 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. These findings may inform public health policy in other countries and regions.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Child , China/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Female , Health Policy , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
6.
JAMA ; 326(1): 35-45, 2021 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318655

ABSTRACT

Importance: Although effective vaccines against COVID-19 have been developed, additional vaccines are still needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of 2 inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified interim analysis of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain among adults 18 years and older without known history of COVID-19. Study enrollment began on July 16, 2020. Data sets used for the interim analysis of efficacy and adverse events were locked on December 20, 2020, and December 31, 2020, respectively. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 2 inactivated vaccines developed from SARS-CoV-2 WIV04 (5 µg/dose; n = 13 459) and HB02 (4 µg/dose; n = 13 465) strains or an aluminum hydroxide (alum)-only control (n = 13 458); they received 2 intramuscular injections 21 days apart. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 14 days following a second vaccine dose among participants who had no virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomization. The secondary outcome was efficacy against severe COVID-19. Incidence of adverse events and reactions was collected among participants who received at least 1 dose. Results: Among 40 382 participants randomized to receive at least 1 dose of the 2 vaccines or alum-only control (mean age, 36.1 years; 32 261 [84.4%] men), 38 206 (94.6%) who received 2 doses, contributed at least 1 follow-up measure after day 14 following the second dose, and had negative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test results at enrollment were included in the primary efficacy analysis. During a median (range) follow-up duration of 77 (1-121) days, symptomatic COVID-19 was identified in 26 participants in the WIV04 group (12.1 [95% CI, 8.3-17.8] per 1000 person-years), 21 in the HB02 group (9.8 [95% CI, 6.4-15.0] per 1000 person-years), and 95 in the alum-only group (44.7 [95% CI, 36.6-54.6] per 1000 person-years), resulting in a vaccine efficacy, compared with alum-only, of 72.8% (95% CI, 58.1%-82.4%) for WIV04 and 78.1% (95% CI, 64.8%-86.3%) for HB02 (P < .001 for both). Two severe cases of COVID-19 occurred in the alum-only group and none occurred in the vaccine groups. Adverse reactions 7 days after each injection occurred in 41.7% to 46.5% of participants in the 3 groups; serious adverse events were rare and similar in the 3 groups (WIV04: 64 [0.5%]; HB02: 59 [0.4%]; alum-only: 78 [0.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prespecified interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial, treatment of adults with either of 2 inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic COVID-19, and serious adverse events were rare. Data collection for final analysis is pending. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510207; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000034780.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adult , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Datasets as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Injections, Intramuscular , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East , Vaccines, Inactivated/immunology
7.
EClinicalMedicine ; 38: 101010, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300745

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 in Chinese adults aged ≥18 years. METHODS: This is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trial among healthy adults aged ≥18 years in Henan Province, China. Participants (n = 336 in 18-59 age group and n = 336 in ≥60 age group) were enrolled between April 12 and May 17 2020, and were equally randomized to receive vaccine or placebo (aluminum hydroxide adjuvant) in a three-dose schedule of 2·5, 5, or 10 µg on days 0, 28, and 56. Another 448 adults aged 18-59 years were equally allocated to four groups (a one-dose schedule of 10 µg, and two-dose schedules of 5 µg on days 0 and 14/21/28) and received vaccine or placebo (ratio 3:1 within each group). The primary outcomes were 7-day post-injection adverse reactions and neutralizing antibody titres on days 28 and 90 after the whole-course vaccination. Trial registration: www.chictr.org.cn #ChiCTR2000031809. FINDINGS: The 7-day adverse reactions occurred in 4·8% to 32·1% of the participants in various groups, and most adverse reactions were mild, transient, and self-limiting. Twenty participants reported 68 serious adverse events which were judged to be unrelated to the vaccine. The 90-day post-injection geometric mean titres of neutralizing antibody ranged between 87 (95% CI: 61-125) and 129 (99-169) for three-dose schedule among younger and older adults; 20 (14-27), 53 (38-75), and 44 (32-61) in 5 µg days 0 and 14/21/28 groups, respectively, and 7 (6-9) in one-dose 10 µg group. There were no detectable antibody responses in all placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: The inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 was well tolerated and immunogenic in both younger and older adults. The two-dose schedule of 5 µg on days 0 and 21/28 and three-dose schedules on days 0, 28, and 56 could be further evaluated for long-term safety and efficacy in the phase 3 trials.

