A systematic review and meta-analysis of long COVID symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing symptoms or the development of new symptoms following a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis has caused a complex clinical problem known as "long COVID" (LC). This has introduced further pressure on global healthcare systems as there appears to be a need for ongoing clinical management of these patients. LC personifies heterogeneous symptoms at varying frequencies. The most complex symptoms appear to be driven by the neurology and neuropsychiatry spheres. METHODS: A systematic protocol was developed, peer reviewed, and published in PROSPERO. The systematic review included publications from the 1st of December 2019-30th June 2021 published in English. Multiple electronic databases were used. The dataset has been analyzed using a random-effects model and a subgroup analysis based on geographical location. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were established based on the data identified. RESULTS: Of the 302 studies, 49 met the inclusion criteria, although 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The 36 studies had a collective sample size of 11,598 LC patients. 18 of the 36 studies were designed as cohorts and the remainder were cross-sectional. Symptoms of mental health, gastrointestinal, cardiopulmonary, neurological, and pain were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The quality that differentiates this meta-analysis is that they are cohort and cross-sectional studies with follow-up. It is evident that there is limited knowledge available of LC and current clinical management strategies may be suboptimal as a result. Clinical practice improvements will require more comprehensive clinical research, enabling effective evidence-based approaches to better support patients.

COVID-19 in the Americas: the role of collaborating centers in understanding lessons and best practices in pandemic preparedness and response COVID-19 en la Región de las Américas: papel de los centros colaboradores en la comprensión de las enseñanzas y mejores prácticas en la preparación y respuesta frente a pandemias COVID-19 nas Américas: o papel dos centros colaboradores para entender as lições e melhores práticas de preparação e resposta a pandemias

ABSTRACT COVID-19 exposed major gaps in global, regional, state, and local responses to public health emergencies. In preparation for the WHA Special Session to consider the benefits of developing an international instrument on pandemic preparedness, the O'Neill Institute in partnership with Foundation for the National Institutes of Health convened 30 of the world's leading authorities on global health law, financing, biomedical science, implementation, and emergency response along with leaders from prominent international organizations. This meeting was followed by regional consultations convened in Latin America-Caribbean, Africa, and Southeast Asia. These high-level expert consultations generated in-depth discussions on weaknesses and persisting gaps in global pandemic preparedness and what a new international agreement might include to address them. Regional intergovernmental organizations like PAHO can work closely with related multilateral development banks to develop financial instruments that can smooth systemic economic disruption;and regional centers of research and manufacturing excellence can offer a strong front line for producing medicines and vaccines rapidly during a pandemic. With our research focused on the regional response to COVID-19 we are able to look at country responses individually and collectively to see how Latin America – Caribbean countries can capitalize and leverage their regional connections to strengthen their pandemic preparedness and response. By identifying existing gaps and examining the responses and approaches taken by PAHO, we can better understand the role of international and regional organizations and their collaborating centers in preparing and responding to pandemics.

COVID-19 in the Americas: the role of collaborating centers in understanding lessons and best practices in pandemic preparedness and response.

COVID-19 exposed major gaps in global, regional, state, and local responses to public health emergencies. In preparation for the WHA Special Session to consider the benefits of developing an international instrument on pandemic preparedness, the O'Neill Institute in partnership with Foundation for the National Institutes of Health convened 30 of the world's leading authorities on global health law, financing, biomedical science, implementation, and emergency response along with leaders from prominent international organizations. This meeting was followed by regional consultations convened in Latin America-Caribbean, Africa, and Southeast Asia. These high-level expert consultations generated in-depth discussions on weaknesses and persisting gaps in global pandemic preparedness and what a new international agreement might include to address them. Regional intergovernmental organizations like PAHO can work closely with related multilateral development banks to develop financial instruments that can smooth systemic economic disruption; and regional centers of research and manufacturing excellence can offer a strong front line for producing medicines and vaccines rapidly during a pandemic. With our research focused on the regional response to COVID-19 we are able to look at country responses individually and collectively to see how Latin America - Caribbean countries can capitalize and leverage their regional connections to strengthen their pandemic preparedness and response. By identifying existing gaps and examining the responses and approaches taken by PAHO, we can better understand the role of international and regional organizations and their collaborating centers in preparing and responding to pandemics.

La COVID-19 expuso grandes brechas en las respuestas locales, nacionales, regionales y mundiales a las emergencias de salud pública. En preparación para la reunión extraordinaria de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud para considerar los beneficios de elaborar un instrumento internacional sobre la preparación frente a las pandemias, el Instituto O'Neill, en colaboración con la Fundación para los Institutos Nacionales de Salud, convocó a 30 de las principales autoridades mundiales en materia de derecho, financiamiento, ciencia biomédica, implementación y respuesta a emergencias de salud, así como a líderes de organizaciones internacionales prominentes. A esta reunión le siguieron consultas regionales convocadas en América Latina y el Caribe, África y el sudeste asiático. Estas consultas con expertos de alto nivel generaron debates en profundidad acerca de las debilidades y brechas persistentes en la preparación frente a las pandemias y qué podría incluirse en un nuevo acuerdo internacional sobre cómo abordarlas. Las organizaciones intergubernamentales regionales como la Organización Panamericana de la Salud pueden trabajar en estrecha colaboración con los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo relacionados para elaborar instrumentos financieros que puedan aliviar las perturbaciones económicas sistémicas; y los centros regionales de excelencia en investigación y producción pueden formar una sólida primera línea de acción para producir medicamentos y vacunas rápidamente durante una pandemia. Con esta investigación centrada en la respuesta regional a la COVID-19, podemos analizar las respuestas de los países de forma individual y colectiva para observar la manera en que América Latina y el Caribe pueden capitalizar y aprovechar sus conexiones regionales para fortalecer su preparación y respuesta frente a una pandemia. Al determinar cuáles son las brechas existentes y examinar las respuestas y los enfoques adoptados por la OPS, podemos comprender mejor el papel de las organizaciones regionales e internacionales y sus centros colaboradores en la preparación y respuesta frente a las pandemias.

