Explore the vast range of titles available.

In December 2019, an acute respiratory disease caused by novel species of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in China and has spread throughout the world. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) a pandemic, severe coronavirus-mediated human disease. Based on genomic and phylogenetic studies, SARS-CoV-2 might originate from bat coronaviruses and infects humans directly or through intermediate zoonotic hosts. However, the exact origin or the host intermediate remains unknown. Genetically, SARS-CoV-2 is similar to several existing coronaviruses, particularly SARS-CoV, but differs by silent and non-silent mutations. The virus uses different transmission routes and targets cells and tissues with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein, which makes it contagious. COVID-19 shares both the main clinical features and excessive/dysregulated cell responses with the two previous Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS) epidemics. In this review, we provide an update of the current knowledge on the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaining a deeper understanding of SARS-CoV-2 structure, transmission routes, and molecular responses, will assist in the prevention and control of COVID-19 outbreaks in the future.

(1) Background: The global threat of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues. The diversity of clinical characteristics and progress are reported in many countries as the duration of the pandemic is prolonged. We aimed to perform a novel systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on findings about correlations between clinical characteristics and laboratory features of patients with COVID-19. (2) Methods: We analyzed cases of COVID-19 in different countries by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science databases and Google Scholar, from the early stage of the outbreak to late March. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and treatment strategies were retrospectively reviewed for the analysis. (3) Results: Thirty-seven (n = 5196 participants) COVID-19-related studies were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Fever, cough and fatigue/myalgia were the most common symptoms of COVID-19, followed by some gastrointestinal symptoms which are also reported frequently. Laboratory markers of inflammation and infection including C-reactive protein (CRP) (65% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56–81%)) were elevated, while lymphocyte counts were decreased (63% (95% CI 47–78%)). Meta-analysis of treatment approaches indicated that three modalities of treatment were predominantly used in the majority of patients with a similar prevalence, including antiviral agents (79%), antibiotics (78%), and oxygen therapy (77%). Age was negatively correlated with number of lymphocytes, but positively correlated with dyspnea, number of white blood cells, neutrophils, and D-dimer. Chills had been proved to be positively correlated with chest tightness, lung abnormalities on computed tomography (CT) scans, neutrophil/lymphocyte/platelets count, D-dimer and CRP, cough was positively correlated with sputum production, and pulmonary abnormalities were positively correlated with CRP. White blood cell (WBC) count was also positively correlated with platelet counts, dyspnea, and neutrophil counts with the respective correlations of 0.668, 0.728, and 0.696. (4) Conclusions: This paper is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal the relationship between various variables of clinical characteristics, symptoms and laboratory results with the largest number of papers and patients until now. In elderly patients, laboratory and clinical characteristics indicate a more severe disease course. Moreover, treatments such as antiviral agents, antibiotics, and oxygen therapy which are used in over three quarters of patients are also analyzed. The results will provide “evidence-based hope” on how to manage this unanticipated and overwhelming pandemic.

Male factor infertility contributes to nearly half of all infertility cases, yet timely semen analysis is often hindered by logistical and psychosocial barriers. The standard recommendation for in-clinic analysis within 1 hr post-ejaculation limits access, prompting interest in at-home semen collection and mail-in testing solutions. This prospective study evaluates the Give Legacy At-Home Semen Collection Kit for its ability to preserve semen quality over time and assesses whether delayed analyses (up to 48 hr post-ejaculation) can reliably predict baseline semen parameters. Thirty participants provided 60 semen samples analyzed across five timepoints (T0: 30 min, T1: 1 hr, T2: 6 hr, T3: 24 hr, T4: 30 hr). Total and progressive motility declined over time, with the greatest reductions after 6 hr. At baseline, high total motile sperm count (TOMO) individuals exhibited significantly greater motility than those in the low TOMO group and retained relatively higher motility across time points. Predictive models using delayed data (T1–T4) accurately estimated baseline motility values, with strong performance metrics (e.g., progressive motility model: mean absolute error [MAE] = 7.31, root mean squared error [RMSE] = 11.15, r = .86, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .74). These findings suggest that semen degradation during transit is predictable and that baseline motility can be reconstructed with clinically acceptable accuracy. This study supports the clinical utility of at-home semen collection and mail-in analysis for male fertility assessment. Predictive modeling enables diagnostic insights even when testing is delayed, expanding access while maintaining diagnostic integrity. Future research should explore broader populations and integrate additional fertility biomarkers.

