RESUMEN

Importance: Despite its implementation in several countries, there has not been a randomized clinical trial to assess whether telemedicine in intensive care units (ICUs) could improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. Objective: To determine whether an intervention comprising daily multidisciplinary rounds and monthly audit and feedback meetings performed by a remote board-certified intensivist reduces ICU length of stay (LOS) compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel cluster randomized clinical trial with a baseline period in 30 general ICUs in Brazil in which daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by board-certified intensivists were not routinely available. All consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to the participating ICUs, excluding those admitted due to justice-related issues, were enrolled between June 1, 2019, and April 7, 2021, with last follow-up on July 6, 2021. Intervention: Remote daily multidisciplinary rounds led by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine, monthly audit and feedback meetings for discussion of ICU performance indicators, and provision of evidence-based clinical protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ICU LOS at the patient level. Secondary outcomes included ICU efficiency, in-hospital mortality, incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated events, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation, and rate of patients with oxygen saturation values under that of normoxemia, assessed using generalized linear mixed models. Results: Among 17 024 patients (1794 in the baseline period and 15 230 in the intervention period), the mean (SD) age was 61 (18) years, 44.7% were female, the median (IQR) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 6 (2-9), and 45.5% were invasively mechanically ventilated at admission. The median (IQR) time under intervention was 20 (16-21) months. Mean (SD) ICU LOS, adjusted for baseline assessment, did not differ significantly between the tele-critical care and usual care groups (8.1 [10.0] and 7.1 [9.0] days; percentage change, 8.2% [95% CI, -5.4% to 23.8%]; P = .24). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses and prespecified subgroups. There were no statistically significant differences in any other secondary or exploratory outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine did not reduce ICU LOS in critically ill adult patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03920501.

RESUMEN

In recent decades, several databases of critically ill patients have become available in both low-, middle-, and high-income countries from all continents. These databases are also rich sources of data for the surveillance of emerging diseases, intensive care unit performance evaluation and benchmarking, quality improvement projects and clinical research. The Epimed Monitor database is turning 15 years old in 2024 and has become one of the largest of these databases. In recent years, there has been rapid geographical expansion, an increase in the number of participating intensive care units and hospitals, and the addition of several new variables and scores, allowing a more complete characterization of patients to facilitate multicenter clinical studies. As of December 2023, the database was being used regularly for 23,852 beds in 1,723 intensive care units and 763 hospitals from ten countries, totaling more than 5.6 million admissions. In addition, critical care societies have adopted the system and its database to establish national registries and international collaborations. In the present review, we provide an updated description of the database; report experiences of its use in critical care for quality improvement initiatives, national registries and clinical research; and explore other potential future perspectives and developments.

Asunto(s)

Bases de Datos Factuales , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Sistema de Registros , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/normas , Investigación Biomédica , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Cuidados Críticos/tendencias , Cuidados Críticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Enfermedad Crítica/epidemiología , Adulto

RESUMEN

Background: Long COVID is an emerging global public health issue. Socially vulnerable communities in low- and-middle-income countries were severely impacted by the pandemic and are underrepresented in research. This prospective study aimed to determine the prevalence of long COVID, its impact on health, and associated risk factors in one such community in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Methods: A total of 710 individuals aged 18 and older, with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at least three months prior, were enrolled between November 25, 2021, and May 5, 2022. Participants were assessed via telephone or in person using a standardized questionnaire to evaluate their perception of recovery, symptoms, quality of life, and functional status. Findings: Twenty percent of participants did not feel fully recovered, 22% experienced new or persistent symptoms, 26% had worsened functional status, 18% had increased dyspnoea, and 32% reported a worse quality of life. Persistent symptoms included headache, cough, fatigue, muscle pain, and shortness of breath. Dyspnoea during the acute phase was the strongest independent predictor of worsening outcomes. Females and individuals with comorbidities were more likely to report worse recovery, functioning, dyspnoea, and quality of life. Interpretation: Our findings reveal a high burden of severe and persistent physical and mental health sequelae in a socially vulnerable community following COVID-19. Funding: UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome Trust Grant (222048/Z/20/Z), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: No consensus exists about the best COVID-19 vaccination strategy to be adopted by low-income and middle-income countries. Brazil adopted an age-based calendar strategy to reduce mortality and the burden on the healthcare system. This study evaluates the impact of the vaccination campaign in Brazil on the progression of the reported COVID-19 deaths. METHODS: This ecological study analyses the dynamic of vaccination coverage and COVID-19 deaths in hospitalised adults (≥20 years) during the first year of the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out (January to December 2021) using nationwide data (DATASUS). We stratified the adult population into 20-49, 50-59, 60-69 and 70+ years. The dynamic effect of the vaccination campaign on mortality rates was estimated by applying a negative binomial regression. The prevented and possible preventable deaths (observed deaths higher than expected) and potential years of life lost (PYLL) for each age group were obtained in a counterfactual analysis. RESULTS: During the first year of COVID-19 vaccination, 266 153 517 doses were administered, achieving 91% first-dose coverage. A total of 380 594 deaths were reported, 154 091 (40%) in 70+ years and 136 804 (36%) from 50-59 or 20-49 years. The mortality rates of 70+ decreased by 52% (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.48 [0.43-0.53]) in 6 months, whereas rates for 20-49 were still increasing due to low coverage (52%). The vaccination roll-out strategy prevented 59 618 deaths, 53 088 (89%) from those aged 70+ years. However, the strategy did not prevent 54 797 deaths, 85% from those under 60 years, being 26 344 (45%) only in 20-49, corresponding to 1 589 271 PYLL, being 1 080 104 PYLL (68%) from those aged 20-49 years. CONCLUSION: The adopted aged-based calendar vaccination strategy initially reduced mortality in the oldest but did not prevent the deaths of the youngest as effectively as compared with the older age group. Countries with a high burden, limited vaccine supply and young populations should consider other factors beyond the age to prioritise who should be vaccinated first.

Asunto(s)

Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Brasil/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto Joven , Cobertura de Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Programas de Inmunización , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos

RESUMEN

Patients with cancer were excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine products, and available observational evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) focused mostly on mild, and not severe COVID-19, which is the ultimate goal of vaccination for high-risk groups. Here, using primary care electronic health records from Catalonia, Spain (SIDIAP), we built two large cohorts of vaccinated and matched control cancer patients with a primary vaccination scheme (n = 184,744) and a booster (n = 108,534). Most patients received a mRNA-based product in primary (76.2%) and booster vaccination (99.9%). Patients had 51.8% (95% CI 40.3%-61.1%) and 58.4% (95% CI 29.3%-75.5%) protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death respectively after full vaccination (two-doses) and 77.9% (95% CI 69.2%-84.2%) and 80.2% (95% CI 63.0%-89.4%) after booster. Compared to primary vaccination, the booster dose provided higher peak protection during follow-up. Calibration of VE estimates with negative outcomes, and sensitivity analyses with slight different population and COVID-19 outcomes definitions provided similar results. Our results confirm the role of primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination in preventing COVID-19 severe events in patients with cancer and highlight the need for the additional dose in this population.

Asunto(s)

Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Neoplasias , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/epidemiología , España/epidemiología , Neoplasias/inmunología , Masculino , Femenino , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Adulto , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Vacunación , Inmunización Secundaria , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano de 80 o más Años

RESUMEN

Background: The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings. Methods: We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19. Findings: 46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B. Interpretation: In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days. Funding: None.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To review the long-term outcomes (functional status and psychological sequelae) of survivors of critical illnesses due to epidemic viral pneumonia before the COVID-19 pandemic and to establish a benchmark for comparison of the COVID-19 long-term outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review of clinical studies reported the long-term outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units who were diagnosed with viral epidemic pneumonia. An electronic search was performed using databases: MEDLINE®, Web of Science™, LILACS/IBECS, and EMBASE. Additionally, complementary searches were conducted on the reference lists of eligible studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The results were grouped into tables and textual descriptions. RESULTS: The final analysis included 15 studies from a total of 243 studies. This review included 771 patients with Influenza A, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It analyzed the quality of life, functionality, lung function, mortality, rate of return to work, rehospitalization, and psychiatric symptoms. The follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 144 months. We found that the quality of life, functional capacity, and pulmonary function were below expected standards. CONCLUSION: This review revealed great heterogeneity between studies attributed to different scales, follow-up time points, and methodologies. However, this systematic review identified negative long-term effects on patient outcomes. Given the possibility of future pandemics, it is essential to identify the long-term effects of viral pneumonia outbreaks. This review was not funded. Prospero database registration: (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under registration ID CRD42021190296.

Asunto(s)

COVID-19 , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Alta del Paciente , Calidad de Vida , Sobrevivientes , Humanos , Sobrevivientes/psicología , Sobrevivientes/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19/psicología , Alta del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Neumonía Viral/psicología , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Objective To review the long-term outcomes (functional status and psychological sequelae) of survivors of critical illnesses due to epidemic viral pneumonia before the COVID-19 pandemic and to establish a benchmark for comparison of the COVID-19 long-term outcomes. Methods This systematic review of clinical studies reported the long-term outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units who were diagnosed with viral epidemic pneumonia. An electronic search was performed using databases: MEDLINE®, Web of Science™, LILACS/IBECS, and EMBASE. Additionally, complementary searches were conducted on the reference lists of eligible studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The results were grouped into tables and textual descriptions. Results The final analysis included 15 studies from a total of 243 studies. This review included 771 patients with Influenza A, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It analyzed the quality of life, functionality, lung function, mortality, rate of return to work, rehospitalization, and psychiatric symptoms. The follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 144 months. We found that the quality of life, functional capacity, and pulmonary function were below expected standards. Conclusion This review revealed great heterogeneity between studies attributed to different scales, follow-up time points, and methodologies. However, this systematic review identified negative long-term effects on patient outcomes. Given the possibility of future pandemics, it is essential to identify the long-term effects of viral pneumonia outbreaks. This review was not funded. Prospero database registration: (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under registration ID CRD42021190296.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Indigenous people have historically suffered devastating impacts from epidemics and continue to have lower access to healthcare and be especially vulnerable to respiratory infections. We estimated the coverage and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 cases among indigenous people in Brazil. METHODS: We linked nationwide Covid-19 vaccination data with flu-like surveillance records and studied a cohort of vaccinated indigenous people aged ≥ 5 years between 18th January 2021 and 1st March 2022. We considered individuals unexposed from the date they received the first dose of vaccine until the 13th day of vaccination, partially vaccinated from the 14th day after the first dose until the 13th day after receiving the second dose, and fully vaccinated onwards. We estimated the Covid-19 vaccination coverage and used Poisson regression to calculate the relative risks (RR) and vaccine effectiveness (VE) of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, and BNT162b2 against Covid-19 laboratory-confirmed cases incidence, mortality, hospitalisation, and hospital-progression to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) or death. VE was estimated as (1-RR)*100, comparing unexposed to partially or fully vaccinated. RESULTS: By 1st March 2022, 48.7% (35.0-62.3) of eligible indigenous people vs. 74.8% (57.9-91.8) overall Brazilians had been fully vaccinated for Covid-19. Among fully vaccinated indigenous people, we found a lower risk of symptomatic cases (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.40-0.56) and mortality (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.14-1.56) after the 14th day of the second dose. VE for the three Covid-19 vaccines combined was 53% (95%CI:44-60%) for symptomatic cases, 53% (95%CI:-56-86%) for mortality and 41% (95%CI:-35-75%) for hospitalisation. In our sample, we found that vaccination did not reduce Covid-19 related hospitalisation. However, among hospitalised patients, we found a lower risk of progression to ICU (RR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.02-0.81; VE: 87%, 95%CI:27-98%) and Covid-19 death (RR: 0.04, 95%CI:0.01-0.10; VE: 96%, 95%CI: 90-99%) after the 14th day of the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: Lower coverage but similar Covid-19 VE among indigenous people than overall Brazilians suggest the need to expand access, timely vaccination, and urgently offer booster doses to achieve a great level of protection among this group.

