Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with no specific antiviral treatments or vaccines. There is an urgent need for exploring the neutralizing antibodies from patients with different clinical characteristics. Methods A total of 117 blood samples were collected from 70 COVID-19 inpatients and convalescent patients. Antibodies were determined with a modified cytopathogenic neutralization assay (NA) based on live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The dynamics of neutralizing antibody levels at different time points with different clinical characteristics were analyzed. Results The seropositivity rate reached up to 100.0% within 20 days since onset, and remained 100.0% till days 41–53. The total geometric mean titer was 1:163.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 128.5–208.6) by NA and 1:12 441.7 (95% CI, 9754.5–15 869.2) by ELISA. The antibody level by NA and ELISA peaked on days 31–40 since onset, and then decreased slightly. In multivariate generalized estimating equation analysis, patients aged 31–45, 46–60, and 61–84 years had a higher neutralizing antibody level than those aged 16–30 years (β = 1.0470, P = .0125; β = 1.0613, P = .0307; β = 1.3713, P = .0020). Patients with a worse clinical classification had a higher neutralizing antibody titer (β = 0.4639, P = .0227). Conclusions The neutralizing antibodies were detected even at the early stage of disease, and a significant response was shown in convalescent patients.

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac in symptomatic individuals, with virological confirmation of COVID-19, two weeks after the completion of the two-dose vaccination regimen, aged 18 years or older who work as health professionals providing care to patients with possible or confirmed COVID-19. To describe the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with the administration of each of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac up to one week after vaccination in Adults (18-59 years of age) and Elderly (60 years of age or more). Trial design This is a Phase III, randomized, multicenter, endpoint driven, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac. The adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac (product under investigation) will be compared to placebo. Voluntary participants will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of the investigational product or the placebo, in a 1: 1 ratio, stratified by age group (18 to 59 years and 60 years or more) and will be monitored for one year by active surveillance of COVID-19. Two databases will be established according to the age groups: one for adults (18-59 years) and one for the elderly (60 years of age or older). The threshold to consider the vaccine efficacious will be to reach a protection level of at least 50%, as proposed by the World Health Organization and the FDA. Success in this criterion will be defined by sequential monitoring with adjustment of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval above 30% for the primary efficacy endpoint. Participants Healthy participants and / or participants with clinically controlled disease, of both genders, 18 years of age or older, working as health professionals performing care in units specialized in direct contact with people with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19. Participation of pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding, as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination will not be allowed. Participants will only be included after signing the voluntary Informed Consent Form and ensuring they undergo screening evaluation and conform to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the clinical sites are located in Brazil. Intervention and comparator Experimental intervention: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Life Sciences (Beijing, China) and contains 3 μg/0.5 mL (equivalent to 600 SU per dose) of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, and aluminium hydroxide as adjuvant. Control comparator: The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 mL solution The schedule of both, experimental intervention and placebo is two 0.5 mL doses IM (deltoid) with a two week interval. Main outcomes The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of virologically confirmed COVID-19 two weeks after the second vaccination. The virological diagnosis will be confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical sample. The primary safety endpoint is the frequency of solicited and unsolicited local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination according to age group in adult (18-59 years old) and elder (60 years of age or older) subjects. Adverse reactions are defined as adverse events that have a reasonable causal relationship to vaccination. Randomisation There will be two randomization lists, one for each age group, based on the investigational products to be administered, i.e., vaccine or placebo at a 1: 1 ratio. Each randomization list will be made to include up to 11,800 (18-59 year-old) adults, and 1,260 elderly (60 y-o and older) participants, the maximum number of participants needed per age group. An electronic central randomization system will be used to designate the investigational product that each participant must receive. Blinding (masking) This trial is designed as a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias in the evaluation of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. The clinical care team, the professionals responsible for the vaccination and the participants will not know which investigational product will be administered. Only pharmacists or nurses in the study who are responsible for the randomization, separation and blinding of the investigational product will have access to unblinded information. The sponsor's operational team will also remain blind. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The total number of participants needed to evaluate efficacy, 13,060 participants, satisfies the needed sample size calculated to evaluate safety. Therefore, the total number obtained for efficacy will be the number retained for the study. Up to 13,060 participants are expected to enter the study, with up to 11,800 participants aged 18 to 59 years and 1,260 elderly participants aged 60 and over. Half of the participants of each group will receive the experimental vaccine and half of them will receive the placebo. The recruitment of participants may be modified as recommended by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee at time of the interim unblinded analysis or blind assessment of the COVID-19 attack rate during the study. Trial Status Protocol version 2.0 – 24-Aug-2020. Recruitment started on July 21st, 2020. The recruitment is expected to conclude in October 2020. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0445659. Registry on 2 July 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Background. COVID-19 is a pandemic with no specific antiviral treatments or vaccines. The urgent needs for exploring the neutralizing antibodies from patients with different clinical characteristics are emerging. Methods.A total of 117 blood samples were collected from 70 COVID-19 inpatients and convalescent patients. The presence of neutralizing antibody was determined with a modified cytopathogenic assay based on live SARS-CoV-2. The dynamics of neutralizing antibody levels at different with different clinical characteristics were analyzed.Results. The seropositivity rate reached up to 100.0% within 20 days since onset, and remained 100.0% till day 41-53. The total GMT was 1:163.7 (95% CI, 128.5 to 208.6), and the antibody level was highest during day 31-40 since onset, and then decreased slightly. Individual differences in changes of antibody levels were observed among 8 representative convalescent patients. In multivariate GEE analysis, patients at age of 31-60 and 61-84 had a higher antibody level than those at age of 16-30 (β=1.0518, P=0.0152; β =1.3718, P=0.0020). Patients with a worse clinical classification had a higher antibody titer (β=0.4639, P=0.0227).Conclusions. The neutralizing antibodies were detected even at the early stage of disease, and a significant response showed in convalescent patients. Moreover, changes on antibody levels ware individual specific.

HIV testing among men who have sex with men (MSM) in China has not been well studied. We systematically reviewed studies addressing HIV testing among MSM in China and conducted a meta-analysis on testing indicators before and after the adoption of China's National Plan for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control among MSM in 2007. Rate of lifetime HIV testing (24 % [period 1-before adoption] vs. 47 % [period 2-after adoption]) and testing in the past 12 months (21 vs. 38 %) were both significantly higher in period 2. Rate of lifetime pre-test counseling showed a significant increase from period 1 to period 2 (72 vs. 90 %), while the figure for the past 12 months pre-test counseling did not change (51 vs. 50 %). More efforts are needed to promote frequent HIV testing among MSM.

BACKGROUND The top priority for the control of COVID-19 pandemic currently is the development of a vaccine. A phase 2 trial conducted to further evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac). METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the optimal dose, immunogenicity and safety of the CoronaVac. A total of 600 healthy adults aged 18-59 years were randomly assigned to receive 2 injections of the trial vaccine at a dose of 3 μg/0.5 mL or 6 μg /0.5mL, or placebo on Day 0,14 schedule or Day 0,28 schedule. For safety evaluation, solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected after each vaccination within 7 days and 28 days, respectively. Blood samples were taken for antibody assay. RESULTS CoronaVac was well tolerated, and no dose-related safety concerns were observed. Most of the adverse reactions fell in the solicited category and were mild in severity. Pain at injection site was the most frequently reported symptoms. No Grade 3 adverse reaction or vaccine related SAEs were reported. CoronaVac showed good immunogenicity with the lower 3 μg dose eliciting 92.4% seroconversion under Day 0,14 schedule and 97.4% under Day 0,28 schedule. 28 days after two-dose vaccination, the Nab levels of individual schedules range from 23.8 to 65.4 among different dosage and vaccination schedules. CONCLUSIONS Favorable safety and immunogenicity of CoronaVac was demonstrated on both schedules and both dosages, which support the conduction of phase 3 trial with optimum schedule/dosage per different scenarios.

PurposeImmunonutrition has been used to prevent the complications after colorectal elective surgery. This systematic review aimed to analyze and assess the effect of immunonutrition on colorectal cancer patients who received elective surgery.MethodsThree electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane) were used to search the latent studies which investigated the effects of enteral immunonutrition (EIN) compared with standard enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral immunonutrition (PIN) compared with standard parenteral nutrition (PN) on colorectal cancer patients who are undergoing surgery until 21st of April, 2017. Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odd risk (OR), mean difference (MD), or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity was tested by Q test.ResultsNine publications were included. The meta-analysis results presented that EIN improved the length of hospital stay (pooled MD, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.29–3.41), infectious complications (pooled OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21–0.53) which contains the Surgical Site Infections (pooled OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.22–0.58) and Superficial/Deep incisional infections (pooled OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12–0.64); meanwhile, PIN improved the length of hospital stay (pooled MD, 2.66; 95% CI, 0.62–4.76), IL-6 (pooled MD, − 6.09; 95% CI, − 10.11 to − 2.07), CD3 (pooled MD, 7.50; 95% CI, 3.57–11.43), CD4 (pooled MD, 5.47; 95% CI, 2.54–8.40), and CD4/CD8 (pooled MD, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.22–0.78); the level of CD8 was lower (pooled MD, − 4.32; 95% CI, − 7.09 to − 1.55) in PIN.ConclusionImmunonutrition could be an effective approach to enhance the immune function of colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery and to improve the clinical and laboratory outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00384-017-2958-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundIn order to address several health challenges, the Chinese government issued the National Essential Public Health Services Package (NEPHSP) in 2009. In China’s large cities, the lack of funding for community health centers and consequent lack of comprehensive services and high quality care has become a major challenge. However, no study has been carried out to estimate the cost of delivering the services in the package. This project was to develop a cost estimation approach appropriate to the context and use it to calculate the cost of the NEPHSP in Beijing in 2011.MethodsBy adjusting models of cost analysis of primary health care and workload indicators of staffing need developed by the World Health Organization, a model was developed to estimate the cost of the services in the package through an intensive interactive process. A total of 17 community health centers from eight administrative districts in Beijing were selected. Their service volume and expenditure data in 2010 were used to evaluate the costs of providing the NEPHSP in Beijing based on the applied model.ResultsThe total workload of all types of primary health care in 17 sample centers was equivalent to the workload requirement for 14,056,402 standard clinic visits. The total expenditure of the 17 sample centers was 26,329,357.62 USD in 2010. The cost of the workload requirement of one standard clinic visit was 1.87 USD. The workload of the NEPHSP was equivalent to 5,514,777 standard clinic visits (39.23 % of the total workload). The model suggests that the cost of the package in Beijing was 7.95 USD per capita in 2010. The cost of the NEPHSP in urban areas was lower than suburban areas: 7.31 and 8.65 USD respectively.ConclusionsThe average investment of 3.97 USD per capita in NEPHSP was lower than the amount needed to meet its running costs. NEPHSP in Beijing is therefore underfunded. Additional investment is needed, and a dynamic cost estimate mechanism should be introduced to ensure services remain adequately funded.