The use of social big data is an important emerging concern in public health. Internet search volumes are useful data that can sensitively detect trends of the public's attention during a pandemic outbreak situation.BACKGROUNDThe use of social big data is an important emerging concern in public health. Internet search volumes are useful data that can sensitively detect trends of the public's attention during a pandemic outbreak situation.Our study aimed to analyze the public's interest in COVID-19 proliferation, identify the correlation between the proliferation of COVID-19 and interest in immunity and products that have been reported to confer an enhancement of immunity, and suggest measures for interventions that should be implemented from a health and medical point of view.OBJECTIVEOur study aimed to analyze the public's interest in COVID-19 proliferation, identify the correlation between the proliferation of COVID-19 and interest in immunity and products that have been reported to confer an enhancement of immunity, and suggest measures for interventions that should be implemented from a health and medical point of view.To assess the level of public interest in infectious diseases during the initial days of the COVID-19 outbreak, we extracted Google search data from January 20, 2020, onward and compared them to data from March 15, 2020, which was approximately 2 months after the COVID-19 outbreak began. In order to determine whether the public became interested in the immune system, we selected coronavirus, immune, and vitamin as our final search terms.METHODSTo assess the level of public interest in infectious diseases during the initial days of the COVID-19 outbreak, we extracted Google search data from January 20, 2020, onward and compared them to data from March 15, 2020, which was approximately 2 months after the COVID-19 outbreak began. In order to determine whether the public became interested in the immune system, we selected coronavirus, immune, and vitamin as our final search terms.The increase in the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 cases that occurred after January 20, 2020, had a strong positive correlation with the search volumes for the terms coronavirus (R=0.786; P<.001), immune (R=0.745; P<.001), and vitamin (R=0.778; P<.001), and the correlations between variables were all mutually statistically significant. Moreover, these correlations were confirmed on a country basis when we restricted our analyses to the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Korea. Our findings revealed that increases in search volumes for the terms coronavirus and immune preceded the actual occurrences of confirmed cases.RESULTSThe increase in the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 cases that occurred after January 20, 2020, had a strong positive correlation with the search volumes for the terms coronavirus (R=0.786; P<.001), immune (R=0.745; P<.001), and vitamin (R=0.778; P<.001), and the correlations between variables were all mutually statistically significant. Moreover, these correlations were confirmed on a country basis when we restricted our analyses to the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Korea. Our findings revealed that increases in search volumes for the terms coronavirus and immune preceded the actual occurrences of confirmed cases.Our study shows that during the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis, the public's desire and actions of strengthening their own immune systems were enhanced. Further, in the early stage of a pandemic, social media platforms have a high potential for informing the public about potentially helpful measures to prevent the spread of an infectious disease and provide relevant information about immunity, thereby increasing the public's knowledge.CONCLUSIONSOur study shows that during the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis, the public's desire and actions of strengthening their own immune systems were enhanced. Further, in the early stage of a pandemic, social media platforms have a high potential for informing the public about potentially helpful measures to prevent the spread of an infectious disease and provide relevant information about immunity, thereby increasing the public's knowledge.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of , , and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-β1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.

Background and objectives: Characterization of pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is necessary to control the pandemic, as asymptomatic or mildly infected children may act as carriers. To date, there are limited reports describing differences in clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics between asymptomatic and symptomatic infection, and between younger and older pediatric patients. The objective of this study is to compare characteristics among: (1) asymptomatic versus symptomatic and (2) less than 10 versus greater or equal to 10 years old pediatric COVID-19 patients. Materials and Methods: We searched for all terms related to pediatric COVID-19 in electronic databases (Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science) for articles from January 2020. This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Results: Eligible study designs included case reports and series, while we excluded comments/letters, reviews, and literature not written in English. Initially, 817 articles were identified. Forty-three articles encompassing 158 confirmed pediatric COVID-19 cases were included in the final analyses. Lymphocytosis and high CRP were associated with symptomatic infection. Abnormal chest CT more accurately detected asymptomatic COVID-19 in older patients than in younger ones, but clinical characteristics were similar between older and younger patients. Conclusions: Chest CT scan findings are untrustworthy in younger children with COVID-19 as compared with clinical findings, or significant differences in findings between asymptomatic to symptomatic children. Further studies evaluating pediatric COVID-19 could contribute to potential therapeutic interventions and preventive strategies to limit spreading.

(1) Background: Until now, several reports about pregnant women with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been published. However, there are no comprehensive systematic reviews collecting all case series studies on data regarding adverse pregnancy outcomes, especially association with treatment modalities. (2) Objective: We aimed to synthesize the most up-to-date and relevant available evidence on the outcomes of pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed infection with COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Google scholar, and Embase were explored for studies and papers regarding pregnant women with COVID-19, including obstetrical, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and complications published from 1 January 2020 to 4 May 2020. Systematic review and search of the published literature was done using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). (4) Results: In total, 11 case series studies comprising 104 pregnant women with COVID-19 were included in our review. Fever (58.6%) and cough (30.7%) were the most common symptoms. Other symptoms included dyspnea (14.4%), chest discomfort (3.9%), sputum production (1.0%), sore throat (2.9%), and nasal obstruction (1.0%). Fifty-two patients (50.0%) eventually demonstrated abnormal chest CT, and of those with ground glass opacity (GGO), 23 (22.1%) were bilateral and 10 (9.6%) were unilateral. The most common treatment for COVID-19 was administration of antibiotics (25.9%) followed by antivirals (17.3%). Cesarean section was the mode of delivery for half of the women (50.0%), although no information was available for 28.8% of the cases. Regarding obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, fetal distress (13.5%), pre-labor rupture of membranes (9.6%), prematurity (8.7%), fetal death (4.8%), and abortion (2.9%) were reported. There are no positive results of neonatal infection by RT-PCR. (5) Conclusions: Although we have found that pregnancy with COVID-19 has significantly higher maternal mortality ratio compared to that of pregnancy without the disease, the evidence is too weak to state that COVID-19 results in poorer maternal outcome due to multiple factors. The number of COVID-19 pregnancy outcomes was not large enough to draw a conclusion and long-term outcomes are yet to be determined as the pandemic is still unfolding. Active and intensive follow-up is needed in order to provide robust data for future studies.

(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631–2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221–0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670–5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.

To evaluate the relationship between regional geography and sperm parameters in a cohort of American men using at-home mail-in semen collection kits with no previous self-reported history of male factor infertility. In this study, 5,822 men from six different regions of the United States (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, West, Pacific, and Southwest) who self-requested semen analysis between 2019 and 2021 were enrolled. Across the entire cohort, the mean sperm concentration was 43.79±55.43 ×10 sperm/mL; total sperm count 138.93±149.96 ×10 sperm/mL; total motile sperm 54.73±81.90 ×10 /ejaculate; total motility 30.18%±22.87%; progressive motility 21.61%±17.32%; sperm with normal morphology 8.79%±8.87%. Patients from the West region displayed lower median sperm concentration, total motile sperm, and total motility than men from the other four regional areas. A lower median total sperm count, and lower median progressive motility were also detected among patients in the Southwest region. Conversely, higher results were detected in patients from the Midwest (higher median total motile sperm, total and motility) and from the Northeast (higher median sperm concentration and total sperm count) regions. Men from the Southeast (OR, 1.3168; 95% CI, 1.1142-1.5563) and Southwest (OR, 1.3145; 95% CI, 1.0735-1.6096) regions were more likely to have oligozoospermia than those living elsewhere. This study provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date report on semen parameter variability among a cohort of men living in six different regions of the continental USA. This study will pave the way into a deeper discussion of the interplay between geography, social determinants of fertility care and semen quality.

PurposeTo determine the potential associations between physical activity and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe illness from COVID-19 and COVID-19 related death using a nationwide cohort from South Korea.MethodsData regarding 212 768 Korean adults (age ≥20 years), who tested for SARS-CoV-2, from 1 January 2020 to 30 May 2020, were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service of South Korea and further linked with the national general health examination from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 to assess physical activity levels. SARS-CoV-2 positivity, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 related death were the main outcomes. The observation period was between 1 January 2020 and 31 July 2020.ResultsOut of 76 395 participants who completed the general health examination and were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 2295 (3.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 446 (0.58%) had severe illness from COVID-19 and 45 (0.059%) died from COVID-19. Adults who engaged in both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities according to the 2018 physical activity guidelines had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.6% vs 3.1%; adjusted relative risk (aRR), 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96), severe COVID-19 illness (0.35% vs 0.66%; aRR 0.42; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.91) and COVID-19 related death (0.02% vs 0.08%; aRR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99) than those who engaged in insufficient aerobic and muscle strengthening activities. Furthermore, the recommended range of metabolic equivalent task (MET; 500–1000 MET min/week) was associated with the maximum beneficial effect size for reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92), severe COVID-19 illness (aRR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.90) and COVID-19 related death (aRR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.98). Similar patterns of association were observed in different sensitivity analyses.ConclusionAdults who engaged in the recommended levels of physical activity were associated with a decreased likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 related death. Our findings suggest that engaging in physical activity has substantial public health value and demonstrates potential benefits to combat COVID-19.