Associations between psychological inflexibility and mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: A three-level meta-analytic review

Background An increasing number of research has documented the positive associations between psychological inflexibility (PI) and mental health problems (i.e., depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms) during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the documented associations have been inconsistent. This review thus aimed to quantitatively summarize primary research to gain better estimates of these associations. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted in six databases and three-level meta-analytic models were used to statistically synthesize effect sizes and to examine moderators of the associations between PI and depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Results A total of 22 studies yielded 63 effect sizes on associations between PI and depressive, anxiety, or stress symptoms. The results of three separate meta-analyses revealed a large and significant association between PI and depressive (r = 0.580, 95 % CI [0.549;0.775]), anxiety (r = 0.548, 95 % CI [0.468;0.761]), and stress symptoms (r = 0.548, 95 % CI [0.506;0.725]). The association between PI and depressive symptoms is stronger for males than for females, and the association between PI and stress symptoms varies by type of measure that primary studies use to assess PI and stress symptoms. Limitations Temporal or causal conclusions are not allowed due to cross-sectional nature of the associations included in meta-analyses. Clinical samples with high levels of stress were underrepresented. Conclusions PI seems an important risk factor for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, and should therefore be targeted in interventions addressing mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Antibody Persistence and Safety through 6 Months after Heterologous Orally Aerosolised Ad5-nCoV in individuals primed with two-dose CoronaVac previously (preprint)

Background: Heterologous orally administered adenovirus type-5 vector-based COVID-19 vaccine (Ad5-nCoV) in individuals who were primed with two-dose CoronaVac (an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, by Sinovac) previously, has been reported to be safe and highly immunogenic within 28 days post-boosting. However, antibody persistence and safety up to 6 months of this regimen are not been reported yet. Methods: This is a randomized, open label, single-center trial on safety and immunogenicity of heterologous boost immunization with an orally administered aerosolised Ad5-nCoV vs. homologous boost immunization with CoronaVac after two-dose priming with CoronaVac in Chinese adults aged 18 years and older (NCT05043259). We followed the participants in this trial, including 140 in the low-dose aerosolised Ad5-nCoV group, 139 in the high-dose aerosolised Ad5-nCoV group, and 140 in the CoronaVac group for 6 months. Neutralising antibodies (NAbs) against live wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus and omicron variant, and receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific IgG antibodies were detected in serum samples collected at 28 days, 3 months, and 6 months after the booster dose. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were documented till month 6. Results: The low-dose and high-dose heterologous boost immunisation groups had NAb GMTs against live wild-type SARS-CoV-2 of 1937.3 [95% CI 1466.9, 2558.4] and 1350.8 [95% CI 952.6, 1915.3], which were 26.4 folds and 18.4 folds higher than that the CoronaVac group did (73.5 [95%CI 52.3, 103.3]) at 28 days. The low-dose and high-dose heterologous boost immunisation groups had NAb GMTs against live wild-type SARS-CoV-2 of 530.1 (95% CI 412.5, 681.1) and 457.6 (95%CI 349.4, 599.2), which were 26.0 folds and 22.4 folds higher than that the CoronaVac group did (20.4 [95%CI 14.3, 29.1]) at 3 months, respectively. At 6 months, the low-dose and high-dose heterologous booster groups had NAb GMTs against live wild-type SARS-CoV-2 of 312.9 (95%CI 237.7, 411.8) and 251.1 (95%CI 178.2, 354.0), which were 30.1 folds and 24.1 folds higher than the CoronaVac group did (10.4 [95%CI 7.8, 14.0]), respectively. Additionally, the low-dose and high-dose heterologous booster groups had NAb GMTs against live omicron variant of 52.0 (95%CI 37.2, 72.6) and 23.1 (95%CI 15.7, 33.9) at 28 days, 27.9 (95% CI 18.8, 41.3) and 23.3 (95%CI 16.2, 33.3) at 3 months, 16.0 (95%CI 10.9, 23.5) and 12.0 (95%CI 8.5, 16.8) at 6 months, respectively. However, nearly all participants had no detectable NAbs for omicron variant in the CoronaVac group at either 28 days, 3 months, or 6 months. No vaccine-related SAEs were observed. Conclusions: These data suggested that heterologous aerosolised Ad5-nCoV following two-dose CoronaVac priming was safe and persistently more immunogenic than three-dose CoronaVac, although immune responses waned over time.

