Analysis of viral load in different specimen types and serum antibody levels of COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused a global pandemic and the death toll is increasing. However, there is no definitive information regarding the type of clinical specimens that is the best for SARS-CoV-2 detection, the antibody levels in patients with different duration of disease, and the relationship between antibody level and viral load. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs, anal swabs, saliva, blood, and urine specimens were collected from patients with a course of disease ranging from 7 to 69 days. Viral load in different specimen types was measured using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). Meanwhile, anti-nucleocapsid protein (anti-N) IgM and IgG antibodies and anti-spike protein receptor-binding domain (anti-S-RBD) IgG antibody in all serum samples were tested using ELISA. RESULTS: The positive detection rate in nasopharyngeal swab was the highest (54.05%), followed by anal swab (24.32%), and the positive detection rate in saliva, blood, and urine was 16.22%, 10.81%, and 5.41%, respectively. However, some patients with negative nasopharyngeal swabs had other specimens tested positive. There was no significant correlation between antibody level and days after symptoms onset or viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Other specimens could be positive in patients with negative nasopharyngeal swabs, suggesting that for patients in the recovery period, specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs should also be tested to avoid false negative results, and anal swabs are recommended. The antibody level had no correlation with days after symptoms onset or the viral load of nasopharyngeal swabs, suggesting that the antibody level may also be affected by other factors.

Could "triple-therapy" considered as a novel-optimal treatment model for acute bipolar depression? A prospective real-world research in China.

BACKGROUND: Results of researches of bipolar depression treatment are inconsistent and to our knowledge, no study has previously revealed an optimal treatment model for bipolar depression in the real-world through a prospective way. OBJECTIVE: To find out an optimal treatment model for bipolar depression in the real-world by evaluating the effect of different treatment models: monotherapy, double-therapy and triple-therapy. DESIGN: and Intervention: This 12 or 16-week, multi-center, real-world clinical study was conducted at 15 study sites (inpatient or outpatient department) in West China and a total of 573 patients completed the follow-up. During the study weeks, all researchers could choose a most proper treatment model freely basing on the evaluation of patient's symptoms and complete the follow-up according to the procedure. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were baseline-to-endpoint change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and the constituent ratio of effects. Total score change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) from baseline to endpoint, treatment-emergent mania rate and severe adverse events rate were used as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: During all study weeks, all the 3 groups showed a statistically significant improvement in MARDS, YMRS and CGI (P＜0.001), but the triple-therapy group showed much more effective in significant response and response rates at endpoint than double-therapy group and monotherapy group (P＜0.001) with lower treatment-emergent mania rates (P = 0.001). At week 4, mean scores of MARDS in triple-therapy group are statistically significant lower than monotherapy group (P = 0.013) and at the endpoint, mean scores of MARDS in triple-therapy group are statistically significant lower than both double-therapy and monotherapy groups (P = 0.011). The severe adverse events rates are rare in all the 3 groups at week 4 and endpoint, and the rate of dry mouth in triple-therapy group at week 4 is statistically significant lower than the other 2 groups (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Triple-therapy is more effective in treating bipolar depression than double-therapy and monotherapy model with a lower risk of developing manic symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Identifier: ChiCTR1800019064.

Current methods for loading dendritic cells with tumor antigen for the induction of antitumor immunity.

The immunotherapy of cancer is predicated on the belief that it is possible to generate a clinically meaningful antitumor response that provides patient benefit, such as improvement in the time to progression or survival. Indeed, immunotherapeutics with dendritic cells (DC) as antigen-presenting delivery vehicles for cell-based vaccines have already improved patient outcome against a wide range of tumor types (1-9). This approach stimulates the patient's own antitumor immunity through the induction or enhancement of T-cell immunity. It is generally believed that the activity of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL), the cells directly responsible for killing the tumor cells in vivo, are directed by DC. Therefore, the goal of many current designs for DC-based vaccines is to induce strong tumor-specific CTL responses in patients with cancer. In practice, most studies for DC-based cancer vaccine development have focused on the development of methods that can effectively deliver exogenous tumor antigens to DC for cross-priming of CD8+ T cells through the endogenous MHC class I processing and presentation pathway (10). To date, many methods have been developed or evaluated for the delivery of defined and undefined tumor antigens to DC. This review provides a brief summary on these methods, the techniques used in these methods, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each method.