9.
JAMA ; 326(1): 35-45, 2021 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242692

ABSTRACT

Importance: Although effective vaccines against COVID-19 have been developed, additional vaccines are still needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of 2 inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified interim analysis of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain among adults 18 years and older without known history of COVID-19. Study enrollment began on July 16, 2020. Data sets used for the interim analysis of efficacy and adverse events were locked on December 20, 2020, and December 31, 2020, respectively. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 2 inactivated vaccines developed from SARS-CoV-2 WIV04 (5 µg/dose; n = 13 459) and HB02 (4 µg/dose; n = 13 465) strains or an aluminum hydroxide (alum)-only control (n = 13 458); they received 2 intramuscular injections 21 days apart. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 14 days following a second vaccine dose among participants who had no virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomization. The secondary outcome was efficacy against severe COVID-19. Incidence of adverse events and reactions was collected among participants who received at least 1 dose. Results: Among 40 382 participants randomized to receive at least 1 dose of the 2 vaccines or alum-only control (mean age, 36.1 years; 32 261 [84.4%] men), 38 206 (94.6%) who received 2 doses, contributed at least 1 follow-up measure after day 14 following the second dose, and had negative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test results at enrollment were included in the primary efficacy analysis. During a median (range) follow-up duration of 77 (1-121) days, symptomatic COVID-19 was identified in 26 participants in the WIV04 group (12.1 [95% CI, 8.3-17.8] per 1000 person-years), 21 in the HB02 group (9.8 [95% CI, 6.4-15.0] per 1000 person-years), and 95 in the alum-only group (44.7 [95% CI, 36.6-54.6] per 1000 person-years), resulting in a vaccine efficacy, compared with alum-only, of 72.8% (95% CI, 58.1%-82.4%) for WIV04 and 78.1% (95% CI, 64.8%-86.3%) for HB02 (P < .001 for both). Two severe cases of COVID-19 occurred in the alum-only group and none occurred in the vaccine groups. Adverse reactions 7 days after each injection occurred in 41.7% to 46.5% of participants in the 3 groups; serious adverse events were rare and similar in the 3 groups (WIV04: 64 [0.5%]; HB02: 59 [0.4%]; alum-only: 78 [0.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prespecified interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial, treatment of adults with either of 2 inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic COVID-19, and serious adverse events were rare. Data collection for final analysis is pending. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510207; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000034780.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adult , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Datasets as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Injections, Intramuscular , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East , Vaccines, Inactivated/immunology
10.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(4): e26940, 2021 04 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241157

