This study aims to explore the relationship between the doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines received and SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in the real-world setting, so as to preliminarily evaluate the protective effect induced by COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a test-negative case-control study and recruited the test-positive cases and test-negative controls in the outbreak caused by Omicron BA.2 in April 2022 in Guangzhou, China. All the participants were 3 years and older. The vaccination status between the case group and the control group was compared in the vaccinated and all participants, respectively, to estimate the immune protection of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. After adjusting for sex and age, compared with a mere single dose, full vaccination of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (OR = 0.191, 95% CI: 0.050 to 0.727) and booster vaccination (OR = 0.091, 95% CI: 0.011 to 0.727) had a more superior protective effect. Compared with one dose, the second dose was more effective in males (OR = 0.090), as well as two doses (OR = 0.089) and three doses (OR = 0.090) among individuals aged 18–59. Whereas, when compared with the unvaccinated, one dose (OR = 7.715, 95% CI: 1.904 to 31.254) and three doses (OR = 2.055, 95% CI: 1.162 to 3.635) could contribute to the increased risk of Omicron infection after adjusting for sex and age. Meanwhile, by contrast with unvaccinated individuals, the result of increased risk was also manifested in the first dose in males (OR = 12.400) and one dose (OR = 21.500), two doses (OR = 1.890), and a booster dose (OR = 1.945) in people aged 18–59. In conclusion, the protective effect of full and booster vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines exceeded the incomplete vaccination, of which three doses were more effective. Nevertheless, vaccination may increase the risk of Omicron infection compared with unvaccinated people. This may result from the transmission traits of BA.2, the particularity and stronger protection awareness of the unvaccinated population, as well as the ADE effect induced by the decrease of antibody titers after a long time of vaccination. It is crucial to explore this issue in depth for the formulation of future COVID-19 vaccination strategies.

Background: To explore the differences in clinical manifestations and infection marker determination for early diagnosis of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and influenza (A and B).Methods: A hospital-based retrospective cohort study was designed. Patients with COVID-19 and inpatients with influenza at a sentinel surveillance hospital were recruited. Demographic data, medical history, laboratory findings, and radiographic characteristics were summarized and compared between the two groups. The chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables, and Kruskal–Wallis H-test was used for continuous variables in each group. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to differentiate the intergroup characteristics. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the predisposing factors.Results: About 23 patients with COVID-19 and 74 patients with influenza were included in this study. Patients with influenza exhibited more symptoms of cough and sputum production than COVID-19 (p < 0.05). CT showed that consolidation and pleural effusion were more common in influenza than COVID-19 (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with influenza had high values of infection and coagulation function markers, but low values of blood routine and biochemical test markers than patients with COVID-19 (mild or moderate groups) (p < 0.05). In patients with COVID-19, the ROC analysis showed positive predictions of albumin and hematocrit, but negative predictions of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase (HBDH), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Multivariate analysis revealed that influenza might associate with risk of elevated CRP, PCT, and LDH, whereas COVID-19 might associated with high HBDH.Conclusion: Patients with influenza had more obvious clinical symptoms but less common consolidation lesions and pleural effusion than those with COVID-19. These findings suggested that influenza likely presents with stronger inflammatory reactions than COVID-19, which provides some insights into the pathogenesis of these two contagious respiratory illnesses.

Mpox (monkeypox) is a zoonotic disease caused by monkeypox virus, which belongs to the orthopoxvirus genus. Concern has recently been expressed over the appearance of the human monkeypox virus and its severe clinical presentation that resembles smallpox. Currently, due to the decrescence of immunity among smallpox-vaccinated residents, and the accumulation of unvaccinated cohorts, people are generally susceptible to mpox. A cumulative number of 79411 laboratory-confirmed cases of mpox and 50 fatalities have been reported to the World Health Organization from 110 countries between 1 January and 13 November 2022. This paper provides an overview of the epidemiology and clinical features of mpox, and control and prevention approaches for mpox to fully understand and prevent human infections.

In April 2022, a COVID-19 outbreak caused by the Omicron variant emerged in Guangzhou. A case–control study was conducted to explore the relationship between vaccination intervals and SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real world. According to the vaccination dose and age information of the cases, a 1:4 matched case–control sample was established, finally including n = 242 for the case group and n = 968 for the control group. The results indicated that among the participants who received three vaccine doses, those with an interval of more than 300 days between the receipt of the first vaccine dose and infection (or the first contact with a confirmed case) were less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 than those with an interval of less than 300 days (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.46–0.99). After age-stratified analysis, among participants aged 18–40 years who received two doses of vaccine, those who received the second dose more than 30 days after the first dose were less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.30–0.96). Our findings suggest that we need to extend the interval between the first dose and the second dose and further explore the optimal interval between the first and second and between the second and third doses in order to improve vaccine efficacy.

Combining bioinformatics and in vitro cytology assays, a predictive method was established to quickly evaluate the protective effect of immunity acquired through SARS-CoV-2 infection against variants. Bioinformatics software was first used to predict the changes in the affinity of variant antigens to the CV30 monoclonal antibody by integrating bioinformatics and cytology assays. Then, the ability of the antibody to neutralize the variant antigen was further verified, and the ability of the CV30 to neutralize the new variant strain was predicted through pseudovirus neutralization experiments. The current study has demonstrated that when the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) predicts |ΔBFE| ≤ 3.0003, it suggests that the CV30 monoclonal antibody exhibits some affinity toward the variant strain and can potentially neutralize it. However, if |ΔBFE| ≥ 4.1539, the CV30 monoclonal antibody does not display any affinity for the variant strain and cannot neutralize it. In contrast, if 3.0003 < |ΔBFE| < 4.1539, it is necessary to conduct a series of neutralization tests promptly with the CV30 monoclonal antibody and the variant pseudovirus to obtain results and supplement the existing method, which is faster than the typical procedures. This approach allows for a rapid assessment of the protective efficacy of natural immunity gained through SARS-CoV-2 infection against variants.