No abstract

To differentiate between respiratory infections caused by SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens during the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, we simultaneously tested for SARS-CoV-2 and pathogens associated with CAP to determine the incidence and impact of respiratory coinfections in COVID-19 patients. Patients and Methods: We included 250 patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. RT-PCR was used to detect influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial viruses. Chemiluminescence immunoassays were used to detect IgM antibodies for adenovirus, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae in the serum of patients. Based on these results, we divided the patients into two groups, the simple SARS-CoV-2-infected group and the coinfected SARS-COV-2 group. Coinfected patients were then further categorized as having a coinfection of viral pathogen (CoIV) or coinfection of atypical bacterial pathogen (CoIaB). Results: No statistically significant differences were found in age, gender, the time taken to return negative SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test results, length of hospital stays, and mortality between the simple SARS-CoV-2 infection group and the coinfection group. Of the 250 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 39 (15.6%) tested positive for at least one respiratory pathogen in addition to SARS-CoV-2. A third of these pathogens were detected as early as the 1st week after symptom onset and another third were identified after more than three weeks. The most detected CAP pathogen was C. pneumoniae (5.2%), followed by the respiratory syncytial virus (4.8%), M. pneumoniae (4.4%) and adenovirus (2.8%). Patients coinfected with viral pathogens (CoIV) (n=18) had longer hospital stays when compared to patients coinfected with atypical bacterial pathogens (CoIaB) (n=21). Except for one fatality, the remaining 38 coinfected patients all recovered with favourable outcomes. Conclusion: Coinfections in COVID-19 patients are common. The coinfecting pathogens can be detected at variable intervals during COVID-19 disease course and remain an important consideration in targeted treatment strategies for COVID-19 patients.

No abstract

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 outbreak was identified in China in December 2019 and spread worldwide, reaching the pandemic levels. However, a specific, effective and proven therapy for the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains elusive. We aim to compare the efficacy and the safety of three antiviral monotherapies (chloroquine phosphate, arbidol (Umifenovir) or lopinavir/ritonavir) in non-severe, hospitalised COVID-19 patients.Methods: We retrospectively analysed the hospitalised, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients, treated with antiviral monotherapies at Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital between Jan 19 and Mar 16, 2020. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. The primary outcome of the study was the viral shedding interval.Results: Twenty-seven patients with COVID-19 were included in the study with 10 receiving chloroquine phosphate, 11 receiving arbidol and 6 receiving lopinavir/ritonavir. Baseline demographics and clinical data were similar between groups. The median viral shedding interval in the lopinavir/ritonavir group was 13.0 days (95% CI: 12.2-23.8), while significantly shorter in the chloroquine group at 5.0 days (95% CI: 0.4-9.6) (p=0.003). A reduced median interval was also observed in the arbidol group, with 8.0 days (95%CI: 4.9-11.1) (p=0.008). Moreover, the hospitalisation duration was shorter in the chloroquine (9.3 ± 1.8 days, p<0.001) and arbidol groups (11.7 ± 3.7 days, p<0.001), and the hospitalisation costs were significantly reduced in the chloroquine (USD 1327 ± 566, p=0.001) and arbidol groups (USD 1167 ± 434, p<0.001), when compared with the lopinavir/ritonavir group (hospitalisation length and costs: 19.7 ± 4.4 days and USD 3806 ± 2262, respectively). Conclusions: Chloroquine and arbidol could not only shorten the viral shedding interval but also decreased the hospitalisation duration and hospitalisation expenses.Trial registration: The ethics committee of the Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital approved this study, and the trial was registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000030931).

BackgroundMeningioma invasion can be preoperatively recognized by radiomics features, which significantly contributes to treatment decision-making. Here, we aimed to evaluate the comparative performance of radiomics signatures derived from varying regions of interests (ROIs) in predicting BI and ascertaining the optimal width of the peritumoral regions needed for accurate analysis.MethodsFive hundred and five patients from Wuhan Union Hospital (internal cohort) and 214 cases from Taihe Hospital (external validation cohort) pathologically diagnosed as meningioma were included in our study. Feature selection was performed from 1,015 radiomics features respectively obtained from nine different ROIs (brain-tumor interface (BTI)2–5mm; whole tumor; the amalgamation of the two regions) on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging using least-absolute shrinkage and selection operator and random forest. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed for feature reduction. Receiver operator curve was utilized for assessing discrimination of the classifier. Furthermore, clinical index was used to detect the predictive power.ResultsModel obtained from BTI4mm ROI has the maximum AUC in the training set (0.891 (0.85, 0.932)), internal validation set (0.851 (0.743, 0.96)), and external validation set (0.881 (0.833, 0.928)) and displayed statistically significant results between nine radiomics models. The most predictive radiomics features are almost entirely generated from GLCM and GLDM statistics. The addition of PEV to radiomics features (BTI4mm) enhanced model discrimination of invasive meningiomas.ConclusionsThe combined model (radiomics classifier with BTI4mm ROI + PEV) had greater diagnostic performance than other models and its clinical application may positively contribute to the management of meningioma patients.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Our group previously reported that right-sided vagus nerve stimulation (RVNS) signifi cantly improved outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in a rat model of cardiac arrest (CA). However, whether left-sided vagus nerve stimulation (LVNS) could achieve the same eff ect as RVNS in CPR outcomes remains unknown.METHODS: A rat model of CA was established using modified percutaneous epicardial electrical stimulation to induce ventricular fi brillation (VF). Rats were treated with LVNS or RVNS for 30 minutes before the induction of VF. All animals were observed closely within 72 hours after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and their health and behavior were evaluated every 24 hours. RESULTS: Compared with those in the RVNS group, the hemodynamic measurements in the LVNS group decreased more notably. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) decreased the serum levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and the arrhythmia score, and attenuated inflammatory infiltration in myocardial tissue after ROSC, regardless of the side of stimulation, compared with fi ndings in the CPR group. Both LVNS and RVNS ameliorated myocardial function and increased the expression of α-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in the myocardium after ROSC. Moreover, a clear improvement in 72-hour survival was shown with VNS pre-treatment, with no signifi cant diff erence in effi cacy when comparing the laterality of stimulation.CONCLUSIONS: LVNS may have similar eff ects as RVNS on improving outcomes after CPR.

No abstract