A COVID-19 expôs grandes lacunas nas respostas globais, regionais, estaduais e locais a emergências de saúde pública. Nos preparativos para a Sessão Especial da Assembleia Mundial da Saúde para avaliar os benefícios de desenvolver um instrumento internacional de preparação para pandemias, o Instituto O'Neill, em parceria com a Fundação para os Institutos Nacionais de Saúde, reuniu 30 das principais autoridades mundiais em direito sanitário global, financiamento, ciências biomédicas, implementação e resposta a emergências, além de líderes de organizações internacionais proeminentes. Essa reunião foi seguida por consultas regionais convocadas na América Latina/Caribe, na África e no sudeste da Ásia. Essas consultas com especialistas de alto nível geraram discussões minuciosas sobre os pontos fracos e as lacunas persistentes na preparação global para pandemias e o que poderia ser incluído em um novo acordo internacional para resolvê-los. Organizações intergovernamentais regionais, como a OPAS, podem trabalhar em estreita colaboração com os bancos multilaterais de desenvolvimento para desenvolver instrumentos financeiros capazes de atenuar a ruptura econômica sistêmica; por outro lado, centros regionais de excelência em pesquisa e fabricação podem oferecer uma linha de frente expressiva para a rápida produção de medicamentos e vacinas durante uma pandemia. Usando os dados da nossa pesquisa sobre a resposta regional à COVID-19, podemos analisar as respostas dos países de forma individual e coletiva para avaliar como os países da América Latina e do Caribe podem capitalizar e alavancar suas conexões regionais para fortalecer sua preparação e resposta à pandemia. Ao identificar lacunas existentes e analisar as respostas e abordagens adotadas pela OPAS, podemos compreender melhor o papel das organizações internacionais e regionais e de seus centros colaboradores na preparação e resposta a pandemias.

COVID-19 Law Lab: Building Strong Legal Evidence.

The COVID-19 Law Lab platform enables quantitative representation of epidemic law and policies in a given country for multiple years, enabling governments and researchers to compare countries, and learn about the impacts and drivers of policy choices. The Law Lab initiative is designed to address the urgent need for quality legal information to support the study of how law and policy can be used to effectively manage this, and future, pandemic(s).

A pandemic treaty, revised international health regulations, or both?

BACKGROUND: A special session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) will be convened in late 2021 to consider developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response - a so-called 'Pandemic Treaty'. Consideration is given to this treaty as well as to reform of the International Health Regulations (IHR) as our principal governing instrument to prevent and mitigate future pandemics. MAIN BODY: Reasons exist to continue to work with the IHR as our principal governing instrument to prevent and mitigate future pandemics. All WHO member states are party to it. It gives the WHO the authority to oversee the collection of surveillance data and to issue recommendations on trade and travel advisories to control the spread of infectious diseases, among other things. However, the limitations of the IHR in addressing the deep prevention of future pandemics also must be recognized. These include a lack of a regulatory framework to prevent zoonotic spillovers. More advanced multi-sectoral measures are also needed. At the same time, a pandemic treaty would have potential benefits and drawbacks as well. It would be a means of addressing the gross inequity in global vaccine distribution and other gaps in the IHR, but it would also need more involvement at the negotiation table of countries in the Global South, significant funding, and likely many years to adopt. CONCLUSIONS: Reform of the IHR should be undertaken while engaging with WHO member states (and notably those from the Global South) in discussions on the possible benefits, drawbacks and scope of a new pandemic treaty. Both options are not mutually exclusive.

The future of zoonotic risk prediction.

In the light of the urgency raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, global investment in wildlife virology is likely to increase, and new surveillance programmes will identify hundreds of novel viruses that might someday pose a threat to humans. To support the extensive task of laboratory characterization, scientists may increasingly rely on data-driven rubrics or machine learning models that learn from known zoonoses to identify which animal pathogens could someday pose a threat to global health. We synthesize the findings of an interdisciplinary workshop on zoonotic risk technologies to answer the following questions. What are the prerequisites, in terms of open data, equity and interdisciplinary collaboration, to the development and application of those tools? What effect could the technology have on global health? Who would control that technology, who would have access to it and who would benefit from it? Would it improve pandemic prevention? Could it create new challenges? This article is part of the theme issue 'Infectious disease macroecology: parasite diversity and dynamics across the globe'.

A survey of International Health Regulations National Focal Points experiences in carrying out their functions.

BACKGROUND: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions. METHODS: In collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system. RESULTS: In total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool - the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs. CONCLUSION: Our study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.

The International Health Regulations (2005), the threat of populism and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare weaknesses and major challenges in the international approach to managing public health emergencies. Populist sentiment is spreading globally as democratic nations are increasing their support for or electing governments that are perceived to represent "traditional" native interests. Measures need to be taken to proactively address populist sentiment when reviewing the IHR (2005) effectiveness in the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss how populism can impact the IHR (2005) and conversely how the IHR (2005) may be able to address populist concerns if the global community commits to helping states address public health threats that emerge within their borders.