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A detailed understanding of the public's knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 could inform governments' public health actions in response to the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 among adults in China and its variation among provinces and by sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: Between May 8 and June 8, 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among adults in China who were registered with the private survey company KuRunData. We set a target sample size of 10,000 adults, aiming to sample 300-360 adults from each province in China. Participants were asked 25 questions that tested their knowledge about COVID-19, including measures to prevent infection, common symptoms, and recommended care-seeking behavior. We disaggregated responses by age; sex; education; province; household income; rural-urban residency; and whether or not a participant had a family member, friend, or acquaintance who they know to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. All analyses used survey sampling weights. RESULTS: There were 5079 men and 4921 women who completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Out of 25 knowledge questions, participants answered a mean and median of 21.4 (95% CI 21.3-21.4) and 22 (IQR 20-23) questions correctly, respectively. A total of 83.4% (95% CI 82.7%-84.1%) of participants answered four-fifths or more of the questions correctly. For at least one of four ineffective prevention measures (using a hand dryer, regular nasal irrigation, gargling mouthwash, and taking antibiotics), 68.9% (95% CI 68.0%-69.8%) of participants answered that it was an effective method to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although knowledge overall was similar across provinces, the percent of participants who answered the question on recommended care-seeking behavior correctly varied from 47.0% (95% CI 41.4%-52.7%) in Tibet to 87.5% (95% CI 84.1%-91.0%) in Beijing. Within provinces, participants who were male, were middle-aged, were residing in urban areas, and had higher household income tended to answer a higher proportion of the knowledge questions correctly. CONCLUSIONS: This online study of individuals across China suggests that the majority of the population has good knowledge of COVID-19. However, a substantial proportion still holds misconceptions or incorrect beliefs about prevention methods and recommended health care-seeking behaviors, especially in rural areas and some less wealthy provinces in Western China. This study can inform the development of tailored public health policies and promotion campaigns by identifying knowledge areas for which misconceptions are comparatively common and provinces that have relatively low knowledge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Education , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Public Health , Rural Population , Urban Population , Young Adult
11.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(5): e30100, 2021 May 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1225843

ABSTRACT

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/26940.].

12.
Engineering (Beijing) ; 7(7): 899-902, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193306
13.
BMJ ; 373: n604, 2021 04 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186275

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether overall lifestyles mediate associations of socioeconomic status (SES) with mortality and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the extent of interaction or joint relations of lifestyles and SES with health outcomes. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING: US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (US NHANES, 1988-94 and 1999-2014) and UK Biobank. PARTICIPANTS: 44 462 US adults aged 20 years or older and 399 537 UK adults aged 37-73 years. EXPOSURES: SES was derived by latent class analysis using family income, occupation or employment status, education level, and health insurance (US NHANES only), and three levels (low, medium, and high) were defined according to item response probabilities. A healthy lifestyle score was constructed using information on never smoking, no heavy alcohol consumption (women ≤1 drink/day; men ≤2 drinks/day; one drink contains 14 g of ethanol in the US and 8 g in the UK), top third of physical activity, and higher dietary quality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause mortality was the primary outcome in both studies, and CVD mortality and morbidity in UK Biobank, which were obtained through linkage to registries. RESULTS: US NHANES documented 8906 deaths over a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, and UK Biobank documented 22 309 deaths and 6903 incident CVD cases over a mean follow-up of 8.8-11.0 years. Among adults of low SES, age adjusted risk of death was 22.5 (95% confidence interval 21.7 to 23.3) and 7.4 (7.3 to 7.6) per 1000 person years in US NHANES and UK Biobank, respectively, and age adjusted risk of CVD was 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6) per 1000 person years in UK Biobank. The corresponding risks among adults of high SES were 11.4 (10.6 to 12.1), 3.3 (3.1 to 3.5), and 1.4 (1.3 to 1.5) per 1000 person years. Compared with adults of high SES, those of low SES had higher risks of all cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.13, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 2.38 in US NHANES; 1.96, 1.87 to 2.06 in UK Biobank), CVD mortality (2.25, 2.00 to 2.53), and incident CVD (1.65, 1.52 to 1.79) in UK Biobank, and the proportions mediated by lifestyle were 12.3% (10.7% to 13.9%), 4.0% (3.5% to 4.4%), 3.0% (2.5% to 3.6%), and 3.7% (3.1% to 4.5%), respectively. No significant interaction was observed between lifestyle and SES in US NHANES, whereas associations between lifestyle and outcomes were stronger among those of low SES in UK Biobank. Compared with adults of high SES and three or four healthy lifestyle factors, those with low SES and no or one healthy lifestyle factor had higher risks of all cause mortality (3.53, 3.01 to 4.14 in US NHANES; 2.65, 2.39 to 2.94 in UK Biobank), CVD mortality (2.65, 2.09 to 3.38), and incident CVD (2.09, 1.78 to 2.46) in UK Biobank. CONCLUSIONS: Unhealthy lifestyles mediated a small proportion of the socioeconomic inequity in health in both US and UK adults; therefore, healthy lifestyle promotion alone might not substantially reduce the socioeconomic inequity in health, and other measures tackling social determinants of health are warranted. Nevertheless, healthy lifestyles were associated with lower mortality and CVD risk in different SES subgroups, supporting an important role of healthy lifestyles in reducing disease burden.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Healthy Lifestyle , Mortality , Socioeconomic Factors , Adult , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Female , Health Behavior , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Nutrition Surveys , Prospective Studies , Registries , United Kingdom/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
14.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(4): e26940, 2021 04 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1181319

