Background: The burden of asthma in terms of premature death or reduced quality of life remains a huge issue. It is of great importance to evaluate asthma burden geographically and time trends from 1990 to 2019 and to assess the contributions of age, period, and cohort effects at global level. Methods: Asthma prevalence, deaths, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) as well as risk-attributable burden were collected from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 database and were compared by age and sex. The Smoothing Splines models were used to estimate the relationship between asthma DALYs and the sociodemographic index (SDI). The Age-Period-Cohort model was used to determine effects of ages, periods, and birth cohorts on disease rates. Results: Between 1990 and 2019, the declines were 24.05% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] − 27.24 to − 20.82) in age-standardized asthma prevalence, 51.3% (− 59.08 to − 43.71) in mortality, and 42.55% (− 48.48 to − 36.61) in DALYs rate. However, the burden of asthma continued to rise, with an estimated 262.41 million prevalent cases globally (95% UI 224.05 to 309.45). Asthma caused greater DALYs in females than in males among people aged 20 years and older. The lowest age-standardized DALYs rate was observed at a SDI of approximately 0.70. The Longitudinal age curves showed an approximate W-shaped pattern for asthma prevalence and a likely J-shaped pattern for asthma mortality. The period effect on prevalence and mortality of asthma decreased from 1990 to 2019. Compared with the 1955–1959 birth cohort, the prevalence relative risk (RR) of asthma was highest in the 1905–1909 birth cohort, whereas the mortality RR continued to decline. At the global level, the percentages of high body-mass index, occupational asthmagens, and smoking contributing to DALYs due to asthma were 16.94%, 8.82%, and 9.87%, respectively. Conclusions: Although the age-standardized rates of asthma burden declined in the past 30 years, the overall burden of asthma remains severe. High body mass index becomes the most important risk factor for DALYs due to asthma at the global level.

Background: The pandemic of COVID-19 poses a challenge to global healthcare. The mortality rates of severe cases range from 8.1% to 38%, and it is particularly important to identify risk factors that aggravate the disease. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, using 7 databases to identify studies reporting on clinical characteristics, comorbidities and complications in severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. All the observational studies were included. We performed a random or fixed effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled proportion and 95% confidence interval (CI). Measure of heterogeneity was estimated by Cochran's Q statistic, I ² index and P value. Results: A total of 4881 cases from 25 studies related to COVID-19 were included. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (severe: 33.4%, 95% CI: 25.4%–41.4%; non-severe 21.6%, 95% CI: 9.9%–33.3%), followed by diabetes (severe: 14.4%, 95% CI: 11.5%–17.3%; non-severe: 8.5%, 95% CI: 6.1%–11.0%). The prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury and shock were all higher in severe cases, with 41.1% (95% CI: 14.1%–68.2%), 16.4% (95% CI: 3.4%–29.5%) and 19.9% (95% CI: 5.5%–34.4%), rather than 3.0% (95% CI: 0.6%–5.5%), 2.2% (95% CI: 0.1%–4.2%) and 4.1% (95% CI: −4.8%–13.1%) in non-severe patients, respectively. The death rate was higher in severe cases (30.3%, 95% CI: 13.8%–46.8%) than non-severe cases (1.5%, 95% CI: 0.1%–2.8%). Conclusion: Hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases may be risk factors for severe COVID-19.