Asunto(s)

COVID-19 , Vacunas , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Brasil/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Vacuna BNT162 , Pueblos Indígenas

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Few community-based interventions addressing the transmission control and clinical management of COVID-19 cases have been reported, especially in poor urban communities from low-income and middle-income countries. Here, we analyse the impact of a multicomponent intervention that combines community engagement, mobile surveillance, massive testing and telehealth on COVID-19 cases detection and mortality rates in a large vulnerable community (Complexo da Maré) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: We performed a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to estimate the impact of the multicomponent intervention in Maré, before (March-August 2020) and after the intervention (September 2020 to April 2021), compared with equivalent local vulnerable communities. We applied a negative binomial regression model to estimate the intervention effect in weekly cases and mortality rates in Maré. RESULTS: Before the intervention, Maré presented lower rates of reported COVID-19 cases compared with the control group (1373 vs 1579 cases/100 000 population), comparable mortality rates (309 vs 287 deaths/100 000 population) and higher case fatality rates (13.7% vs 12.2%). After the intervention, Maré displayed a 154% (95% CI 138.6% to 170.4%) relative increase in reported case rates. Relative changes in reported death rates were -60% (95% CI -69.0% to -47.9%) in Maré and -28% (95% CI -42.0% to -9.8%) in the control group. The case fatality rate was reduced by 77% (95% CI -93.1% to -21.1%) in Maré and 52% (95% CI -81.8% to -29.4%) in the control group. The DID showed a reduction of 46% (95% CI 17% to 65%) of weekly reported deaths and an increased 23% (95% CI 5% to 44%) of reported cases in Maré after intervention onset. CONCLUSION: An integrated intervention combining communication, surveillance and telehealth, with a strong community engagement component, could reduce COVID-19 mortality and increase case detection in a large vulnerable community in Rio de Janeiro. These findings show that investment in community-based interventions may reduce mortality and improve pandemic control in poor communities from low-income and middle-income countries.

Asunto(s)

COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Pandemias/prevención & control , Brasil/epidemiología , Pobreza

RESUMEN

Background: The lack of precise definitions and terminological consensus about the impact studies of COVID-19 vaccination leads to confusing statements from the scientific community about what a vaccination impact study is. Objective: The present work presents a narrative review, describing and discussing COVID-19 vaccination impact studies, mapping their relevant characteristics, such as study design, approaches and outcome variables, while analyzing their similarities, distinctions, and main insights. Methods: The articles screening, regarding title, abstract, and full-text reading, included papers addressing perspectives about the impact of vaccines on population outcomes. The screening process included articles published before June 10, 2022, based on the initial papers' relevance to this study's research topics. The main inclusion criteria were data analyses and study designs based on statistical modelling or comparison of pre- and post-vaccination population. Results: The review included 18 studies evaluating the vaccine impact in a total of 48 countries, including 32 high-income countries (United States, Israel, and 30 Western European countries) and 16 low- and middle-income countries (Brazil, Colombia, and 14 Eastern European countries). We summarize the main characteristics of the vaccination impact studies analyzed in this narrative review. Conclusion: Although all studies claim to address the impact of a vaccination program, they differ significantly in their objectives since they adopt different definitions of impact, methodologies, and outcome variables. These and other differences are related to distinct data sources, designs, analysis methods, models, and approaches.

Asunto(s)

Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Estados Unidos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunación , Renta , Modelos Estadísticos

Asunto(s)

Diabetes Mellitus , Cetoacidosis Diabética , Humanos , Cetoacidosis Diabética/terapia , Hipoglucemiantes , Insulina/uso terapéutico

RESUMEN

Background: A vaccination campaign targeted adults in response to the pandemic in the City of Rio de Janeiro. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and identify factors associated with seropositivity on vaccinated and unvaccinated residents. Methods: We performed a seroepidemiologic survey in all residents of Paquetá Island, a neighborhood of Rio de Janeiro city, during the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Serological tests were performed from June 16 to June 19, 2021, and adjusted seropositivity rates were estimated by age and epidemiological variables. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted ORs for risk factors to SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in non-vaccinated individuals, and potential determinants of the magnitude of antibody responses in the seropositive population. Results: We included in the study 3,016 residents of Paquetá (83.5% of the island population). The crude seroprevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in our sample was 53.6% (95% CI = 51.0, 56.3). The risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in non-vaccinated individuals were history of confirmed previous COVID-19 infection (OR = 4.74; 95% CI = 3.3, 7.0), being a household contact of a case (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.5, 2.6) and in-person learning (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.4, 3.0). Potential determinants of the magnitude of antibody responses among the seropositive were hybrid immunity, the type of vaccine received, and time since the last vaccine dose. Being vaccinated with Pfizer or AstraZeneca (Beta = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.8, 2.6) determined higher antibody titers than those observed with CoronaVac (Beta = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.9, 1.5). Conclusions: Our study highlights the impact of vaccination on COVID-19 collective immunity even in a highly affected population, showing the difference in antibody titers achieved with different vaccines and how they wane with time, reinforcing how these factors should be considered when estimating effectiveness of a vaccination program at any given time. We also found that hybrid immunity was superior to both infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity alone, and online learning protected students from COVID-19 exposure.