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A detailed understanding of the public's knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 could inform governments' public health actions in response to the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 among adults in China and its variation among provinces and by sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: Between May 8 and June 8, 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among adults in China who were registered with the private survey company KuRunData. We set a target sample size of 10,000 adults, aiming to sample 300-360 adults from each province in China. Participants were asked 25 questions that tested their knowledge about COVID-19, including measures to prevent infection, common symptoms, and recommended care-seeking behavior. We disaggregated responses by age; sex; education; province; household income; rural-urban residency; and whether or not a participant had a family member, friend, or acquaintance who they know to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. All analyses used survey sampling weights. RESULTS: There were 5079 men and 4921 women who completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Out of 25 knowledge questions, participants answered a mean and median of 21.4 (95% CI 21.3-21.4) and 22 (IQR 20-23) questions correctly, respectively. A total of 83.4% (95% CI 82.7%-84.1%) of participants answered four-fifths or more of the questions correctly. For at least one of four ineffective prevention measures (using a hand dryer, regular nasal irrigation, gargling mouthwash, and taking antibiotics), 68.9% (95% CI 68.0%-69.8%) of participants answered that it was an effective method to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although knowledge overall was similar across provinces, the percent of participants who answered the question on recommended care-seeking behavior correctly varied from 47.0% (95% CI 41.4%-52.7%) in Tibet to 87.5% (95% CI 84.1%-91.0%) in Beijing. Within provinces, participants who were male, were middle-aged, were residing in urban areas, and had higher household income tended to answer a higher proportion of the knowledge questions correctly. CONCLUSIONS: This online study of individuals across China suggests that the majority of the population has good knowledge of COVID-19. However, a substantial proportion still holds misconceptions or incorrect beliefs about prevention methods and recommended health care-seeking behaviors, especially in rural areas and some less wealthy provinces in Western China. This study can inform the development of tailored public health policies and promotion campaigns by identifying knowledge areas for which misconceptions are comparatively common and provinces that have relatively low knowledge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Education , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Public Health , Rural Population , Urban Population , Young Adult
15.
JAMA ; 324(10): 951-960, 2020 09 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-911581

