Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 487
Filter
1.
Lancet ; 398(10301): 685-697, 2021 08 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1815297

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Associations between high and low temperatures and increases in mortality and morbidity have been previously reported, yet no comprehensive assessment of disease burden has been done. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the global and regional burden due to non-optimal temperature exposure. METHODS: In part 1 of this study, we linked deaths to daily temperature estimates from the ERA5 reanalysis dataset. We modelled the cause-specific relative risks for 176 individual causes of death along daily temperature and 23 mean temperature zones using a two-dimensional spline within a Bayesian meta-regression framework. We then calculated the cause-specific and total temperature-attributable burden for the countries for which daily mortality data were available. In part 2, we applied cause-specific relative risks from part 1 to all locations globally. We combined exposure-response curves with daily gridded temperature and calculated the cause-specific burden based on the underlying burden of disease from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study, for the years 1990-2019. Uncertainty from all components of the modelling chain, including risks, temperature exposure, and theoretical minimum risk exposure levels, defined as the temperature of minimum mortality across all included causes, was propagated using posterior simulation of 1000 draws. FINDINGS: We included 64·9 million individual International Classification of Diseases-coded deaths from nine different countries, occurring between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016. 17 causes of death met the inclusion criteria. Ischaemic heart disease, stroke, cardiomyopathy and myocarditis, hypertensive heart disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, lower respiratory infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease showed J-shaped relationships with daily temperature, whereas the risk of external causes (eg, homicide, suicide, drowning, and related to disasters, mechanical, transport, and other unintentional injuries) increased monotonically with temperature. The theoretical minimum risk exposure levels varied by location and year as a function of the underlying cause of death composition. Estimates for non-optimal temperature ranged from 7·98 deaths (95% uncertainty interval 7·10-8·85) per 100 000 and a population attributable fraction (PAF) of 1·2% (1·1-1·4) in Brazil to 35·1 deaths (29·9-40·3) per 100 000 and a PAF of 4·7% (4·3-5·1) in China. In 2019, the average cold-attributable mortality exceeded heat-attributable mortality in all countries for which data were available. Cold effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 4·3% (3·9-4·7) and attributable rates of 32·0 deaths (27·2-36·8) per 100 000 and in New Zealand with 3·4% (2·9-3·9) and 26·4 deaths (22·1-30·2). Heat effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 0·4% (0·3-0·6) and attributable rates of 3·25 deaths (2·39-4·24) per 100 000 and in Brazil with 0·4% (0·3-0·5) and 2·71 deaths (2·15-3·37). When applying our framework to all countries globally, we estimated that 1·69 million (1·52-1·83) deaths were attributable to non-optimal temperature globally in 2019. The highest heat-attributable burdens were observed in south and southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and North Africa and the Middle East, and the highest cold-attributable burdens in eastern and central Europe, and central Asia. INTERPRETATION: Acute heat and cold exposure can increase or decrease the risk of mortality for a diverse set of causes of death. Although in most regions cold effects dominate, locations with high prevailing temperatures can exhibit substantial heat effects far exceeding cold-attributable burden. Particularly, a high burden of external causes of death contributed to strong heat impacts, but cardiorespiratory diseases and metabolic diseases could also be substantial contributors. Changes in both exposures and the composition of causes of death drove changes in risk over time. Steady increases in exposure to the risk of high temperature are of increasing concern for health. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Subject(s)
Cause of Death/trends , Cold Temperature/adverse effects , Global Burden of Disease/statistics & numerical data , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Hot Temperature/adverse effects , Mortality/trends , Bayes Theorem , Heart Diseases/epidemiology , Humans , Metabolic Diseases/epidemiology
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD014962, 2021 08 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813444

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19.  A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting.  We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals  Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence).   We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence).  None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline.  Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/therapeutic use , Bias , COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Confidence Intervals , Disease Progression , Humans , Middle Aged , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilator Weaning
3.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(7)2022 Mar 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785641

