OBJECTIVE T o explore the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the population of close contact with families with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.METHODS A total of 64 people who were closely contact with the families with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and were trea-ted in Ma'anshan People's Hospital from Jan.2023 to Oct.2023 were enrolled in the study and randomly divid-ed into the group A with 22 cases,the group B with 17 cases and the group C with 25 cases.The group A was giv-en 5mg of azvudine,the group B was given 3mg of azvudine plus 2mg of placebo,and the group C was given 5 mg of azvudine;all the three groups were treated for 7 days in total.The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the levels of interleukin-6(IL-6),C-reactive protein(CRP),immunoglobulin G(IgG)and immunoglobulin M(IgM)were observed among the three groups of research subjects after the drug therapies;the adverse reactions were re-corded during the research period.RESULTS The incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 4.55％in the group A,11.76％in the group B,12.00％in the group C,and there was no significant difference(x2=0.921,P=0.631).There were no significant differences in the levels of IL-6,CRP,IgG and IgM among the three groups be-fore and after the drug therapies.The incidence of adverse reactions such as fatigue,cough,hypertriglyceridemia and gastrointestinal tract reactions was 9.09％in the group A after the drug therapies,11.76％in the group B,12.00％in the group C,and there was no significant difference.CONCLUSION There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of azvudine in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the population of close contact with families with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection,with the safety and tolerance favorable.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Mitochondria are one of the oldest and most important endomembrane systems in eukaryotic cells and serve as the hubs of multiple cellular processes. Mitophagy (mitochondrial autophagy), a major way to maintain mitochondrial homeostasis, is closely linked to antiviral immune regulation. Depending on whether ubiquitination is required for the involved receptors or adaptors, mitophagy can be classified into ubiquitin-dependent and ubiquitin-independent types. Viruses can directly or indirectly regulate mitophagy and mitochondrial dynamics through various pathways. Through these processes, they can affect innate and adaptive immunity, so as to achieve immune escape, aggravate cell damage or promote the formation of adaptive immunity. This review summarizes the latest research progress on the role of viral infection-regulated mitophagy in the regulation of immune response.
Mitophagy/immunology* ; Humans ; Animals ; Virus Diseases/immunology* ; Mitochondria/metabolism* ; Immunity, Innate ; Adaptive Immunity