Asunto(s)

COVID-19 , Vacunas , Adulto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios Seroepidemiológicos , Brasil/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control

RESUMEN

The effectiveness of inactivated vaccines (VE) against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 caused by omicron is unknown. We conducted a nationwide, test-negative, case-control study to estimate VE for homologous and heterologous (BNT162b2) booster doses in adults who received two doses of CoronaVac in Brazil in the Omicron context. Analyzing 1,386,544 matched-pairs, VE against symptomatic disease was 8.6% (95% CI, 5.6-11.5) and 56.8% (95% CI, 56.3-57.3) in the period 8-59 days after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. During the same interval, VE against severe Covid-19 was 73.6% (95% CI, 63.9-80.7) and 86.0% (95% CI, 84.5-87.4) after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. Waning against severe Covid-19 after 120 days was only observed after a homologous booster. Heterologous booster might be preferable to individuals with completed primary series inactivated vaccine.

Asunto(s)

Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Vacuna BNT162 , Brasil/epidemiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , Vacunas de Productos Inactivados

RESUMEN

Background: There is limited information on the inequity of access to vaccination in low-and-middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we described the progression of the Brazilian immunisation program for COVID-19, and the association of socioeconomic development with vaccination rates, considering the potential protective effect of primary health care coverage. Methods: We performed an ecological analysis of COVID-19 immunisation data from the Brazilian National Immunization Program from January 17 to August 31, 2021. We analysed the dynamics of vaccine coverage in the adult population of 5,570 Brazilian municipalities. We estimated the association of human development index (HDI) levels (low, medium, and high) with age-sex standardised first dose coverage using a multivariable negative binomial regression model. We evaluated the interaction between the HDI and primary health care coverage. Finally, we compared the adjusted monthly progression of vaccination rates, hospital admission and in-hospital death rates among HDI levels. Findings: From January 17 to August 31, 2021, 202,427,355 COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered in Brazil. By the end of the period, 64·2% of adults had first and 31·4% second doses, with more than 90% of those aged ≥60 years with primary scheme completed. Four distinct vaccine platforms were used in the country, ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19, Sinovac-CoronaVac, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, composing 44·8%, 33·2%, 19·6%, and 2·4% of total doses, respectively. First dose coverage differed between municipalities with high, medium, and low HDI (Median [interquartile range] 72 [66, 79], 68 [61, 75] and 63 [55, 70] doses per 100 people, respectively). Municipalities with low (Rate Ratio [RR, 95% confidence interval]: 0·87 [0·85-0·88]) and medium (RR [95% CI]: 0·94 [0·93-0·95]) development were independently associated with lower vaccination rates compared to those with high HDI. Primary health care coverage modified the association of HDI and vaccination rate, improving vaccination rates in those municipalities of low HDI and high primary health care coverage. Low HDI municipalities presented a delayed decrease in adjusted in-hospital death rates by first dose coverage compared to high HDI locations. Interpretation: In Brazil, socioeconomic disparities negatively impacted the first dose vaccination rate. However, the primary health care mitigated these disparities, suggesting that the primary health care coverage guarantees more equitable access to vaccines in vulnerable locations. Funding: This work is part of the Grand Challenges ICODA pilot initiative, delivered by Health Data Research UK and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Minderoo Foundation. This study was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) and the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro.

RESUMEN

[EXTRACT]. La editorial describe algunas de las enseñanzas que dejo la pandemia de COVID-19 particularmente para América Latina, donde la confluencia de disparidades y vulnerabilidades sociales derivó en una serie de crisis económicas y de salud sin precedentes.

Asunto(s)

COVID-19 , Vulnerabilidad Social , Américas , Américas

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Little is known about zoonotic tuberculosis (zTB) due to Mycobacterium bovis burden across the globe. The aim of this study was to describe zTB surveillance programs in selected WHO signatory countries and to assess the relationship of the disease with the country's income level and the risk of M. bovis transmission. METHODS: We searched the main articles databases and grey literature for guide documents published between 1980 and 2019. For inclusion, the articles and guide documents had to be in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, or Italian. Only original articles and narrative and systematic reviews were accepted and the guide documents were required to be available on official websites. We excluded articles that did not focus on epidemiology, control and surveillance. We used bovine TB cases in livestock and wildlife populations as a proxy for the country's risk of zTB using data from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) published from 2015 to 2018. Countries were classified according to income level (World Bank's classification) and strength of zTB surveillance. The study was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42018090603. FINDINGS: We included 13 articles and 208 guide documents including data from 119/194 countries (61.3%). We found a lack of surveillance data about zTB in over half (89.9%) of the 119 WHO signatory countries. Most surveillance systems perform passive surveillance and are not integrated into the One Health perspective, which was operating in 4/119 (3.4%) countries, all high-income. Many of these countries (71/119, 59.7%) have M. bovis circulating in their cattle herds, but only ~10% of them have implemented zTB surveillance activities. INTERPRETATION: Our findings highlight weaknesses in zTB surveillance worldwide, with a consequent lack of information that could support an adequate understanding of disease burden, especially in countries at major risk for M. bovis transmission. To meet this challenge, efforts will be needed to promote intersectoral policies, implementing the One Health strategy.

Asunto(s)

Mycobacterium bovis , Salud Única , Tuberculosis Bovina , Tuberculosis , Animales , Bovinos , Países Desarrollados , Renta , Tuberculosis/epidemiología , Tuberculosis/veterinaria , Tuberculosis Bovina/epidemiología

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) trial aims to assess whether a complex telemedicine intervention in intensive care units, which focuses on daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by remote intensivists, will reduce intensive care unit length of stay compared to usual care. METHODS: The TELESCOPE trial is a national, multicenter, controlled, open label, cluster randomized trial. The study tests the effectiveness of daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by an intensivist through telemedicine in Brazilian intensive care units. The protocol was approved by the local Research Ethics Committee of the coordinating study center and by the local Research Ethics Committee from each of the 30 intensive care units, following Brazilian legislation. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03920501). The primary outcome is intensive care unit length of stay, which will be analyzed accounting for the baseline period and cluster structure of the data and adjusted by prespecified covariates. Secondary exploratory outcomes included intensive care unit performance classification, in-hospital mortality, incidence of nosocomial infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, rate of patients receiving oral or enteral feeding, rate of patients under light sedation or alert and calm, and rate of patients under normoxemia. CONCLUSION: According to the trial's best practice, we report our statistical analysis prior to locking the database and beginning analyses. We anticipate that this reporting practice will prevent analysis bias and improve the interpretation of the reported results.ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03920501.

---

OBJETIVO: O ensaio TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) visa avaliar se uma intervenção complexa por telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva, que se concentra em rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por intensivistas a distância, reduzirá o tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva em comparação com os cuidados habituais. MÉTODOS: O TELESCOPE é um ensaio nacional, multicêntrico, controlado, aberto, randomizado em cluster. O estudo testa a eficácia de rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por um intensivista por meio de telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras. O protocolo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local do centro coordenador do estudo e pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local de cada uma das 30 unidades de terapia intensiva, de acordo com a legislação brasileira. O ensaio está registado no ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03920501). O desfecho primário é o tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, que será analisado considerando o período basal e a estrutura dos dados em cluster, sendo ajustado por covariáveis predefinidas. Os desfechos exploratórios secundários incluem a classificação de desempenho da unidade de terapia intensiva, a mortalidade hospitalar, a incidência de infecções nosocomiais, o número de dias sem ventilação mecânica aos 28 dias, a taxa de pacientes que recebem alimentação oral ou enteral, a taxa de pacientes sob sedação leve ou em alerta e calmos e a taxa de pacientes sob normoxemia. CONCLUSÃO: De acordo com as melhores práticas do ensaio, divulgamos nossa análise estatística antes de bloquear a base de dados e iniciar as análises. Esperamos que essa prática de notificação evite o viés das análises e aprimore a interpretação dos resultados apresentados.Registro no ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03920501.

Asunto(s)

Telescopios , Adulto , Brasil , Cuidados Críticos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos