Refine Search

New Search

Results: 231,805

(searched for: ("Covid-19") OR ("SARS-CoV-2") OR ("coronavirus") OR ("2019-nCoV"))
Save to Scifeed
Page of 23,181
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Aisdl
Published: 17 January 2021
Abstract:
Bản Weekend Read của RetractionWatch ngày 16-1 có tựa đề: Pollution of COVID-19 research; climate papers lead to reassignment; time to publish less?
Published: 17 January 2021
Viruses, Volume 13; doi:10.3390/v13010121

Abstract:
Quinacrine (Qx), a molecule used as an antimalarial, has shown anticancer, antiprion, and antiviral activity. The most relevant antiviral activities of Qx are related to its ability to raise pH in acidic organelles, diminishing viral enzymatic activity for viral cell entry, and its ability to bind to viral DNA and RNA. Moreover, Qx has been used as an immunomodulator in cutaneous lupus erythematosus and various rheumatological diseases, by inhibiting phospholipase A2 modulating the Th1/Th2 response. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential antiviral effect of Qx against denominated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Vero E6 cells. The cytotoxicity of Qx in Vero E6 cells was determined by the MTT assay. Afterwards, Vero E6 cells were infected with SARS-CoV-2 at different multiplicities of infections (MOIs) of 0.1 and 0.01 in the presence of Qx (0–30 µM) to determinate the half maximal effective concentration (EC50). After 48 h, the effect of Qx against SARS-CoV-2 was assessed by viral cytotoxicity and viral copy numbers, the last were determined by digital real-time RT-PCR (ddRT-PCR). Additionally, electron and confocal microscopy of Vero E6 cells infected and treated with Qx was studied. Our data show that Qx reduces SARS-CoV-2 virus replication and virus cytotoxicity, apparently by inhibition of viral ensemble, as observed by ultrastructural images, suggesting that Qx could be a potential drug for further clinical studies against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.
Published: 17 January 2021
Healthcare, Volume 9; doi:10.3390/healthcare9010090

Abstract:
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global health threat and has placed an extraordinary demand on healthcare workers around the world. In this study, we aim to examine the prevalence of burnout and its associated factors and experience among Malaysian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic through an embedded mixed-method study design. We found that more than half of Malaysian healthcare workers in this sample experienced burnout. Direct involvement in COVID-19 screening or treatment, having a medical condition, and less psychological support in the workplace emerged to be the significant factors in personal-, work-, and patient-related burnout. Participants described their workloads, uncertainties caused by the pandemic, challenging work–family balance, and stretched workplace relationships as the sources of burnout. Exhaustion appeared to be the major symptom, and many participants utilized problem-focused coping to deal with the adversities experienced during the pandemic. Participants reported physical-, occupational-, psychological-, and social-related negative impacts resulting from burnout. As the pandemic trajectory is yet unknown, these findings provide early insight and guidance for possible interventions.
Michael Brant-Zawadzki, Deborah Fridman, Philip A Robinson, Matthew Zahn, Clayton Chau, Randy German, Marcus Breit, Elmira Burke, Jason R Bock, Junko Hara
Open Forum Infectious Diseases; doi:10.1093/ofid/ofab015

Abstract:
Background Understanding SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in a spectrum of healthcare workers (HCWs) may provide benchmarks of susceptibility, help understand risk stratification, and support enactment of better health policies and procedures. Method Blood serum was sampled at enrollment and 8-week follow-up from HCWs (n=3,458) and from community first responders (n=226) for IgG analyses. Demographics, job duties, location, and COVID-19 related information were collected. Results Observed IgG antibody prevalence was 0.93% and 2.58% at enrollment (May/June) and 8-week follow-up (July/Aug), respectively, for HCWs, and 5.31% and 4.35% for first responders. For HCWs, significant differences (p < .05) between negative vs. positive at initial assessment were found for age, race, fever, and loss of smell, and at 8-week follow-up for age, race, and all symptoms. Antibody positivity persisted at least 8 weeks in all positive HCWs. Conclusions We found considerably lower antibody prevalence among HCWs compared to other published studies. While rigorous safety process measures instituted in our workplace and heightened awareness at and outside of the workplace among our HCWs may have contributed to our findings, the significant discrepancy from our community prevalence warrants further studies on other contributing factors.
Rene Loewenson , Lucia D'ambruoso , Duong Minh Duc , Reidar Hjermann, Winfred Lichuma, Elizabeth Mason, Elizabeth Nixon , Norma Rudolph , Eugenio Villar
Published: 17 January 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Global Health, Volume 6; doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004757

