Favipiravir is an oral broad-spectrum inhibitor of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that is approved for treatment of influenza in Japan. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial of favipiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 at 25 hospitals across Japan. Eligible patients were adolescents and adults admitted with COVID-19 who were asymptomatic or mildly ill and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to early or late favipiravir therapy (the same regimen starting on day 6 instead of day 1). The primary endpoint was viral clearance by day 6. The secondary endpoint was change in viral load by day 6. Exploratory endpoints included time to defervescence and resolution of symptoms. Eighty-nine patients were enrolled, of whom 69 were virologically evaluable. Viral clearance occurred within 6 days in 66.7% and 56.1% of the early and late treatment groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.76–2.62). Of 30 patients who had a fever (≥37.5°C) on day 1, time to defervescence was 2.1 days and 3.2 days in the early and late treatment groups (aHR, 1.88; 95%CI, 0.81–4.35). During therapy, 84.1% developed transient hyperuricemia. Favipiravir did not significantly improve viral clearance as measured by RT-PCR by day 6 but was associated with numerical reduction in time to defervescence. Neither disease progression nor death occurred to any of the patients in either treatment group during the 28-day participation (Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs041190120).

Objective Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) has been validated for diagnosis of several viral infections. However, its diagnostic accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RT-LAMP compared to reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) over the disease course of COVID-19. Methods A total of 124 nasopharyngeal swab samples obtained from 24 COVID-19 patients were tested by RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR. Sensitivities and specificities of RT-LAMP compared with RT-qPCR were analyzed as a function of time from onset. Results Up to the 9th day after onset, the RT-LAMP had positivity of 92.8%, and the sensitivity and specificity compared with RT-qPCR was 100%. After the 10th day of onset, however, the positivity of RT-LAMP decreased to less than 25%, and concordance of positivity between the two methods was below 60%. The limit of detection of RT-LAMP was 6.7 copies/reaction. Conclusions Until the 9th day after the onset of symptoms, RT-LAMP had the same diagnostic accuracy as RT-qPCR. These finding suggest that RT-LAMP can be used as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19 as an alternative to RT-qPCR in the acute symptomatic phase of COVID-19.

The incidence of delayed injection site reaction after the first dose of mRNA-1273 was 12.5% among females and 1.5% among males in a cohort of primarily elderly Japanese. After the second dose, 48.4% of those who could be contacted reported recurrence. The reaction may be relatively common among Asian females.

A gas separator that can induce a large variation of mole fraction by a small temperature difference in a single membrane is proposed. The separator makes use of two effects: The first effect is the thermal transpiration through microchannels in the membrane; the second is the accumulation of the effect of micro-channels in the counter flow of gas mixture that flows around the membrane. The numerical results show that small gas separation effects of numerous micro-channels are accumulated to induce a large variation of the mole fraction along the membrane. The numerical calculation is carried out by the direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method and a fluid model based on the mass conservation which is shown to be able to simulate the DSMC result. The performance of the device is investigated for several temperature differences between the two sides of the membrane. The relation to the membrane gas separation by Knudsen diffusion is also discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.