A decoy microrobot that removes SARS-CoV-2 and its variants in wastewater.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which can persist in wastewater for several days, has a risk of waterborne-human transmission. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with increased infection capacity further highlights the need to remove the virus and restrict its spread in wastewater. Here, we report a decoy microrobot created by camouflaging algae with cell membranes displaying angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) for effective elimination of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. The decoy microrobots show fast self-propulsion (>85 µm/s), allowing for successful "on-the-fly" elimination of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins and pseudovirus in wastewater. Moreover, relying on the robust binding between ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 variants, the decoy microrobots exhibit a broad-spectrum elimination of virus with a high efficiency of 95% for the wild-type strain, 92% for the Delta variant, and 93% for the Omicron variant, respectively. Our work presents a simple and safe decoy microrobot aimed toward eliminating viruses and other environmental hazards from wastewater.

Results Reporting and Early Termination of Childhood Obesity Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Objective: Childhood obesity is one of the most severe challenges of public health in the twenty-first century and may increase the risk of various physical and psychological diseases in adulthood. The prevalence and predictors of unreported results and premature termination in pediatric obesity research are not clear. We aimed to characterize childhood obesity trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify features associated with early termination and lack of results reporting. Methods: Records were downloaded and screened for all childhood obesity trials from the inception of ClinicalTrials.gov to July 29, 2021. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, Cox regression for early termination, and logistic regression for lack of results reporting. Results: We identified 1,312 trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Among clinicalTrials.gov registered childhood obesity-related intervention trials, trial unreported results were 88.5 and 4.3% of trials were prematurely terminated. Additionally, the factors that reduced the risk of unreported outcomes were US-registered clinical studies and drug intervention trials. Factors associated with a reduced risk of early termination are National Institutes of Health (NIH) or other federal agency funding and large trials. Conclusion: The problem of unreported results in clinical trials of childhood obesity is serious. Therefore, timely bulletin of the results and reasons for termination remain urgent aims for childhood obesity trials.

Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Nurses in China: A Nationwide Survey During the Outbreak.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health issue and challenge to health professionals. In similar epidemics, nurses experienced more distress than other providers. Methods: We surveyed both on-duty nurses caring for infected patients and second-line nurses caring for uninfected patients from Hubei and other provinces throughout China. Results: We received completed surveys from 1,364 nurses from 22 provinces: 658 front-line and 706 second-line nurses. The median (IQR) GHQ-28 score of all nurses was 17 (IQR 11-24). The overall incidence of mild-to-moderate distress (GHQ score > 5) was 28%; that for severe distress (GHQ score > 11) was 6%. The incidence of mild-to-moderate distress in the second-line nurses was higher than that in the front-line nurses (31 vs. 25%; OR, 0.74; 95 CI, 0.58-0.94). Living alone (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.86) and feeling supported (OR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.74-0.90) independently predicted lower anxiety. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the psychological problems of all nurses were generally serious. The interviewed second-line nurses face more serious issues than the front-line nurses.

Selection of homemade mask materials for preventing transmission of COVID-19: A laboratory study.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the whole world with high mortality. Since droplet transmission is the main route of transmission, wearing a mask serves as a crucial preventive measure. However, the virus has spread quite quickly, causing severe mask shortage. Finding alternative materials for homemade masks while ensuring the significant performance indicators will help alleviate the shortage of masks. Referring to the national standard for the "Surgical Mask" of China, 17 materials to be selected for homemade masks were tested in four key indicators: pressure difference, particle filtration efficiency, bacterial filtration efficiency and resistance to surface wetting. Eleven single-layer materials met the standard of pressure difference (≤49 Pa), of which 3 met the standard of resistance to surface wetting (≥3), 1 met the standard of particle filtration efficiency (≥30%), but none met the standard of bacterial filtration efficiency (≥95%). Based on the testing results of single-layer materials, fifteen combinations of paired materials were tested. The results showed that three double-layer materials including double-layer medical non-woven fabric, medical non-woven fabric plus non-woven shopping bag, and medical non-woven fabric plus granular tea towel could meet all the standards of pressure difference, particle filtration efficiency, and resistance to surface wetting, and were close to the standard of the bacterial filtration efficiency. In conclusion, if resources are severely lacking and medical masks cannot be obtained, homemade masks using available materials, based on the results of this study, can minimize the chance of infection to the maximum extent.

Imaging features and mechanisms of novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19): Study Protocol Clinical Trial (SPIRIT Compliant).

INTRODUCTION: A novel coronavirus, tentatively designated as 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), now called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, emerged in Wuhan, China, at the end of 2019 and which continues to expand. On February 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) named the disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). On February 28, WHO increased our assessment of the risk of spread and the risk of impact of COVID-19 to very high at a global level. The COVID-19 poses significant threats to international health.Computed tomography (CT) has been an important imaging modality in assisting in the diagnosis and management of patients withCOVID-19. Some retrospective imaging studies have reported chest CT findings of COVID-19 in the past 2 months, suggesting that several CT findings may be characteristic. To our knowledge, there has been no prospective multicentre imaging study of COVID-19 to date.We proposed a hypothesis: There are some specific CT features on Chest CT of COVID-19 patients. And the mechanism of these CT features is explicable based on pathological findings. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the specific CT features of COVID-19 and the formation mechanism of these CT features. METHOD: This study is a prospective multicenter observational study. We will recruit 100 patients with COVID-19 at 55 hospitals. All patients undergo chest CT examination with the same scan protocol. The distribution and morphology of lesions on chest CT, clinical data will be recorded. A number of patients will be pathologically examined after permission is granted. The data of these three aspects will be analyzed synthetically. DISCUSSION: This study will help us to identify the chest CT features of COVID-19 and its mechanism. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This retrospective study was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (No. 2020-140). Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to enrollment in the study. To protect privacy of participants, all private information were kept anonymous. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be disseminated electronically and in print regardless of results.

Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COS-COVID).

Since its outbreak in December 2019, a series of clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered or carried out. However, the significant heterogeneity and less critical outcomes of such trials may be leading to a waste of research resources. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials on COVID-19 in order to tackle the outcome issues. The study was conducted according to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook: Version 1.0, a guideline for COS development. A research group was set up that included experts in respiratory and critical medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), evidence-based medicine, clinical pharmacology, and statistics, in addition to medical journal editors. Clinical trial registry websites (www.chictr.org.cn and clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to retrieve clinical trial protocols and outcomes in order to form an outcome pool. A total of 78 clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 were included and 259 outcomes were collected. After standardization, 132 outcomes were identified within seven different categories, of which 58 were selected to develop a preliminary outcome list for further consensus. After two rounds of Delphi survey and one consensus meeting, the most important outcomes for the different clinical classifications of COVID-19 were identified and determined to constitute the COS for clinical trials on COVID-19 (COS-COVID). The COS-COVID includes one outcome for the mild type (time to 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity), four outcomes for the ordinary type (length of hospital stay, composite events, score of clinical symptoms, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), five outcomes for the severe type (composite events, length of hospital stay, arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), one outcome for critical type (all-cause mortality), and one outcome for rehabilitation period (pulmonary function). The COS-COVID is currently the most valuable and practical clinical outcome set for the evaluation of intervention effect, and is useful for evidence assessment and decision-making. With a deepening understanding of COVID-19 and application feedback, the COS-COVID should be continuously updated.

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Previous meta-analyses concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of N95 respirators. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of influenza by collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to January 27, 2020 to identify relevant systematic reviews. The RCTs included in systematic reviews were identified. Then we searched the latest published RCTs from the above three databases and searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished RCTs. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates by using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.28, P > .05), laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70-1.11), laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.29) and influenzalike illness (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.14) using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). CONCLUSION: The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.