Phototherapy has emerged as a promising modality in cancer treatment, garnering considerable attention for its minimal side effects, exceptional spatial selectivity, and optimal preservation of normal tissue function. This innovative approach primarily encompasses three distinct paradigms: Photodynamic Therapy (PDT), Photothermal Therapy (PTT), and Photoimmunotherapy (PIT). Each of these modalities exerts its antitumor effects through unique mechanisms—specifically, the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), heat, and immune responses, respectively. However, significant challenges impede the advancement and clinical application of phototherapy. These include inadequate ROS production rates, subpar photothermal conversion efficiency, difficulties in tumor targeting, and unfavorable physicochemical properties inherent to traditional phototherapeutic agents (PTs). Additionally, the hypoxic microenvironment typical of tumors complicates therapeutic efficacy due to limited agent penetration in deep-seated lesions. To address these limitations, ongoing research is fervently exploring innovative solutions. The unique advantages offered by nano-PTs and nanocarrier systems aim to enhance traditional approaches’ effectiveness. Strategies such as generating oxygen in situ within tumors or inhibiting mitochondrial respiration while targeting the HIF-1α pathway may alleviate tumor hypoxia. Moreover, utilizing self-luminescent materials, near-infrared excitation sources, non-photoactivated sensitizers, and wireless light delivery systems can improve light penetration. Furthermore, integrating immunoadjuvants and modulating immunosuppressive cell populations while deploying immune checkpoint inhibitors holds promise for enhancing immunogenic cell death through PIT. This review seeks to elucidate the fundamental principles and biological implications of phototherapy while discussing dominant mechanisms and advanced strategies designed to overcome existing challenges—ultimately illuminating pathways for future research aimed at amplifying this intervention’s therapeutic efficacy.

Objectives To analyse clinical and radiological changes from disease onset to exacerbation in coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) patients. Methods We reviewed clinical histories of 276 patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and extracted data on patients who met the diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 severe/fatal pneumonia and had an acute exacerbation starting with mild or common pneumonia. Results Twenty-four patients were included. Of these, 8% were smokers, 54% had been to Wuhan, and 46% had comorbidities. Before acute exacerbation, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (232.9 ± 88.7) was present, and chest CT scans showed the number of involved lobes was 4 (2–5) and total CT score was 6 (2–8). Following acute exacerbation, patients were likely to have more clinical symptoms (p < 0.01) and abnormal laboratory changes (p < 0.01). The number of involved lobes and CT score after an exacerbation significantly increased to 5 (5–5) and 12 (9–14), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed that, when the cutoff value of CT score was 5, the sensitivity and specificity for severe pneumonia were 90% and 70%, respectively. CT findings of ground glass opacity with consolidations (91.7%), bilateral distribution (100.0%), and multifocal lesion (100.0%) were features in found in patients after exacerbation. Conclusions There are significant changes in clinical, laboratory, and CT findings in patients from disease onset to exacerbation. An increase in the number of involved lobes or an increased CT score from the baseline may predict poor clinical outcomes. Combining an assessment of CT changes with clinical and laboratory changes could help clinical teams evaluate the prognosis. Key Points • The common chest CT signs of COVID-19 pneumonia after exacerbation were ground glass opacity (GGO) with consolidation, bilateral distribution, and multifocal lesions. • An increase in number of involved lobes or an increased CT score from the baseline may predict a poor clinical outcome. • Worsened symptoms and abnormal laboratory results are also associated with poor prognosis.

To investigate clinical characteristics and identify risk factors for severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia outside of Wuhan, China. We included 213 patients with confirmed COVID-19 who had been discharged or died by 15 March 2020. We retrospectively collected epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, computed tomography imaging and outcome data. Clinical characteristics were described and relative risk factors were compared. Most clinical characteristics of this study were similar to those from studies in Wuhan, but there were lower mortality rate and milder severity. The median time from onset of symptoms to confirmation and hospitalization was 4 and 5 days, respectively. The median virus clearance and shedding times were 10 and 15 days, respectively. When the severe/critical group was compared with the mild/moderate group, significant risk factors included: older age; dyspnea; hypertension; poor appetite; fatigue; higher white cell count, neutrophil count, prothrombin time, creatine kinase, creatine kinase-MB, D-dimer, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and C-reactive protein; and lower lymphocyte count and albumin (p < 0.05). In the intensive care unit (ICU) group compared with the non-ICU group, risk factors included: older age; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); dyspnea; poor appetite; higher white cell count, D-dimer, ALT, AST and LDH; and lower lymphocyte count and albumin (p < 0.05). Independent risk factors associated with the severe/critical group were dyspnea [odds ratio (OR) = 19.48], ALT (OR = 6.02) and albumin (OR = 3.36). Independent risk factors associated with the ICU group were dyspnea (OR = 8.88), COPD (OR = 31.80), D-dimer (OR = 8.37), ALT (OR = 28.76) and LDH (OR = 9.95) (p < 0.05). The severity of COVID-19 outside Wuhan, China was milder than that within Wuhan. The clinical infective period was long, and the longest virus shedding time was 35 days. The most important risk factors were dyspnea, COPD, D-dimer, ALT, LDH and albumin. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

