ABSTRACT
Objectives: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, global health authorities identified and emphasized the importance of practicing proper hand hygiene to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to diminish the chances of becoming infected. It is well established in the scientific literature that surfactants and alcohols are capable of inactivating enveloped viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. However, given the novel nature of the virus, Unilever adopted an evidence-based approach to demonstrate virucidal efficacy of marketed bar soaps, liquid handwashes, and alcohol-based hand sanitizers against the original and selected variants of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: High titers of clinically isolated and laboratory-propagated SARS-CoV-2 strains were subjected to a range of selected proprietary formulations from Unilever at end-user–relevant dilutions, temperature, and contact duration, and were tested according to the internationally recognized ASTM E-1052 test protocol. Results: All tested personal-care formulations were effective against the parental SARS-CoV-2 strain as well as the β (beta) and δ (delta) variants of concern. More specifically, bar soaps with a varying concentration of total fatty matter content and liquid handwashes with varying levels of total surfactants reduced the viral titer by >99.9% within 20 seconds. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers demonstrated >99.99% reduction of input viral load within 15 seconds of contact with the viral inoculum. Conclusions: In conclusion, we have provided empirical proof that well-designed personal-care formulations that act through generic physicochemical mechanism against the basic structure of the virus particle have high virucidal efficacy against the original and evolved SARS-CoV-2 variants. Furthermore, we argue that due to the broad-spectrum mode of action of these tested formulations, the continued practice of good hand hygiene practices with everyday products holds significant promise as an easily accessible, economic, and effective nontherapeutic public health intervention toward reducing the transmission of present and future variants of SARS-CoV-2 across communities and populations.
ABSTRACT
The bidirectional association between the circadian system and innate-adaptive immune functions has been highlighted in many investigations. Viruses are a submicroscopic infectious agent that activate the immune system after entering the human host cell. A novel virus, so-called Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has recently emerged, is an infectious disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Previous investigations show that the factors that are strongly controlled by circadian rhythms, such as clock genes and melatonin, modulate the immune response and may, therefore, influence the healing processes of COVID-19. Moreover, the mechanism of COVID-19 shows that some host cell factors, such as an angiotensin-converting enzyme, exhibit daily rhythms. In this review, we explore key findings that show a link between circadian rhythms and viral infection. The results of these findings could be helpful for clinical and preclinical studies to discover a useful and highly effective treatment for eradicating the COVID-19 disease.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionWorkplace is supposed to be an important transmission node of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in the epic initiation. Assessing the contagious risk in the different workplaces is important to target effective measures workplace. However, there was limited data to explore transmission patterns in work settings after COVID-19 spread into the community and population vaccination.Materials and MethodsFrom April to June 2022, 328 workers were enrolled in a variety of work settings. An online questionnaire was used to collect their current work industry, geographic information, vaccination of SARS-CoV-2, infection, etc. To categorize their exposure risk to COVID-19 cases from the workplace, workers were grouped into 3 different work settings according to their job nature and working environment. Non-office workers were those who normally carried out their jobs in a range of environments in an indoor or outdoor working space where close contact with the general public is frequent;Mobile workers were those who frequently move for conducting business that involves closer and more frequent contact with the general public;Office workers were those normally carry out professional duties and administrative work in an indoor working space. Breakthrough infection is defined as an infection after 14 days of full vaccination. The ethics approval number is CREC-2021.531-T.ResultsThere were 97, 151, and 80 workers in mobile, non-office, and office work groups and the infection rate were 40.2%, 40.4%, and 37.5%, respectively. 96.3% of them were full-vaccinated or get a booster shot. There was no significant difference in the breakthrough infection rate of workers in these three work settings no matter getting two or three shots of vaccine.ConclusionsWorkplace infection especially after full vaccination is not an important SARS-CoV-2 transmission pathway. [HMRF#COVID1903008, shelly@cuhk.edu.hk]
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Data comparing the immunogenicity of Sputnik-V and Sinopharm vaccines in seropositive and seronegative groups are lacking. We compared the immunogenicity of Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) and Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) vaccines in seronegative and seropositive groups. Methods: In total, 60 adults participated the study. The immune response after vaccination was assessed using enzyme immunoassay. IgG levels were measured in all participants at 3 time points: before vaccination, 42 days after the first vaccine dose, and 6 months after the first vaccine dose. The results of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody test were quantified according to the WHO First International Standard and expressed in international units (BAU per mL). Results: The study participants were divided into 2 groups: 30 people (50%) were vaccinated with Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) and 30 people (50%) were vaccinated with Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV). The groups had no difference in sex composition. The highest antibody levels were observed 42 days after vaccination in both the seronegative group (P = .006) and the seropositive group (P < .001). At 6 months after vaccination, the IgG value declined much farther among the seronegative group (P = .003) compared to those who had recovered from COVID-19 before vaccination. However, the "hybrid immunity” generated by the Sputnik-V vaccine had greater strength and duration (P < .001). Conclusions: This study showed that IgG levels in vaccinated individuals who previously recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection ("hybrid immunity”) were higher than in SARS-CoV-2–naïve individuals. In a comparative part of the study, the Sputnik-V vaccine had greater strength and duration of immune response across the 6-month observation period (P < .001).
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Worldwide pandemic spread of the novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has led to people being afflicted by COVID-19 with an ever-rising mortality leading to 1,079,029 deaths as on October 13, 2020 (covid19.who.int). Due to the rising incidence and mortality associated with COVID 19 in India with 7,175,880 confirmed cases and 109,856 deaths reported till October 13, 2020, it was imperative to have an early and effective predictor of clinical outcome to augment the present management of COVID 19 patients. Objective: The aim of the present retrospective study was to evaluate whether elevated D-dimer levels at admission in a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 patients could predict the severity of disease and outcome. Methods: D-dimer levels of patients with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 were retrospectively evaluated for patients admitted at this tertiary care hospital in India from March 28, 2020 to June 2, 2020. D-dimer levels on admission along with the clinicopathological profile of the patients were retrieved from the records held and intensive care unit (ICU) as well as death events were collected to calculate the optimum cutoff using the receiver operating characteristic curve. The subjects were divided into two groups and D-dimer levels between uncomplicated cases and those requiring ICU admission or died during the course of disease compared to assess the predictive value of D-dimer. Results: A total of 70 patients were included in this study admitted in this tertiary care hospital whose complete D-dimer records were available and retrieved retrospectively. Ten deaths occurred during hospitalization in the study period. Patients with mean D-dimer levels >= 4026.56 mu g/ml (fibrinogen equivalent units [FEU]) had a higher incidence of morbidity and mortality as compared to those who with lower mean D-dimer levels of 1268.66 mu g/dl (FEU) with P < 0.001. The optimum cutoff value of D-dimer to predict in-hospital ICU admission or mortality at our hospital was 857.9 mu g/L (FEU) with a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 69.09% and a negative predictive value of 97.44%. Conclusion: A D-dimer level > 857.9 mu g/L (FEU) at admission portends a worse outcome for COVID-19 patients.