METHODS: A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between 12th and May 13, 2020. Quota sampling was used to attain equal gender and age distributions representative of the Japanese population.
RESULTS: A total of 4127 complete responses were analysed. Higher educational level (B = 0.045, p = 0.002) and household income (B = 0.04, p = 0.009) were associated with a higher increase in preventive measures when comparing before and after the state of emergency was declared. The highest reported social anxiety was a feeling of fear (65.6%), followed by embarrassment (43.8%), keeping infection a secret (41.3%), avoidance (41.3%), and stigma (25.5%). A total of 86.1% of the respondents reported moderate to severe anxiety. The partial least square-based structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) revealed that being female has the greatest effect (B = 0.246, p
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the psychobehavioral responses to the COVID-19 outbreak and examine their associations with mass and social media exposure.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study among medical and health sciences students from the Fujian Medical University in Fuzhou, China, was conducted between April 6-22, 2020.
RESULTS: A total of 2086 completed responses were received. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that four constructs of the Health Belief Model (HBM)-higher perception of susceptibility (odds ratio [OR] 1.44; 95% CI 1.07-1.94), severity (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.10-1.59), self-efficacy (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.21-2.15), and perceived control or intention to carry out prevention measures (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.59)-were significantly associated with a higher mass media exposure score, whereas only three constructs-higher perception of severity (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.19-1.72), self-efficacy (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.38-2.48), and perceived control or intention to carry out prevention measures (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.08-1.58)-were significantly associated with a higher social media exposure score. Lower emotional consequences and barriers to carry out prevention measures were also significantly associated with greater mass and social media exposure. Our findings on anxiety levels revealed that 38.1% (n=795; 95% CI 36.0-40.2) of respondents reported moderate-to-severe anxiety. A lower anxiety level was significantly associated with higher mass and social media exposure in the univariable analyses; however, the associations were not significant in the multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In essence, both mass and social media are useful means of disseminating health messages and contribute to the betterment of psychobehavioral responses to COVID-19. Our findings stress the importance of the credibility of information shared through mass and social media outlets and viable strategies to counter misinformation during a pandemic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of multiple reports and kit inserts on the diagnostic performance of rapid tests from various manufacturers that are commercially available were performed. Only preliminary data are available currently.
RESULTS: From a total of nine rapid detection test (RDT) kits, three kits offer total antibody detection, while six kits offer combination SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in two separate test lines. All kits are based on colloidal gold-labeled immunochromatography principle and one-step method with results obtained within 15 minutes, using whole blood, serum or plasma samples. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while specificity ranges between 98.7% to 100%. Two immunochromatography using nasopharyngeal or throat swab for detection of COVID-19 specific antigen are also reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS: There is much to determine regarding the value of serological testing in COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. More comprehensive evaluations of their performance are rapidly underway. The use of serology methods requires appropriate interpretations of the results and understanding the strengths and limitations of such tests.
METHODS: We systematically searched five electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Global Health, and PsycINFO) from date of inception to September 30, 2022, for studies reporting on the effect of bebtelovimab in SARS-CoV-2 infection, using a combination of search terms around -bebtelovimab‖, -LY-CoV1404‖, -LY3853113‖, and -coronavirus infection‖. All citations were screened independently by two researchers. Data were extracted and thematically analyzed based on study design by adhering to the stipulated scoping review approaches.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included, thirty-four non-clinical studies were narratively synthesized, and five clinical studies were meta-analyzed. The non-clinical studies revealed bebtelovimab not only potently neutralized wide-type SARS-CoV-2 and existing variants of concern such as B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma), and B.1.617.2 (Delta), but also retained appreciable activity against Omicron lineages, including BA.2.75, BA.4, BA.4.6, and BA.5. Unlike other monoclonal antibodies, bebtelovimab was able to bind to epitope of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein by exploiting loop mobility or by minimizing side-chain interactions. Pooled analysis from clinical studies depicted that the rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death were similar between bebtelovimab and other COVID-19 therapies. Bebtelovimab was associated with a low incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Preclinical evidence suggests bebtelovimab be a potential treatment for COVID-19 amidst viral evolution. Bebtelovimab has comparable efficacy to other COVID-19 therapies without evident safety concerns.