There have been few reports on the risk factors for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and there were obvious differences regarding the incidence of ADRS between Wuhan and outside Wuhan in China. To investigate the risk factors associated with ARDS in COVID-19, and compare the characteristics of ARDS between Wuhan and outside Wuhan in China. Patients were enrolled from two medical centers in Hunan Province. A total of 197 patients with confirmed COVID-19, who had either been discharged or had died by March 15, 2020, were included in this study. We retrospectively collected the patients’ clinical data, and the factors associated with ARDS were compared by the χ² test, Fisher’s exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Significant variables were chosen for the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. In addition, literature in the PubMed database was reviewed, and the characteristics of ARDS, mortality, and biomarkers of COVID-19 severity were compared between Wuhan and outside Wuhan in China. Compared with the non-ARDS group, patients in the ARDS group were significantly older, had more coexisting diseases, dyspnea, higher D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and C-reactive protein. In univariate logistic analysis, risk factors associated with the development of ARDS included older age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.04), coexisting diseases (OR = 3.94), dyspnea (OR = 17.82), dry/moist rales (OR = 9.06), consolidative/mixed opacities (OR = 2.93), lymphocytes (OR = 0.68 for high lymphocytes compared to low lymphocytes), D-dimer (OR = 1.41), albumin (OR = 0.69 for high albumin compared to low albumin), alanine aminotransferase (OR = 1.03), aspartate aminotransferase (OR = 1.02), LDH (OR = 1.02), C-reactive protein (OR = 1.04) and procalcitonin (OR = 17.01). In logistic multivariate analysis, dyspnea (adjusted OR = 27.10), dry/moist rales (adjusted OR = 9.46), and higher LDH (adjusted OR = 1.02) were independent risk factors. The literature review showed that patients in Wuhan had a higher incidence of ARDS, higher mortality rate, and higher levels of biomarkers associated with COVID-19 severity than those outside Wuhan in China. Dyspnea, dry/moist rales and higher LDH are independent risk factors for ARDS in COVID-19. The incidence of ARDS in Wuhan seems to be overestimated compared with outside Wuhan in China.

The direction and magnitude of the association between sodium and potassium excretion and blood pressure (BP) may differ depending on the characteristics of the study participant or the intake assessment method. Our objective was to assess the relationship between BP, hypertension and 24-h urinary sodium and potassium excretion among Chinese adults. A total of 1424 provincially representative Chinese residents aged 18 to 69 years participated in a cross-sectional survey in 2017 that included demographic data, physical measurements and 24-h urine collection. In this study, the average 24-h urinary sodium and potassium excretion and sodium-to-potassium ratio were 3811.4 mg/day, 1449.3 mg/day, and 4.9, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, each 1000 mg difference in 24-h urinary sodium excretion was significantly associated with systolic BP (0.64 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05–1.24) and diastolic BP (0.45 mm Hg; 95% CI 0.08–0.81), and each 1000 mg difference in 24-h urinary potassium excretion was inversely associated with systolic BP (− 3.07 mm Hg; 95% CI − 4.57 to − 1.57) and diastolic BP (− 0.94 mm Hg; 95% CI − 1.87 to − 0.02). The sodium-to-potassium ratio was significantly associated with systolic BP (0.78 mm Hg; 95% CI 0.42–1.13) and diastolic BP (0.31 mm Hg; 95% CI 0.10–0.53) per 1-unit increase. These associations were mainly driven by the hypertensive group. Those with a sodium intake above about 4900 mg/24 h or with a potassium intake below about 1000 mg/24 h had a higher risk of hypertension. At higher but not lower levels of 24-h urinary sodium excretion, potassium can better blunt the sodium-BP relationship. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of hypertension in the highest quartile compared with the lowest quartile of excretion were 0.54 (95% CI 0.35–0.84) for potassium and 1.71 (95% CI 1.16–2.51) for the sodium-to-potassium ratio, while the corresponding OR for sodium was not significant (OR, 1.28; 95% CI 0.83–1.98). Our results showed that the sodium intake was significantly associated with BP among hypertensive patients and the inverse association between potassium intake and BP was stronger and involved a larger fraction of the population, especially those with a potassium intake below 1000 mg/24 h should probably increase their potassium intake.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is an epidemic disease caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and spreading throughout the world rapidly. Here we evaluated the efficacy of the Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) and its combination with other drugs in the treatment of COVID‐19. We included 170 confirmed COVID‐19 patients who had been cured and discharged. Their antiviral therapies were LPV/r alone or combinations with interferon (IFN), Novaferon and Arbidol. We evaluated the medication efficacy by comparing the time of the negative nucleic acid conversion and the length of hospitalization mainly. The LPV/r + Novaferon [6.00 (4.00–8.00) and 7.50 (5.00–10.00) days] had shorter time of the negative nucleic acid conversion (P = .0036) and shorter time of hospitalization (P < .001) compared with LPV/r alone [9.00 (5.00–12.00) and 12.00 (11.00–15.00) days] and LPV/r + IFN [9.00 (7.25–11.00) and 12.00 (10.00–13.50) days]. On the contrary, LPV/r + IFN [9.00 (7.25–11.00) and 12.00 (10.00–13.50) days] had shorter time of the negative nucleic acid conversion (P = .031) and shorter time of hospitalization (P < .001) compared with LPV/r + IFN +Novaferon [10.00 (8.00–11.25) and 13.50 (11.50–17.00) days] and LPV/r + IFN +Arbidol [14.00 (9.75–19.00) and 19.50 (13.25–24.00) days]. In conclusion, the combination of LPV/r and Novaferon may have better efficacy against COVID‐19. However, adding IFN based on LPV/r + Novaferon or adding Arbidol based on LPV/r + IFN may not improve the efficacy.