ABSTRACT

The contribution of health systems to health is commonly assessed using levels of amenable mortality. Few such studies exist for Poland, with analyses of within-the-country patterns being particularly scarce. The aim of this paper is to analyse differences in amenable mortality levels and trends across Poland's regions using the most recent data and to gain a more nuanced understanding of these differences and possible reasons behind them. This can inform future health policy decisions, particularly when it comes to efforts to improve health system performance. We used national and regional mortality data to construct amenable mortality rates between 2002 and 2019. We found that the initially observed decline in amenable mortality stagnated between 2014 and 2019, something not seen elsewhere in Europe. The main driver behind this trend is the change in ischemic heart disease (IHD) mortality. However, we also found that there is a systematic underreporting of IHD as a cause of death in Poland in favour of heart failure, which makes analysis of health system performance using amenable mortality as an indicator less reliable. We also found substantial geographical differences in amenable mortality levels and trends across Poland, which ranged from -3.3% to +8.1% across the regions in 2014-2019. These are much bigger than variations in total mortality trends, ranging from -1.5% to -0.2% in the same period, which suggests that quality of care across regions varies substantially, although some of this effect is also a coding artefact. This means that interpretation of health system performance indicators is not straightforward and may prevent implementation of policies that are needed to improve population health.


Subject(s)
Myocardial Ischemia , Cause of Death , Europe/epidemiology , Government Programs , Health Policy , Humans , Mortality , Poland/epidemiology
4.
Epidemiol Prev ; 46(1-2): 59-67, 2022.
Article in Italian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1771981

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on total and cause-specific mortality in people residing and dead in the Municipality of Rome (Italy) in 2020, and to describe the causes of death of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular test. DESIGN: descriptive analysis of total and cause-specific mortality in 2020 in Rome and comparison with a reference period (2015-2018 for total mortality and 2018 for cause-specific mortality); descriptive analysis of cause-specific mortality in the cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 27,471 deaths registered in the Lazio mortality-cause Registry, relating to people residing and died in the municipality of Rome in 2020, 2,374 of which died from COVID-19.MAIN OUCOME MEASURES: all-cause mortality by month, gender, age group and place of death, cause-specific mortality (ICD-10 codes). RESULTS: in the municipality of Rome in 2020, an excess of mortality from all causes equal to +10% was observed, with a greater increase in the months of October-December (+27%, +56%, and +26%, respectively) in people aged 50+, with the greatest contribution from the oldest age groups (80+) who died in the nursing homes or at home. Lower mortality was observed in the age groups 0-29 years (-30%) and 40-49 years (-13%). In 2020, COVID-19 represents the fourth cause of death in Rome after malignant tumours, diseases of the circulatory system, and respiratory diseases. Excess mortality was observed from stroke and pneumonia (both in men and women), from respiratory diseases (in men), from diabetes, mental disorders, dementia and Parkinson's disease (in women). On the contrary, mortality is lower for all cancers, for diseases of the blood and haematopoietic organs and for the causes of the circulatory system. The follow-up analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects residing in Rome shows that a share of deaths (about 20%) reports other causes of death such as cardiovascular diseases, malignant tumours, and diseases of the respiratory system on the certificate collected by the Italian National Statistics Institute. CONCLUSIONS: the 2020 mortality study highlighted excesses for acute and chronic pathologies, indicative of possible delays in the diagnosis or treatment of conditions indirectly caused by the pandemic, but also a share of misclassification of the cause of death that is recognized as COVID-19 death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Cause of Death , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Rome/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
5.
Misganaw, Awoke, Naghavi, Mohsen, Walker, Ally, Mirkuzie, Alemnesh H.; Giref, Ababi Zergaw, Berheto, Tezera Moshago, Waktola, Ebba Abate, Kempen, John H.; Eticha, Getachew Tollera, Wolde, Tsigereda Kifle, Deguma, Dereje, Abate, Kalkidan Hassen, Abegaz, Kedir Hussein, Ahmed, Muktar Beshir, Akalu, Yonas, Aklilu, Addis, Alemu, Biresaw Wassihun, Asemahagn, Mulusew A.; Awedew, Atalel Fentahun, Balakrishnan, Senthilkumar, Bekuma, Tariku Tesfaye, Beyene, Addisu Shunu, Beyene, Misrak Getnet, Bezabih, Yihienew Mequanint, Birhanu, Biruk Tesfaye, Chichiabellu, Tesfaye Yitna, Dachew, Berihun Assefa, Dagnew, Amare Belachew, Demeke, Feleke Mekonnen, Demissie, Getu Debalkie, Derbew Molla, Meseret, Dereje, Nebiyu, Deribe, Kebede, Desta, Abebaw Alemayehu, Eshetu, Munir Kassa, Ferede, Tomas Y.; Gebreyohannes, Eyob Alemayehu, Geremew, Abraham, Gesesew, Hailay Abrha, Getacher, Lemma, Glenn, Scott D.; Hafebo, Aregash Samuel, Hashi, Abdiwahab, Hassen, Hamid Yimam, Hay, Simon I.; Hordofa, Diriba Fufa, Huluko, Dawit Hoyiso, Kasa, Ayele Semachew, Kassahun Azene, Getinet, Kebede, Ermiyas Mulu, Kebede, Hafte Kahsay, Kelkay, Bayew, Kidane, Samuel Z.; Legesse, Samson Mideksa, Manamo, Wondimu Ayele, Melaku, Yohannes Adama A.; Mengesha, Endalkachew Worku, Mengesha, Sisay Derso, Merie, Hayimro Edemealem, Mersha, Abera M.; Mersha, Amanual Getnet, Mirutse, Mizan Kiros, Mohammed, Ammas Siraj, Mohammed, Hussen, Mohammed, Salahuddin, Netsere, Henok Biresaw, Nigatu, Dabere, Obsa, Mohammed Suleiman, Odo, Daniel Bogale, Omer, Muktar, Regassa, Lemma Demissie, Sahiledengle, Biniyam, Shaka, Mohammed Feyisso, Shiferaw, Wondimeneh Shibabaw, Sidemo, Negussie Boti, Sinke, Abiy H.; Sintayehu, Yitagesu, Sorrie, Muluken Bekele, Tadesse, Birkneh Tilahun, Tadesse, Eyayou Girma, Tamir, Zemenu, Tamiru, Animut Tagele, Tareke, Amare Abera, Tefera, Yonas Getaye, Tekalegn, Yohannes, Tesema, Ayenew Kassie, Tesema, Tefera Tadele, Tesfay, Fisaha Haile, Tessema, Zemenu Tadesse, Tilahun, Tadesse, Tsegaye, Gebiyaw Wudie, Tusa, Biruk Shalmeno, Weledesemayat, Geremew Tassew, Yazie, Taklo Simeneh, Yeshitila, Yordanos Gizachew, Yirdaw, Birhanu Wubale, Zegeye, Desalegn Tegabu, Murray, Christopher J. L.; Gebremedhin, Lia Tadesse.
Lancet ; 399(10332): 1322-1335, 2022 Apr 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768603

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Previous Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) studies have reported national health estimates for Ethiopia. Substantial regional variations in socioeconomic status, population, demography, and access to health care within Ethiopia require comparable estimates at the subnational level. The GBD 2019 Ethiopia subnational analysis aimed to measure the progress and disparities in health across nine regions and two chartered cities. METHODS: We gathered 1057 distinct data sources for Ethiopia and all regions and cities that included census, demographic surveillance, household surveys, disease registry, health service use, disease notifications, and other data for this analysis. Using all available data sources, we estimated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), total fertility rate (TFR), life expectancy, years of life lost, years lived with disability, disability-adjusted life-years, and risk-factor-attributable health loss with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for Ethiopia's nine regions and two chartered cities from 1990 to 2019. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, cause of death ensemble model, Bayesian meta-regression tool, DisMod-MR 2.1, and other models were used to generate fertility, mortality, cause of death, and disability rates. The risk factor attribution estimations followed the general framework established for comparative risk assessment. FINDINGS: The SDI steadily improved in all regions and cities from 1990 to 2019, yet the disparity between the highest and lowest SDI increased by 54% during that period. The TFR declined from 6·91 (95% UI 6·59-7·20) in 1990 to 4·43 (4·01-4·92) in 2019, but the magnitude of decline also varied substantially among regions and cities. In 2019, TFR ranged from 6·41 (5·96-6·86) in Somali to 1·50 (1·26-1·80) in Addis Ababa. Life expectancy improved in Ethiopia by 21·93 years (21·79-22·07), from 46·91 years (45·71-48·11) in 1990 to 68·84 years (67·51-70·18) in 2019. Addis Ababa had the highest life expectancy at 70·86 years (68·91-72·65) in 2019; Afar and Benishangul-Gumuz had the lowest at 63·74 years (61·53-66·01) for Afar and 64.28 (61.99-66.63) for Benishangul-Gumuz. The overall increases in life expectancy were driven by declines in under-5 mortality and mortality from common infectious diseases, nutritional deficiency, and war and conflict. In 2019, the age-standardised all-cause death rate was the highest in Afar at 1353·38 per 100 000 population (1195·69-1526·19). The leading causes of premature mortality for all sexes in Ethiopia in 2019 were neonatal disorders, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, tuberculosis, stroke, HIV/AIDS, ischaemic heart disease, cirrhosis, congenital defects, and diabetes. With high SDIs and life expectancy for all sexes, Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa, and Harari had low rates of premature mortality from the five leading causes, whereas regions with low SDIs and life expectancy for all sexes (Afar and Somali) had high rates of premature mortality from the leading causes. In 2019, child and maternal malnutrition; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; air pollution; high systolic blood pressure; alcohol use; and high fasting plasma glucose were the leading risk factors for health loss across regions and cities. INTERPRETATION: There were substantial improvements in health over the past three decades across regions and chartered cities in Ethiopia. However, the progress, measured in SDI, life expectancy, TFR, premature mortality, disability, and risk factors, was not uniform. Federal and regional health policy makers should match strategies, resources, and interventions to disease burden and risk factors across regions and cities to achieve national and regional plans, Sustainable Development Goals, and universal health coverage targets. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Subject(s)
Global Burden of Disease , Global Health , Life Expectancy , Adult , Aged , Bayes Theorem , Cause of Death , Child , Ethiopia/epidemiology , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Risk Factors
6.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e057056, 2022 03 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1741639

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In this study, we estimated excess all-cause deaths and excess death rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in 25 Peruvian regions, stratified by sex and age group. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Twenty-five Peruvian regions with complete mortality data. PARTICIPANTS: Annual all-cause official mortality data set from SINADEF (Sistema Informático Nacional de Defunciones) at the Ministry of Health of Peru for 2017-2020, disaggregated by age and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Excess deaths and excess death rates (observed deaths vs expected deaths) in 2020 by sex and age (0-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79 and ≥80 years) were estimated using P-score. The ORs for excess mortality were summarised with a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: In the period between January and December 2020, we estimated an excess of 68 608 (117%) deaths in men and 34 742 (69%) deaths in women, corresponding to an excess death rate of 424 per 100 000 men and 211 per 100 000 women compared with the expected mortality rate. The number of excess deaths increased with age and was higher in men aged 60-69 years (217%) compared with women (121%). Men between the ages of 40 and 79 years experienced twice the rate of excess deaths compared with the expected rate. In eight regions, excess deaths were higher than 100% in men, and in seven regions excess deaths were higher than 70% in women. Men in eight regions and women in one region had two times increased odds of excess death than the expected mortality. There were differences in excess mortality according to temporal distribution by epidemiological week. CONCLUSION: Approximately 100 000 excess all-cause deaths occurred in 2020 in Peru. Age-stratified excess death rates were higher in men than in women. There was strong excess in geographical and temporal mortality patterns according to region.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Aged , Cause of Death , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Peru/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
8.
Public Health ; 205: 157-163, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1734903