ABSTRACT

Importance: A vaccine against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is urgently needed. Objective: To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of an investigational inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccine in China. Interventions: In the phase 1 trial, 96 participants were assigned to 1 of the 3 dose groups (2.5, 5, and 10 µg/dose) and an aluminum hydroxide (alum) adjuvant-only group (n = 24 in each group), and received 3 intramuscular injections at days 0, 28, and 56. In the phase 2 trial, 224 adults were randomized to 5 µg/dose in 2 schedule groups (injections on days 0 and 14 [n = 84] vs alum only [n = 28], and days 0 and 21 [n = 84] vs alum only [n = 28]). Design, Setting, and Participants: Interim analysis of ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 and 2 clinical trials to assess an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. The trials were conducted in Henan Province, China, among 96 (phase 1) and 224 (phase 2) healthy adults aged between 18 and 59 years. Study enrollment began on April 12, 2020. The interim analysis was conducted on June 16, 2020, and updated on July 27, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety outcome was the combined adverse reactions 7 days after each injection, and the primary immunogenicity outcome was neutralizing antibody response 14 days after the whole-course vaccination, which was measured by a 50% plaque reduction neutralization test against live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Results: Among 320 patients who were randomized (mean age, 42.8 years; 200 women [62.5%]), all completed the trial up to 28 days after the whole-course vaccination. The 7-day adverse reactions occurred in 3 (12.5%), 5 (20.8%), 4 (16.7%), and 6 (25.0%) patients in the alum only, low-dose, medium-dose, and high-dose groups, respectively, in the phase 1 trial; and in 5 (6.0%) and 4 (14.3%) patients who received injections on days 0 and 14 for vaccine and alum only, and 16 (19.0%) and 5 (17.9%) patients who received injections on days 0 and 21 for vaccine and alum only, respectively, in the phase 2 trial. The most common adverse reaction was injection site pain, followed by fever, which were mild and self-limiting; no serious adverse reactions were noted. The geometric mean titers of neutralizing antibodies in the low-, medium-, and high-dose groups at day 14 after 3 injections were 316 (95% CI, 218-457), 206 (95% CI, 123-343), and 297 (95% CI, 208-424), respectively, in the phase 1 trial, and were 121 (95% CI, 95-154) and 247 (95% CI, 176-345) at day 14 after 2 injections in participants receiving vaccine on days 0 and 14 and on days 0 and 21, respectively, in the phase 2 trial. There were no detectable antibody responses in all alum-only groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this interim report of the phase 1 and phase 2 trials of an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, patients had a low rate of adverse reactions and demonstrated immunogenicity; the study is ongoing. Efficacy and longer-term adverse event assessment will require phase 3 trials. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000031809.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Viral Vaccines/immunology , Adjuvants, Immunologic/administration & dosage , Adjuvants, Immunologic/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aluminum Hydroxide/administration & dosage , Aluminum Hydroxide/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Injections, Intramuscular , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Propiolactone , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccines, Inactivated/immunology , Viral Vaccines/administration & dosage , Viral Vaccines/adverse effects , Young Adult
16.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ; 11: 525, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-690147

ABSTRACT

Background: Diabetes correlates with poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19, but very few studies have evaluated whether impaired fasting glucose (IFG) is also a risk factor for the poor outcomes of patients with COVID-19. Here we aimed to examine the associations between IFG and diabetes at admission with risks of complications and mortality among patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we enrolled 312 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from 5 hospitals in Wuhan from Jan 1 to Mar 17, 2020. Clinical information, laboratory findings, complications, treatment regimens, and mortality status were collected. The associations between hyperglycemia and diabetes status at admission with primary composite end-point events (including mechanical ventilation, admission to intensive care unit, or death) were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: The median age of the patients was 57 years (interquartile range 38-66), and 172 (55%) were women. At the time of hospital admission, 84 (27%) had diabetes (and 36 were new-diagnosed), 62 (20%) had IFG, and 166 (53%) had normal fasting glucose (NFG) levels. Compared to patients with NFG, patients with IFG and diabetes developed more primary composite end-point events (9 [5%], 11 [18%], 26 [31%]), including receiving mechanical ventilation (5 [3%], 6 [10%], 21 [25%]), and death (4 [2%], 9 [15%], 20 [24%]). Multivariable Cox regression analyses showed diabetes was associated increased risks of primary composite end-point events (hazard ratio 3.53; 95% confidence interval 1.48-8.40) and mortality (6.25; 1.91-20.45), and IFG was associated with an increased risk of mortality (4.11; 1.15-14.74), after adjusting for age, sex, hospitals and comorbidities. Conclusion: IFG and diabetes at admission were associated with higher risks of adverse outcomes among patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/metabolism , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Diabetes Complications/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus/physiopathology , Glucose Intolerance/complications , Hyperglycemia/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Diabetes Complications/epidemiology , Diabetes Complications/virology , Diabetes Mellitus/virology , Fasting , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Glucose Intolerance/virology , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Hyperglycemia/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Rate
19.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 8(7): 640-648, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-197827

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is wreaking havoc on society, especially health-care systems, including disrupting bariatric and metabolic surgery. The current limitations on accessibility to non-urgent care undermine postoperative monitoring of patients who have undergone such operations. Furthermore, like most elective surgery, new bariatric and metabolic procedures are being postponed worldwide during the pandemic. When the outbreak abates, a backlog of people seeking these operations will exist. Hence, surgical candidates face prolonged delays of beneficial treatment. Because of the progressive nature of obesity and diabetes, delaying surgery increases risks for morbidity and mortality, thus requiring strategies to mitigate harm. The risk of harm, however, varies among patients, depending on the type and severity of their comorbidities. A triaging strategy is therefore needed. The traditional weight-centric patient-selection criteria do not favour cases based on actual clinical needs. In this Personal View, experts from the Diabetes Surgery Summit consensus conference series provide guidance for the management of patients while surgery is delayed and for postoperative surveillance. We also offer a strategy to prioritise bariatric and metabolic surgery candidates on the basis of the diseases that are most likely to be ameliorated postoperatively. Although our system will be particularly germane in the immediate future, it also provides a framework for long-term clinically meaningful prioritisation.


Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery/methods , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/surgery , Obesity/surgery , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/surgery , Postoperative Care/methods , Bariatric Surgery/trends , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Management , Humans , Obesity/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Postoperative Care/trends , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
20.
EClinicalMedicine ; 23: 100375, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-155432

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is currently a pandemic affecting over 200 countries. Many cities have established designated fever clinics to triage suspected COVID-19 patients from other patients with similar symptoms. However, given the limited availability of the nucleic acid test as well as long waiting time for both the test and radiographic examination, the quarantine or therapeutic decisions for a large number of mixed patients were often not made in time. We aimed to identify simple and quickly available laboratory biomarkers to facilitate effective triage at the fever clinics for sorting suspected COVID-19 patients from those with COVID-19-like symptoms. METHODS: We collected clinical, etiological, and laboratory data of 989 patients who visited the Fever Clinic at Wuhan Union Hospital, Wuhan, China, from Jan 31 to Feb 21. Based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection, they were divided into two groups: SARS-CoV-2-positive patients as cases and SARS-CoV-2-negative patients as controls. We compared the clinical features and laboratory findings of the two groups, and analyzed the diagnostic performance of several laboratory parameters in predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection and made relevant comparisons to the China diagnosis guideline of having a normal or decreased number of leukocytes (≤9·5 109/L) or lymphopenia (<1·1 109/L). FINDINGS: Normal or decreased number of leukocytes (≤9·5 109/L), lymphopenia (<1·1 109/L), eosinopenia (<0·02 109/L), and elevated hs-CRP (≥4 mg/L) were presented in 95·0%, 52·2%, 74·7% and 86·7% of COVID-19 patients, much higher than 87·2%, 28·8%, 31·3% and 45·2% of the controls, respectively. The eosinopenia produced a sensitivity of 74·7% and specificity of 68·7% for separating the two groups with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0·717. The combination of eosinopenia and elevated hs-CRP yielded a sensitivity of 67·9% and specificity of 78·2% (AUC=0·730). The addition of eosinopenia alone or the combination of eosinopenia and elevated hs-CRP into the guideline-recommended diagnostic parameters for COVID-19 improved the predictive capacity with higher than zero of both net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). INTERPRETATION: The combination of eosinopenia and elevated hs-CRP can effectively triage suspected COVID-19 patients from other patients attending the fever clinic with COVID-19-like initial symptoms. This finding would be particularly useful for designing triage strategies in an epidemic region having a large number of patients with COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases while limited medical resources for nucleic acid tests and radiographic examination.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL