instruction:
In this task, you're given a paragraph from the research paper and your task is to generate a suitable title for the research paper based on the given paper. Under 100 words is a good title length.
question:
Main point: Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine at inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate 400 mg given twice daily for 1 day, followed by 200 mg twice daily for 4 more days is recommended to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Abstract Background. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first broke out in Wuhan (China) and subsequently spread worldwide. Chloroquine has been sporadically used in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine shares the same mechanism of action as chloroquine, but its more tolerable safety profile makes it the preferred drug to treat malaria and autoimmune conditions. We propose that the immunomodulatory effect of hydroxychloroquine also may be useful in controlling the cytokine storm that occurs late-phase in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods. The pharmacological activity of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was tested using SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero cells. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models (PBPK) were implemented for both drugs separately by integrating their in vitro data. Using the PBPK models, hydroxychloroquine concentrations in lung fluid were simulated under 5 different dosing regimens to explore the most effective regimen whilst considering the drug's safety profile. Results. Hydroxychloroquine (EC50=0.72 μM) was found to be more potent than chloroquine (EC50=5.47 μM) in vitro. Based on PBPK models results, a loading dose of 400 mg twice daily of hydroxychloroquine sulfate given orally, followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg given twice daily for 4 days is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it reached three times the potency of chloroquine phosphate when given 500 mg twice daily 5 days in advance. Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine to 4 / 25 inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.
answer:
In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)


question:
Recently, AdvanSure™ kit based on multiplex real-time PCR was developed for simultaneous detection of 14 respiratory viruses (RVs). We compared the performance of AdvanSure with those of Seeplex® RV 15 ACE and culture by determining their sensitivities and specificities against a composite reference standard. Four hundred thirty-seven respiratory samples were tested by modified shell vial culture method, RV 15 ACE, and AdvanSure. One hundred fourteen samples (26.2%) out of 437 samples were positive by culture, while additional 91 (20.8%) were positive by AdvanSure or RV15. One hundred twelve of 114 culture-positive samples were positive by AdvanSure except 2 samples (1 adenovirus, 1 respiratory syncytial virus [RSV]). Overall, the sensitivities of culture, RV15, and AdvanSure were 74.5%, 89.8%, and 95.1%, respectively. Sensitivities of culture, RV15, and AdvanSure for each virus tested were as follows: 91/100/96% for influenza A, 60/0/100% for influenza B, 63/95/97% for RSV, 69/81/89% for adenovirus, and 87/93/93% for parainfluenza virus. For viruses not covered by culture, sensitivities of RV15 and AdvanSure were as follows: 77/88% for rhinovirus, 100/100% for coronavirus OC43, 40/100% for coronavirus 229E/NL63, 13/100% for metapneumovirus, and 44/100% for bocavirus. The overall specificities of culture, RV15, and AdvanSure were 100/98.9/ 99.5%, respectively. Of 45 coinfected specimens, AdvanSure detected 41 specimens (91.1%) as coinfected, while RV15 detected 27 specimens (60.0%) as coinfected. AdvanSure assay demonstrated exquisite performance for the detection of RVs and will be a valuable tool for the management of RV infection.
answer:
Evaluation of the AdvanSure™ real-time RT-PCR compared with culture and Seeplex RV15 for simultaneous detection of respiratory viruses ☆


question:
This paper attempts to understand optimal ventilation rates at the national level across 26 European countries and to contrast the benefits of optimizing ventilation with filtration of outdoor air pollution and control of indoor sources. This is an important topic given the key role of the housing sector in tackling both air pollution and climate change. Although the methods used are relatively simplistic, they are appropriate for analyses performed at the scale presented in the paper. The findings and conclusions are well supported by the results. I would therefore support publication. However, I believe the manuscript would benefit from a stronger statement of the aims of the work and some clarifications regarding the methods (see below). My main concern relates to the assumption made by the authors that indoor-generated PM2.5 is equally as harmful to health as outdoor-generated PM2.5. There is little evidence to support this (though it is quite a commonly made assumption). I would like to see some form of sensitivity analysis in relation to this assumption, since it may have an impact on the final results (though probably not on the ultimate conclusions). More detailed comments can be found below. I consider the suggested revisions to be relatively minor. 1. Is the question posed original, important and well defined? The research question posed by the paper is important and I believe the methods used are appropriate to answer it. However, the aims of the paper are not currently well stated (in both the main text and in the abstract). The main statement of the aims comes towards the end of page 5, which states "This work aims to summarize the current understanding of the sources of health risks in indoor environments and their relationship to ventilation requirements". This doesn't really capture what the authors have actually done. There is a slightly better statement of the aims hidden in the Methods (top of page 7) but even this doesn't quite feel sufficient. 2. Are the data sound and well controlled? Yes, although the source of some of the input data can be made clearer in the text, especially in relation to Table 2 (see below) . 3. Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data? Yes. 4. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to allow others to evaluate and/or replicate the work? The methods are generally well described. However, I have a few specific issues (see the additional comments below). The methods are based on relatively simplistic tools (both the mass-balance exposure model and the risk/health impact model). However, I think they are appropriate for the type of analysis presented in the paper. My main concern relates to the assumption of equal health risk associated with both outdoor-and indoor-generated PM2.5. The authors discuss this briefly in the Discussion section but this assumption is highly uncertain since almost all of the published epidemiology is based on outdoor PM2.5. The paper would benefit from greater emphasis on the sensitivity of the results to this assumption. Perhaps, the analysis (or part of it) could be repeated without the effects of indoorgenerated PM2.5 or with a reduced exposure-response coefficient? 6. Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved? Although the manuscript is generally well written, there are reoccurring problems, most importantly missing articles throughout the paper (e.g. a, the). For instance, in the abstract, "Based on measurements of the European Environment Agency (EEA),…" and "A framework for developing European health-based ventilation guidelines…" would be preferable. I realise that English is not the authors' first language (and, again, I should stress that most of the language used is very good). However, I think the paper would benefit from a thorough edit by a native English speaker. Also, the figures appear to be quite pixelated and may not be in an appropriate format for publication. 7. When revisions are requested. No preference. 8. Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise? None. • I believe the abstract would benefit from a little editing. At present, the Background section feels unnecessarily long and there isn't enough detail in either the Methods or Results sections. The methods used for the health impact calculations aren't mentioned at all, despite being key to the paper. At the moment, I don't feel the main results are clearly stated in the abstract. • The paper refers throughout to "optimization". I think a mathematician might object to the use of the term because the method doesn't actually use a formal optimization process. I don't think this is too much of a problem but I do think a clear statement of what the authors mean by optimization would be helpful (e.g. in the Methods). As I understand it, the "optimal" ventilation rate is just taken to be the one for which the health burden is smallest.
answer:

Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project) Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project)