CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics: progress and prospects.

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) gene-editing technology is the ideal tool of the future for treating diseases by permanently correcting deleterious base mutations or disrupting disease-causing genes with great precision and efficiency. A variety of efficient Cas9 variants and derivatives have been developed to cope with the complex genomic changes that occur during diseases. However, strategies to effectively deliver the CRISPR system to diseased cells in vivo are currently lacking, and nonviral vectors with target recognition functions may be the focus of future research. Pathological and physiological changes resulting from disease onset are expected to serve as identifying factors for targeted delivery or targets for gene editing. Diseases are both varied and complex, and the choice of appropriate gene-editing methods and delivery vectors for different diseases is important. Meanwhile, there are still many potential challenges identified when targeting delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 technology for disease treatment. This paper reviews the current developments in three aspects, namely, gene-editing type, delivery vector, and disease characteristics. Additionally, this paper summarizes successful examples of clinical trials and finally describes possible problems associated with current CRISPR applications.

Acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among healthcare workers: A meta-analysis

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed increasing challenges to global health systems. Vaccination against COVID-19 can effectively prevent the public, particularly healthcare workers (HCWs), from being infected by this disease. Objectives We aim to understand the factors influencing HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science to collect literature published before May 15, 2022, about HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. The Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the included studies. We utilized Stata 14.0 software for this meta-analysis with a random-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. This meta-analysis was conducted in alignment with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Results Our meta-analysis included 71 articles with 93,508 HCWs involved. The research showed that the acceptance of vaccines had significantly increased among HCWs compared to non-HCWs (OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.16–3.12). A willingness to undergo COVID-19 vaccination was observed in 66% (95% CI: 0.61–0.67) of HCWs. Among the HCWs involved, doctors showed a generally increased intention to be vaccinated compared with nurses (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.71–2.89). Additionally, males were found to hold more positive attitudes toward vaccination than females (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.55–2.12). When the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines was improved, the vaccination acceptance of HCWs was greatly increased accordingly (OR = 5.03, 95% CI: 2.77–9.11). The HCWs who were willing to vaccinate against seasonal influenza showed an increased acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines (OR = 3.52, 95% CI: 2.34–5.28). Our study also showed that HCWs who were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 experienced a reduced rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92). Conclusions Our analysis revealed that the five factors of occupation, gender, vaccine effectiveness, seasonal influenza vaccines, and SARS-CoV-2 infection presumably affected the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs. It is essential to boost the confidence of HCWs in COVID-19 vaccines for the containment of the epidemic.

Eosinophil: A Nonnegligible Predictor in COVID-19 Re-Positive Patients.

Although vaccine resources are being distributed worldwide, insufficient vaccine production remains a major obstacle to herd immunity. In such an environment, the cases of re-positive occurred frequently, and there is a big controversy regarding the cause of re-positive episodes and the infectivity of re-positive cases. In this case-control study, we tracked 39 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from the Jiaodong Peninsula area of China, of which 7 patients tested re-positive. We compared the sex distribution, age, comorbidities, and clinical laboratory results between normal patients and re-positive patients, and analysed the correlation between the significantly different indicators and the re-positive. Re-positive patients displayed a lower level of serum creatinine (63.38 ± 4.94 U/L vs. 86.82 ± 16.98 U/L; P =0.014) and lower albumin (34.70 ± 5.46 g/L vs. 41.24 ± 5.44 g/L, P =0.039) at the time of initial diagnosis. In addition, two positive phases and the middle negative phase in re-positive patients with significantly different eosinophil counts (0.005 ± 0.005 × 109/L; 0.103 ± 0.033 × 109/L; 0.007 ± 0.115 × 109/L; Normal range: 0.02-0.52 × 109/L). The level of eosinophils in peripheral blood can be used as a marker to predict re-positive in patients who once had COVID-19.