Heterologous CoronaVac plus Ad5-nCOV versus homologous CoronaVac vaccination among elderly: a phase 4, non-inferiority, randomized study (preprint)

Importance People over 60 developed less protection after two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine than younger people. Heterologous vaccination might provide greater immunity and protection against variants of concern. Objective To assess the safety and immunogenicity of a heterologous immunization with an adenovirus type 5-vectored vaccine (Convidecia) among elderly who were primed with an inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) previously. Design An observer-blind, randomized (1:1) trial, conducted from August 26 to November 13, 2021. Setting A single center in Jiangsu Province, China. Participants 299 participants aged 60 years and olderof them 199 primed with two doses of CoronaVac in the past 3-6 months and 100 primed with one dose of CoronaVac in the past 1-2 months. Intervention Convidecia or CoronaVac as boosting dose Main Outcomes and Measures Geometric mean titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibodies against wild-type SARS-CoV-2, and Delta and Omicron variants 14 days post boosting, and adverse reactions within 28 days. Results In the three-dose regimen cohort (n=199; mean (SD) age, 66.7 (4.2) years; 74 (37.2%) female), 99 and 100 received a third dose of Convidecia (group A) and CoronaVac (group B), respectively. In the two-dose regimen cohort (n=100; mean (SD) age, 70.5 (6.0) years; 49 (49%) female), 50 and 50 received a second dose of Convidecia (group C) and CoronaVac (group D), respectively. GMTs of neutralizing antibodies against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 at day 14 were 286.4 (95% CI: 244.6, 335.2) in group A and 48.2 (95% CI: 39.5, 58.7) in group B, with GMT ratio of 6.2 (95% CI: 4.7, 8.1), and 70.9 (95% CI: 49.5, 101.7) in group C and 9.3 (95% CI: 6.2, 13.9) in group D, with GMT ratio of 7.6 (95% CI: 4.1, 14.1). There was a 6.3-fold (GMTs, 45.9 vs 7.3) and 7.5-fold (32.9 vs 4.4) increase in neutralizing antibodies against Delta and Omicron variants in group A, respectively, compared with group B. However, there was no significant difference between group C and group D. Both heterologous and homologous booster immunizations were safe and well tolerated. Conclusions and Relevance Heterologous prime-boost regimens with CoronaVac and Convidecia induced strong neutralizing antibodies in elderly, which was superior to that induced by the homologous boost, without increasing safety concerns. Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov NCT04952727

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous boost immunization with an adenovirus type-5-vectored and protein-subunit-based COVID-19 vaccine (Convidecia/ZF2001): a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (preprint)

Background Heterologous boost vaccination has been proposed as an option to elicit stronger and broader, or longer-lasting immunity. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous immunization with a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine (Convidecia) and a protein-subunit-based COVID-19 vaccine (ZF2001). Methods and Findings We did a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults previously received one dose of Convidecia. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either ZF2001 (vaccine group) or a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) (placebo group) at either 28-day or 56-day intervals. For both regimens, all participants received the 2nd injection with ZF2001 at 4 months after a dose of ZF2001 or TIV, with three-dose schedules of Convidecia/Convidecia/ZF2001 at day 0, day 28 and month 5 (referred to as CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D28-M5)) and CV/ZF/ZF (D0-D56-M6), and two-dose schedules of CV/ZF (D0-M5) and CV/ZF (D0-M6). The primary outcome was the geometric mean titer (GMT) of the neutralizing antibodies against live SARS-CoV-2 virus 14 days after each boost vaccination. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local or systemic adverse reactions after each vaccination. Between April 7, 2021, and May 6, 2021, 120 participants were enrolled, among whom 60 were randomly assigned to receive ZF2001 (n=40) or TIV (n=20) at a 28-day interval, and 60 were randomly assigned to receive ZF2001 (n=40) or TIV (n=20) at a 56-day interval. 113 (94.2%) participants received the 2nd injection with ZF2001 4 months after a dose of ZF2001 or TIV. A total of 26 participants (21.7%) reported solicited adverse events within 7 days post boost vaccinations, and all the reported adverse reactions were mild . Among participants receiving ZF001 as second dose, the GMTs of neutralizing antibodies increased to 58.4 IU/ml (42.8-79.8) in 0-28 regimen, and to 80.8 IU/ml (53.1-122.9) in 0-56 regimen at 14 days post first boost dose. The GMTs of neutralizing antibodies increased to 334.9 IU/ml (95% CI 230.4, 486.9) in C/Z/Z (D0-D28-M5) regimen, and 441.2 IU/ml (260.8, 746.4) in C/Z/Z (D0-D56-M6) regimen at 14 days after the third dose. Two-dose schedules of CV/ZF (D0-M5) and CV/ZF (D0-M6) induced comparable antibody level comparable with that elicited by three-dose schedules, with the GMTs of 282.9 IU/ml (142.5, 561.8) and 293.9 IU/ml (137.6, 627.9), respectively. Study limitations include the absence of vaccine effectiveness in real-world, and current lack of immune persistence data and the neutralizing antibodies to Omicron. Conclusions Heterologous boosting with ZF001 following primary vaccination of Convidecia is safe and more immunogenic than a single dose of Convidecia. These results support flexibility in cooperating viral vectored vaccines and recombinant protein vaccine. Trial Registration ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04833101

Heterologous prime-boost immunization with CoronaVac and Convidecia (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background The safety and immunogenicity of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine regimens with one shot of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine Convidecia has not been reported. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded trial of heterologous prime-boost immunization with CoronaVac and Convidecia in healthy adults 18-59 years of age. Eligible participants who were primed with one or two doses of CoronaVac were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive a booster dose of Convidecia or CoronaVac. Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the three-dose or two-dose regimen. The occurrences of adverse reactions within 28 days after the vaccination were documented. The geometric mean titers of neutralizing antibodies against live SARS-CoV-2 virus were measured at 14 and 28 days after the booster vaccination. Results Between May 25 and 26, 2021, a total of 300 participants were enrolled. Participants who received a booster shot with a heterologous dose of Convidecia reported increased frequencies of solicited injection-site reactions than did those received a homogeneous dose of CoronaVac, but frequencies of systemic reactions. The adverse reactions were generally mild to moderate. The heterologous immunization with Convidecia induced higher live viral neutralizing antibodies than did the homogeneous immunization with CoronaVac (197.4[167.7, 232.4] vs. 33.6[28.3, 39.8] and 54.4[37. 9, 78.0] vs. 12.8[9.3, 17.5]) at day 14 in the three- and two-dose regimen cohort, respectively. Conclusions The heterologous prime-boost regimen with Convidecia after the priming with CoronaVac was safe and significantly immunogenic than a homogeneous boost with CoronaVac ( ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT04892459 ).

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in pregnancy: analysis of nine cases / 中华围产医学杂志

Objective@#To evaluate the clinical characteristics and pregnant outcomes of gravidae with COVID-19.@*Methods@#This study involved nine gravidae with COVID-19 admitted to the Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from January 22 to February 1, 2020. Their clinical data, including epidemiological history, clinical symptoms, laboratory examinations, chest CT, treatment, delivery mode, and pregnancy outcomes, were analyzed retrospectively. Descriptive analysis was applied in this study.@*Results@#(1) Among the nine cases, five were admitted in the third trimester and four in the second trimester. The median incubation period of COVID-19 was 8 (1-14) d. Fever was presented in all cases on admission, and the other commonly seen symptoms were cough (seven cases) and diarrhea (five cases). Other signs and symptoms were also reported, including shortness of breath, myalgia and fatigue (four cases in each), nasal obstruction, pharyngalgia, chest pain, and headache/dizziness (three cases in each), rash (two cases), and chills and expectoration (one case in each). The most common laboratory abnormalities were a decreased number of lymphocytes (seven cases) and elevated C-reactive protein (six cases). Chest CT scans were performed in seven women, and all showed patchy areas or ground-glass opacity in both lungs. Oligohydramnios was detected in only one case at 37+5 weeks, which was 7 d after the diagnosis of COVID-19. (2) All nine cases received empiric antibiotic and antiviral therapy with Chinese medicine as adjuvant treatment. Eight patients required oxygen inhalation, and seven were treated with glucocorticoid. One case received immunotherapy due to worsening conditions. (3) Four of the nine cases had delivered, including three cesarean sections and one spontaneous vaginal preterm birth after premature rupture of membranes, and the mother was transferred to the intensive care unit 2 d after delivery due to acute respiratory distress syndrome. One case was terminated at 26 gestational weeks. Of the four neonates, there were two term and two premature babies, and one preterm babies was small-for-gestational-age. No neonatal asphyxia was observed. Serial real-time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction showed negative results in the detection of 2019-novel coronavirus in all samples obtained from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, neonatal nasopharynx, breast milk, and vagina. Maternal conditions were all stable in all cases, including the four continuing pregnancy, and the terminated ones, except the case mentioned above.@*Conclusions@#There is no distinguishable clinical feature between pregnant and non-pregnant COVID-19 patients. Currently, the evidence for vertical transmission of COVID-19 needs further studies with larger size of examples, but pregnancy may deteriorate COVID-19. Given that COVID-19 may have adverse effects on perinatal outcomes, it's recommended to take positive and effective measures for COVID-19 women in the third trimester.