Leritrelvir is a novel α-ketoamide based peptidomimetic inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 main protease. A preclinical study has demonstrated leritrelvir poses similar antiviral activities towards different SARS-CoV-2 variants compared with nirmatrelvir. A phase 2 clinical trial has shown a comparable antiviral efficacy and safety between leritrelvir with and without ritonavir co-administration. This trial aims to test efficacy and safety of leritrelvir monotherapy in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial at 29 clinical sites in China. Enrolled patients were from 18 to 75 years old, diagnosed with mild or moderate COVID-19 and not requiring hospitalization. Patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (NAT) and at least one of the COVID-19 symptoms within 48 h before randomization, and the interval between the first positive SARS-CoV-2 NAT and randomization was ≤120 h (5 days). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 5-day course of either oral leritrelvir 400 mg TID or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from the first dose to sustained clinical recovery of all 11 symptoms (stuffy or runny nose, sore throat, shortness of breath or dyspnea, cough, muscle or body aches, headache, chills, fever ≥37 °C, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea). The safety endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AE). Primary and safety analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05620160. Between Nov 12 and Dec 30, 2022 when the zero COVID policy was abolished nationwide, a total of 1359 patients underwent randomization, 680 were assigned to leritrelvir group and 679 to placebo group. The median time to sustained clinical recovery in leritrelvir group was significantly shorter (251.02 h [IQR 188.95–428.68 h]) than that of Placebo (271.33 h [IQR 219.00–529.63 h], P = 0.0022, hazard ratio [HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.35). Further analysis of subgroups for the median time to sustained clinical recovery revealed that (1) subgroup with positive viral nucleic acid tested ≤72 h had a 33.9 h difference in leritrelvir group than that of placebo; (2) the subgroup with baseline viral load >8 log 10 Copies/mL in leritrelvir group had 51.3 h difference than that of placebo. Leritrelvir reduced viral load by 0.82 log10 on day 4 compared to placebo. No participants in either group progressed to severe COVID-19 by day 29. Adverse events were reported in two groups: leritrelvir 315 (46.46%) compared with placebo 292 (43.52%). Treatment-relevant AEs were similar 218 (32.15%) in the leritrelvir group and 186 (27.72%) in placebo. Two cases of COVID-19 pneumonia were reported in placebo group, and one case in leritrelvir group, none of them were considered by the investigators to be leritrelvir related. The most frequently reported AEs (occurring in ≥5% of participants in at least one group) were laboratory finding: hypertriglyceridemia (leritrelvir 79 [11.7%] vs. placebo 70 [10.4%]) and hyperlipidemia (60 [8.8%] vs. 52 [7.7%]); all of them were nonserious. Leritrelvir monotherapy has good efficacy for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and without serious safety concerns. This study was funded by the National Multidisciplinary Innovation Team Project of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 10.13039/501100012245 Guangdong Science and Technology Foundation , Guangzhou Science and Technology Planning Project and R&D Program of Guangzhou Laboratory.

Smoking history is a heterogeneous situation for different populations, and numerous studies suggest that smoking cessation is conducive to reduce the mortality of lung cancer. However, no quantitative meta-analysis regarding smoking cessation duration based on different populations has demonstrated it clearly. We systematically searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scoups) till February 2023. Eligible studies reported the association between lung cancer survival and duration of smoking cessation. Additionally, we stratified the study population according to whether they had lung cancer at the time they quit smoking. Studies were pooled with the random-effects model. Out of the 11,361 potential studies initially identified, we included 24 studies involving 969,560 individuals in our analysis. Lung cancer mortality varied across two groups: general quitters and peri-diagnosis quitters. For general quitters, those who had quit smoking for less than 10 years exhibited an RR of 0.64 (95% CI [0.55-0.76]), while those who quit for 10-20 years had an RR of 0.33 (0.25-0.43), over 20 years had an RR of 0.16 (0.11-0.24), and never-smokers had an RR at 0.11 (0.07-0.15). Among peri-diagnosis quitters, the 1-year Overall Survival (OS) showed an RR of 0.80 (0.67-0.96), the 2-year OS had an RR of 0.89 (0.80-0.98), the 3-year OS had an RR of 0.93 (0.84-1.03), and the 5-year OS had an RR of 0.85 (0.76-0.96). Earlier and longer smoking cessation is associated with reduced lung cancer mortality, no matter in which cessation stage for two different populations.

Guidelines from different regions on the use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 have generally been inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and availability of guidelines, and whether non-invasive ventilation in the early stages of the pandemic is of importance. Databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as websites of international organizations and gray literature, were searched up to June 23, 2020. The reference lists of eligible papers were also hand-searched. A total of 26 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, the guidelines’ methodological quality was low. Among six domains, Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence were of the lowest quality. Given the lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials and the great variation between different regions, recommendations for non-invasive ventilation have generated considerable debate regarding the early stages of COVID-19. Improving the methodological quality of the guidelines should be a goal with regard to future pandemics. Additionally, better-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to resolve contradictions regarding the impact of non-invasive ventilation. CRD42020198410.