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal pp 1-12; doi:10.1080/1350293x.2021.1872677

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Cristiana Sieiro Santos, Xenia Cásas Férnandez, Clara Moriano Morales, Elvira Díez Álvarez, Carolina Álvarez Castro, Alejandra López Robles, Trinidad Pérez Sandoval
Published: 17 January 2021
by BMJ
RMD Open, Volume 7; doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001439

Abstract:
BackgroundThe recent outbreak of COVID-19 has raised concerns in the rheumatology community about the management of immunosuppressed patients diagnosed with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. It is not clear whether the use of biological agents may suppose a risk or protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, it has been suggested that severe respiratory forms of COVID-19 occur as a result of exacerbated inflammation status and cytokine production. This prompted the use of interleukin 6 (IL-6) (tocilizumab and sarilumab) and IL-1 inhibitors (anakinra) in severe COVID-19 disease and more recently JAK1/2 inhibitor (baricitinib). Therefore, patients with rheumatic diseases provide a great opportunity to learn about the use of biological agents as protective drugs against SARS-CoV-2.ObjectivesTo estimate COVID-19 infection rate in patients treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for inflammatory rheumatic diseases (RMD), determine the influence of biological agents treatment as risk or protective factors and study the prognosis of patients with rheumatic diseases receiving biological agents compared to the general population in a third-level hospital setting in León, Spain.MethodsWe performed a retrospective observational study including patients seen at our rheumatology department who received bDMARDs for rheumatic diseases between December 1st 2019 and December 1st 2020, and analysed COVID-19 infection rate. All patients who attended our rheumatology outpatient clinic with diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic disease receiving treatment with biological agents were included. Main variable was the hospital admission related to COVID-19. The covariates were age, sex, comorbidities, biological agent, duration of treatment, mean dose of glucocorticoids and need for intensive care unit . We performed an univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to assess risk factors of COVID-19 infection.ResultsThere were a total of 4464 patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation. 40 patients out of a total of 820 patients with rheumatic diseases (4.8%) receiving bDMARDs contracted COVID-19 and 4 required hospital care. Crude incidence rate of COVID-19 requiring hospital care among the general population was 3.6%, and it was 0.89% among the group with underlying rheumatic diseases. 90% of patients receiving bDMARDS with COVID-19 did not require hospitalisation. Out of the 4464 patients, 869 patients died, 2 of which received treatment with biological agents. Patients with rheumatic diseases who tested positive for COVID-19 were older (female: median age 60.8 IQR 46-74; male: median age 61.9 IQR 52-70.3) than those who were negative for COVID-19 (female: median age 58.3 IQR 48-69; male: median age 56.2 IQR 47-66), more likely to have hypertension (45% vs 26%, OR 2.25 (CI 1.18-4.27),p 0.02), cardiovascular disease (23 % vs 9.6%, OR 2.73 (1.25-5.95), p 0.02), be smokers (13% vs 4.6%, OR 2.95 (CI 1.09-7.98), p 0.04), receiving treatment with rituximab (20% vs 8%, 2.28 (CI 1.24-6.32), p 0.02) and a higher dose of glucocorticoids (OR 2.5 (1.3-10.33, p 0.02) and were less likely to be receiving treatment with IL-6 inhibitors (2.5% vs 14%, OR 0.16, (CI 0.10-0.97, p 0.03). When exploring the effect of the rest of the therapies between groups (affected patients vs unaffected), we found no significant differences in bDMARD proportions. IL-1 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors and belimumab-treated patients showed the lowest incidence of COVID-19 among adult patients with rheumatic diseases. We found no differences in sex or rheumatological disease between patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and patients who tested negative.ConclusionsOverall, the use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) does not associate with severe manifestations of COVID-19. Patients with rheumatic disease diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to be receiving a higher dose of glucocorticoids and treatment with rituximab. IL-6 inhibitors may have a protective effect.
Page of 23,181
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top