RESUMO

We aimed to (i) describe both the coverage and the homogeneity of coverage of the first and second doses of measles-containing vaccines (MCV) in Brazil in 2017, and (ii) to investigate the potential influence of contextual factors at municipal level. All 5570 Brazilian municipalities were included. The North and Center-West regions presented the lowest coverages of the first and second doses of MCV, respectively. We found significant associations of both first and second doses of MCV with population size, coverage of Family Health Strategy (FHS) and other indicators of living conditions and inequalities. Monitoring the homogeneity of MCV coverage at national, regional and state levels is essential, as it allows identifying areas at higher risk of measles spread that should be targeted for vaccination. Targeting large cities i.e. 100,000 or more inhabitants, especially poor neighborhoods and areas with low FHS coverage, could lead to improvements in coverage homogeneity.

Assuntos

Vacina contra Sarampo/administração & dosagem , Sarampo , Cobertura Vacinal , Brasil , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Humanos , Sarampo/epidemiologia , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Densidade Demográfica

RESUMO

We analyzed the time trends and spatial distribution of MMR vaccine coverage in Brazil during 2007-2017. In early 2018, a measles outbreak started in the North region of Brazil, reaching 11 of the 27 federal units by January 24, 2019. In this period, 10,302 cases were confirmed. Although the reintroduction of measles in Brazil is likely due to migration from Venezuela, the spread of the virus was made possible by the low levels of MMR coverage, as a result of significant decreases during the study period. Areas with high concentration of municipalities with low coverage are more susceptible to the spread of the virus, especially in the North and Northeast regions. Increasing vaccination coverage is essential to block the ongoing outbreak in Brazil. Vaccination strategies might target priority areas, especially those with a marked decrease in coverage. Moreover, it is essential to extend actions to travelers, migrants and refugees.

Assuntos

Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/imunologia , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Caxumba/prevenção & controle , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/prevenção & controle , Cobertura Vacinal , Brasil/epidemiologia , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Geografia Médica , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Sarampo/história , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Caxumba/história , Vigilância em Saúde Pública , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/história , Análise Espacial

RESUMO

Introduction: Although international health research involves some benefits for the host countries, such as access to innovative treatments, the research itself may not be aligned with their communities' actual health needs. Objective: To map the global landscape of clinical trials run in Latin American and Caribbean countries and discuss the addressing of local health needs in the agenda of international clinical trials. Methods: The present study is a cross-sectional overview and used data referent to studies registered between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2014 in the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Results: Non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and asthma-studies which were financed mainly by industries-were the conditions investigated most in the region of Latin America and the Caribbean. The neglected diseases, on the other hand, such as Chagas disease, and dengue, made up 1% of the total number of studies. Hospitals and nonprofit nongovernmental organizations prioritize resources for investigating new drugs for neglected diseases, such as Chagas disease and dengue. Conclusion: The international multicenter clinical trials for investigating new drugs are aligned with the health needs of the region of Latin America and the Caribbean, when one considers the burden resulting from the non-communicable diseases in this region. However, the transmissible diseases, such as tuberculosis and AIDS, and the neglected diseases, such as Chagas disease and dengue, which have an important impact on public health in this region, continue to arouse little interest among the institutions which finance the clinical trials.

RESUMO

Background: Although policies and guidelines make use of the concept of vulnerability, few define it. The European Union's directive for clinical trials does not include explanations for or the reasoning behind the designation of certain groups as vulnerable. Emerging economies from lower middle-income countries have, in recent years, had the largest average annual growth rate, as well as increase, in number of clinical trials registered in the US government's database. Nevertheless, careful supervision of research activities has to be ensured. Objective: To describe and analyze the features of the clinical trials involving vulnerable populations in various countries classified by development status and geographic region. Methods: Retrospective study that involved analysis of data obtained from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) database between 01/2014 and 12/2014 from countries with (i) highest trial densities during 2005 to 2012, (ii) highest average growth rate in clinical trials, and (iii) greatest trial capabilities. Results: Statistical analysis of this study showed that patients incapable of giving consent personally are 11.4 times more likely to be vulnerable patients than patients who are capable, and that patients in upper-middle-income countries are 1.7 times more likely to be vulnerable patients than patients from high-income countries when participating in global clinical trials. Malaysia (21%), Egypt (20%), Turkey (19%), Israel (18%), and Brazil (17%) had the highest percentages of vulnerable populations involving children. Conclusions: Although the inability to provide consent personally was a factor associated with vulnerability, arbitrary criteria may have been considered when classifying the populations of clinical trials as vulnerable. The EU Clinical Trials Register should provide guidance regarding exactly what aspects or factors should be taken into account to frame given populations as vulnerable, because vulnerability is not applicable to all risk situations.