Search

As a hallmark of COVID-19 progression, lymphopenia alongside its subtle immune disturbance has been widely reported, but yet to be thoroughly elucidated. Aiming at exploring clinical immune biomarkers with accessibility in the current and acute omicron epidemic abrupted in China post-control era, we design a real-world prospective observation cohort in Peking Union Medical College Hospital to describe immunological, haematological profiles inducing lymphocyte subsets related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this COVID-19 cohort, we enrolled 17 mild/moderate (M/M), 24 severe (S) and 25 critical (C) patients. The dynamics of lymphocytes of COVID-19 demonstrated that the sharp decline of NK, CD8 + , and CD4 + T cell counts was the main contributor to lymphopenia in the S/C group, compared to the M/M group. Expressions of activation marker CD38 and proliferation marker Ki-67 both in CD8 + T and NK cells were significantly higher in all COVID-19 patients than that in healthy donors, independent of disease severity. The subsequent analysis showed in contrast to the M/M group, NK and CD8 + T cell counts remained low-level after therapy in the S/C group. CD38 and Ki-67 expressions in NK and CD8 + T cells still stay at a high level, despite active treatment. Targeting relatively elderly patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 features the unreversible reduction of NK and CD8 + T cells with persistent activation and proliferation, which assist clinicians in early recognizing and saving severe or critical COVID-19 patients. Given that immunophenotype, the new immunotherapy improving NK and CD8 + T lymphocyte antiviral efficiency should be considered.

Background: There is growing evidence that patients recovering after a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may have a variety of acute sequelae including newly diagnosed diabetes. However, the risk of diabetes in the post-acute phase is unclear. To solve this question, we aimed to determine if there was any association between status post-coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection and a new diagnosis of diabetes., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing new-onset diabetes after COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were all searched from inception to June 10, 2022. Three evaluators independently extracted individual study data and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effects models estimated the pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) of diabetes compared to non-COVID-19 after COVID-19., Results: Nine studies with nearly 40 million participants were included. Overall, the incidence of diabetes after COVID-19 was 15.53 (7.91-25.64) per 1000 person-years, and the relative risk of diabetes after COVID-19 infection was elevated (RR 1.62 [1.45-1.80]). The relative risk of type 1 diabetes was RR=1.48 (1.26-1.75) and type 2 diabetes was RR=1.70 (1.32-2.19), compared to non-COVID-19 patients. At all ages, there was a statistically significant positive association between infection with COVID-19 and the risk of diabetes: <18 years: RR=1.72 (1.19-2.49), ≥18 years: RR=1.63 (1.26-2.11), and >65 years: RR=1.68 (1.22-2.30). The relative risk of diabetes in different gender groups was about 2 (males: RR=2.08 [1.27-3.40]; females: RR=1.99 [1.47-2.80]). The risk of diabetes increased 1.17-fold (1.02-1.34) after COVID-19 infection compared to patients with general upper respiratory tract infections. Patients with severe COVID-19 were at higher risk (RR=1.67 [1.25-2.23]) of diabetes after COVID-19. The risk (RR=1.95 [1.85-2.06]) of diabetes was highest in the first 3 months after COVID-19. These results remained after taking confounding factors into account., Conclusions: After COVID-19, patients of all ages and genders had an elevated incidence and relative risk for a new diagnosis of diabetes. Particular attention should be paid during the first 3 months of follow-up after COVID-19 for new-onset diabetes., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Coagulopathy is one of the characteristics observed in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) contribute to coagulopathy, though their role in COVID-19 remains unclear. This study was undertaken to determine the prevalence and characteristics of aPLs in patients with COVID-19., Methods: Sera collected from 66 COVID-19 patients who were critically ill and 13 COVID-19 patients who were not critically ill were tested by chemiluminescence immunoassay for anticardiolipin antibodies (aCLs), anti-β 2 -glycoprotein I (anti-β 2 GPI) (IgG, IgM, and IgA), and IgG anti-β 2 GPI-domain 1 (anti-β 2 GPI-D1) and IgM and IgG anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (anti-PS/PT) antibodies were detected in the serum by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay., Results: Of the 66 COVID-19 patients in critical condition, aPLs were detected in 31 (47% ). Antiphospholipid antibodies were not present among COVID-19 patients who were not in critical condition. The IgA anti-β 2 GPI antibody was the most commonly observed aPL in patients with COVID-19 and was present in 28.8% (19 of 66) of the critically ill patients, followed by IgA aCLs (17 of 66, or 25.8%) and IgG anti-β 2 GPI (12 of 66, or 18.2%). For multiple aPLs, IgA anti-β 2 GPI + IgA aCLs was the most common antibody profile observed (15 of 66, or 22.7%), followed by IgA anti-β 2 GPI + IgA aCL + IgG anti-β 2 GPI (10 of 66, or 15.2%). Antiphospholipid antibodies emerge ~35-39 days after disease onset. A dynamic analysis of aPLs revealed 4 patterns based on the persistence or transient appearance of the aPLs. Patients with multiple aPLs had a significantly higher incidence of cerebral infarction compared to patients who were negative for aPLs (P = 0.023)., Conclusion: Antiphospholipid antibodies were common in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Repeated testing demonstrating medium to high titers of aPLs and the number of aPL types a patient is positive for may help in identifying patients who are at risk of developing cerebral infarction. Antiphospholipid antibodies may be transient and disappear within a few weeks, but in genetically predisposed patients, COVID-19 may trigger the development of an autoimmune condition similar to the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), referred to as "COVID-19-induced APS-like syndrome." Long-term follow-up of COVID-19 patients who are positive for aPLs would be of great importance in understanding the pathogenesis of this novel coronavirus., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

The study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir-ritonavir against omicron strains of coronavirus disease 2019 infections and determine their comparative effectiveness. This retrospective study included 716 patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR group) or azvudine (FNC group) at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between 1 November 2022 and 27 February 2023. Patients in the FNC group (n = 304) were younger, exhibited less severe symptoms, started antiviral therapy later, received corticosteroids more frequently, and used tocilizumab less frequently than patients in the NR group (n = 412). Within 28 d of therapy, 40 (9.7%) and 20 (6.6%) deaths were in the NR and FNC groups, respectively. No differences were observed between drugs and mortality rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.40–1.5, P = 0.45), clinical improvement (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.79–1.3, P = 0.38), and clinical progression (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.58–1.8, P = 0.96). More patients in the NR group experienced platelet decline than those in the FNC group (17.6% vs. 8.9%, P = 0.034). This study indicated that the effectiveness and safety of azvudine were comparable to those of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Doctors and nurses for this fever clinic were handpicked by the Emergency Department based on their experience and their adaptability and tenacity under pressure shown in their past works. PHQ-9 and MBI scores in medical workers A total of 37 medical workers were selected as the first batch for the fever clinic. The participants comprised 16 doctors, 19 nurses, and 2 clinical technicians; 8 of the workers were male, and 17 were married. [Extracted from the article]

• Influenza viruses accounted for a large proportion of respiratory virus infection even during the epidemic of COVID-19 in Beijing. • No single symptom or laboratory finding was suggestive of a specific respiratory virus. • The epidemic history was important for screening of COVID-19. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading. Here, we summarized the composition of pathogens in fever clinic patients and analyzed the characteristics of different respiratory viral infections. Retrospectively collected patients with definite etiological results using nasal and pharyngeal swabs in a fever clinic. Overall, 1860 patients were screened, and 136 patients were enrolled. 72 (52.94%) of them were diagnosed as influenza (Flu) A virus infection. 32 (23.53%) of them were diagnosed as Flu B virus infection. 18 (13.24%) and 14 (10.29%) of them were diagnosed as COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections, respectively. The COVID-19 group had a higher rate of contact with the epidemic area within 14 days and of clustering onset than other groups. Fever was the most common symptom in these patients. The ratio of fever to the highest temperature was higher in Flu A virus infection patients than in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients had a lower white blood cell count and neutrophil count than Flu A virus and RSV infection groups, but higher lymphocyte count than Flu A and B virus infection groups. The COVID-19 group (83.33%) had a higher rate of pneumonia in chest CT scans than Flu A and B virus infection groups. Influenza viruses accounted for a large proportion of respiratory virus infection even during the epidemic of COVID-19 in Beijing. No single symptom or laboratory finding was suggestive of a specific respiratory virus; however, epidemic history was significant for the screening of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]