Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Virol Sin ; 35(6): 744-751, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217476

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world with high mortality. To diagnose promptly and accurately is the vital step to effectively control its pandemic. Dynamic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies which are important for diagnosis of infection have not been fully demonstrated. In this retrospective, single-center, observational study, we enrolled the initial 131 confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Jin-Yin-Tan Hospital who had at least one-time antibody tested during their hospitalization. The dynamic changes of IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in 226 serum samples were detected by ELISA. The sensitivities of IgM and IgG ELISA detection were analyzed. Result showed that the sensitivity of the IgG ELISA detection (92.5%) was significantly higher than that of the IgM (70.8%) (P < 0.001). The meantimes of seroconversion for IgM and IgG were 6 days and 3 days, respectively. The IgM and IgG antibody levels peaked at around 18 days and 23 days, and then IgM fell to below the baseline level at about day 36, whereas IgG maintained at a relatively high level. In conclusion, antibodies should be detected to aid in diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. IgG could be a sensitive indicator for retrospective diagnosis and contact tracing, while IgM could be an indicator of early infection.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , China/epidemiology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
3.
Lancet ; 395(10236): 1569-1578, 2020 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-824547

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. INTERPRETATION: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Negative Results , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Med Teach ; 42(7): 787-790, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-431956

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 outbreak can be seen as a 'big test' for China; a summative assessment of its preparedness on multiple fronts, including medical education. Being intimately involved in the coordinated response, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University has been a first-hand witness to the strengths and weaknesses of the current medical education system in China. On the one hand, we believe that the distinguished contributions in disease containment efforts by healthcare professionals indicated that our medical education system has achieved its intended outcomes and is socially accountable. On the other hand, we have also identified three major issues that need to be addressed from an educational standpoint: insufficient emphasis on public health emergency preparedness; unsophisticated mechanisms for interdisciplinary cooperation; and inadequate guidance in medical ethics. Whilst these reflections might be seen in its summative form, we would suggest changing it to that of a formative process, where we learn from our assessment through observation and feedback of the gaps, upon which improvement of our present situation can be made. We hope that these lessons may be helpful to our colleagues in the rest of China and around the world, who are engaged in medical educational reform.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Education, Medical/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Disaster Planning/organization & administration , Education, Medical/standards , Ethics, Medical , Humans , Interprofessional Relations , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL