Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic has not been completely controlled. Although great achievements have been made in COVID-19 research and many antiviral drugs have shown good therapeutic effects against COVID-19, a simple oral antiviral drug for COVID-19 has not yet been developed. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the improvement in mortality or hospitalization rates and adverse events among COVID-19 patients with three new oral antivirals (including molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid). Methods We searched scientific and medical databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library for relevant articles and screened the references of retrieved studies on COVID-19. Results A total of eight studies were included in this study. The drug group included 2440 COVID-19 patients, including 54 patients who died or were hospitalized. The control group included a total of 2348 COVID-19 patients, including 118 patients who died or were hospitalized. The overall odds ratio (OR) of mortality or hospitalization was 0.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.49) for COVID-19 patients in the drug group and placebo group, indicating that oral antiviral drugs were effective for COVID-19 patients and reduced the mortality or hospitalization by approximately 67%. Conclusions This study showed that three novel oral antivirals (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) are effective in reducing the mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with COVID-19. In addition, the three oral drugs did not increase the occurrence of adverse events, thus exhibiting good overall safety. These three oral antiviral drugs are still being studied, and the available data suggest that they will bring new hope for COVID-19 recovery and have the potential to be a breakthrough and very promising treatment for COVID-19. KEY MESSAGES Many antiviral drugs have shown good therapeutic effects, and there is no simple oral antiviral drug for COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis was conducted for three new oral antivirals to evaluate the improvement in mortality or hospitalization rates and adverse events among COVID-19 patients. We focussed on three new oral Coronavirus agents (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) and hope to provide guidance for the roll-out of oral antivirals.

No abstract

Background: The coronavirus pneumonia is still spreading around the world. Much progress has been made in vaccine development, and vaccination will become an inevitable trend in the fight against this pandemic. However, the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination still remains uncertain.Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was used in Wen Juan Xing survey platform. All the respondents were divided into healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the key sociodemographic, cognitive, and attitude associations among the samples of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers.Results: A total of 2,580 respondents completed the questionnaire, including 1,329 healthcare workers and 1,251 non-healthcare workers. This study showed that 76.98% of healthcare workers accepted the COVID-19 vaccine, 18.28% workers were hesitant, and 4.74% workers were resistant. Among the non-healthcare workers, 56.19% workers received the COVID-19 vaccine, 37.57% workers were hesitant, and 6.24% workers were resistant. Among the healthcare workers, compared with vaccine recipients, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.12–2.07); vaccine-resistant individuals were more likely to live in the suburbs (AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.44–3.99) with an income of 10,000 RMB or greater (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.03–3.90). Among the non-healthcare workers, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31–2.11); vaccine-resistant individuals were also more likely to be female (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16–3.02) and older than 65 years (AOR = 4.96, 95% CI: 1.40–7.62). There are great differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers in their cognition and attitude toward vaccines.Conclusions: Our study shows that healthcare workers are more willing to be vaccinated than non-healthcare workers. Current vaccine safety issues continue to be a major factor affecting public acceptance, and to expand vaccine coverage in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, appropriate vaccination strategies and immunization programs are essential, especially for non-healthcare workers.

We aimed to provide a systematical evaluation of the performance of period analysis compared to traditional cohort and complete methods, using cancer registry data from Taizhou, eastern China. Overall, 5‐year relative survival (RS) estimate was calculated using cohort analysis, complete analysis and period analysis, respectively; further analyses were stratified by sex, region, age at diagnosis and cancer sites. Deviation value (DV), defined as the deviation between the estimated 5‐year RS obtained from each method and the observed actual survival, was calculated to evaluate the accuracy of each method. Overall, 5‐year RS derived by period analysis were much closer to the observed actual survival (51.4%), compared to those by complete and cohort methods, with the estimates of 48.7% (DV: −2.7%), 43.2% (DV: −8.2%) and 36.3% (DV: −15.1%), respectively. Further stratifications by sex, age at diagnosis, region and cancer sites also supported period analysis provided more precise estimates, compared to complete and cohort methods. We found, for first time systematically using cancer registry data from eastern China, period analysis provided more up‐to‐date precise estimates of long‐term survival for overall and stratifications by sex, age at diagnosis, region and cancer sites, compared to traditional cohort and complete methods. Nevertheless, further investigations using large cancer registry data across China are warranted for the widespread use of period analysis in China.

No abstract