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In Germany, deaths of SARS-CoV-2-positive persons are reported as 'death related to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19' to the Robert Koch Institute, Germany's main infectious disease institution. In 177 COVID-19-associated deaths reported in Regensburg, Germany, from October 2020 to January 2021, we investigated how deaths following SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported and whether cases with a death attributed to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 death [CD]) differed from cases with a reported death from other causes (non-COVID-19 death [NCD]). STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We analysed descriptive data on the numbers of cases, deaths, age, sex, symptoms and hospitalizations. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and performed Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for comparison of medians. RESULTS: Deaths attributed to COVID-19 occurred primarily in elderly patients. The mortality rate and the case fatality ratio (CFR) increased with age. The median age and the prevalence of risk factors were similar between CD and NCD. Respiratory symptoms and pneumonia at the time of diagnosis were associated with death reported as CD. The odds of CD attribution in cases hospitalized because of COVID-19 were 6-fold higher than the odds of NCD (OR: 6.00; 95% CI: 1.32 to 27.22). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory symptoms/pneumonia at the time of diagnosis and hospitalization due to COVID-19 were associated with attributing a death to COVID-19. Numbers of COVID deaths need to be interpreted with caution. Criteria that facilitate attributing the cause of death among SARS-CoV-2 cases more uniformly could make these figures more comparable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noncommunicable Diseases , Aged , Cause of Death , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD015125, 2022 03 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1733830

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections. MAIN RESULTS: Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cause of Death , Female , Humans , Male , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
10.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e221870, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1733815

ABSTRACT

Importance: There has been recent media attention on the risk of excess mortality among homeless individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet data on these deaths are limited. Objectives: To quantify and describe deaths among people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the characteristics of these deaths with those in prior years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study tracking mortality among people experiencing homelessness from 2016 to 2021 in San Francisco, California. All deceased individuals who were homeless in San Francisco at the time of death and whose deaths were processed by the San Francisco Office of the Chief Medical Examiner were included. Data analysis was performed from August to October 2021. Exposure: Homelessness, based on homeless living status in an administrative database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to understand annual trends in demographic characteristics, cause and manner of death (based on autopsy), substances present in toxicology reports, geographic distribution of deaths, and use of health and social services prior to death. Total estimated numbers of people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco were assessed through semiannual point-in-time counts. The 2021 point-in-time count was postponed owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: In San Francisco, there were 331 deaths among people experiencing homelessness in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (from March 17, 2020, to March 16, 2021). This number was more than double any number in previous years (eg, 128 deaths in 2016, 128 deaths in 2017, 135 deaths in 2018, and 147 deaths in 2019). Most individuals who died were male (268 of 331 [81%]). Acute drug toxicity was the most common cause of death in each year, followed by traumatic injury. COVID-19 was not listed as the primary cause of any deaths. The proportion of deaths involving fentanyl increased each year (present in 52% of toxicology reports in 2019 and 68% during the pandemic). Fewer decedents had contacts with health services in the year prior to their death during the pandemic than in prior years (13% used substance use disorder services compared with 20% in 2019). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the number of deaths among people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco increased markedly during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings may guide future interventions to reduce mortality among individuals experiencing homelessness.


Subject(s)
Homeless Persons/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cause of Death/trends , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , San Francisco
11.
J Am Coll Surg ; 234(2): 115-120, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1713820

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to be the primary modality of liver transplantation in Asia, but it accounts for about 5% of all liver transplantations in the US. ABO incompatibility is the primary reason motivated donors are declined. Although kidney paired exchanges are common, liver paired exchange (LPE) is still evolving in the US. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review (between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021) of our initial experience with LPE. RESULTS: A total of 10 LPEs (20 LDLTs) were performed during the study period. Seven LPEs were initiated by a nondirected O donor. The other 3 pair sets involved 1 ABO compatible and 1 ABO incompatible pair. Transplantations in a pair set were completed within a mean of 4.8 (range 1-14) days of each other. All 20 donors are doing well with no major complications at 12.7 (range 1-20) months. Seventeen of 20 recipients are alive and have good allograft function. One recipient died in the early postoperative period. Two late deaths of patients with functioning allografts were due to COVID-19 (at 8 months) and peritoneal carcinomatosis and gram-negative sepsis (at 9 months). CONCLUSIONS: LPE is feasible in a high-volume LDLT center and is a useful option to increase LDLT by overcoming ABO incompatibility. Nondirected donors can be utilized to initiate an LPE.


Subject(s)
Liver Transplantation/statistics & numerical data , Living Donors/statistics & numerical data , Tissue and Organ Procurement/methods , ABO Blood-Group System , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Blood Group Incompatibility , COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Female , Humans , Kidney , Living Donors/supply & distribution , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Tissue and Organ Procurement/statistics & numerical data , Transplant Recipients/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
14.
PLoS Med ; 19(2): e1003904, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686090

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Deaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Adult , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Cause of Death , Diabetes Mellitus/mortality , England/epidemiology , Female , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Life Expectancy , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Residence Characteristics , Respiratory Tract Diseases/mortality , Socioeconomic Factors , Wales/epidemiology
16.
Forensic Sci Med Pathol ; 18(1): 45-56, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1669988

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted many aspects of life, including death care. International and national protocols have been implemented for the management of the dead. This study aims to determine the characteristics of decedents managed according to COVID-19 protocols in Indonesia and the quality of their death certificates. This study uses a descriptive, cross-sectional design. Secondary data of deaths with COVID-19 were taken from hospital death registries, medical records, and death certificates. Data were collected from nine referral hospitals and one funeral home in 6 cities in Indonesia. The majority of the decedents were male, Muslim, with a median age of 57. Most were treated in non-intensive isolation wards, and almost half had known comorbidities. Many were still awaiting the result of their confirmative PCR at the time of death. Almost all were managed compliant with the standard protocol, and most were buried in COVID-only cemeteries. There were still deficiencies in the completeness and accuracy of the death certificates. "COVID-19" was mentioned as a cause of death in only about half of the cases, with a wide variety of terms and spelling. Management of the dead protocols for bodies with COVID-19 can generally be implemented in Indonesia. The quality of the death certificates should, however, be continuously improved.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Cross-Sectional Studies , Death Certificates , Female , Humans , Indonesia , Male , Pandemics
17.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 482, 2022 01 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1655580

ABSTRACT

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on excess mortality from all causes in 2020 varied across and within European countries. Using data for 2015-2019, we applied Bayesian spatio-temporal models to quantify the expected weekly deaths at the regional level had the pandemic not occurred in England, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. With around 30%, Madrid, Castile-La Mancha, Castile-Leon (Spain) and Lombardia (Italy) were the regions with the highest excess mortality. In England, Greece and Switzerland, the regions most affected were Outer London and the West Midlands (England), Eastern, Western and Central Macedonia (Greece), and Ticino (Switzerland), with 15-20% excess mortality in 2020. Our study highlights the importance of the large transportation hubs for establishing community transmission in the first stages of the pandemic. Here, we show that acting promptly to limit transmission around these hubs is essential to prevent spread to other regions and countries.


Subject(s)
Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/mortality , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cause of Death , England/epidemiology , Female , Geography , Greece/epidemiology , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Spain/epidemiology , Survival Rate , Switzerland/epidemiology
19.
Lancet Glob Health ; 10(1): e114-e123, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1630866

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sierra Leone's child and maternal mortality rates are among the highest in the world. However, little is known about the causes of premature mortality in the country. To rectify this, the Ministry of Health and Sanitation of Sierra Leone launched the Sierra Leone Sample Registration System (SL-SRS) of births and deaths. Here, we report cause-specific mortality from the first SL-SRS round, representing deaths from 2018 to 2020. METHODS: The Countrywide Mortality Surveillance for Action platform established the SL-SRS, which involved conducting electronic verbal autopsies in 678 randomly selected villages and urban blocks throughout the country. 61 surveyors, in teams of four or five, enrolled people and ascertained deaths of individuals younger than 70 years in 2019-20, capturing verbal autopsies on deaths from 2018 to 2020. Centrally, two trained physicians independently assigned causes of death according to the International Classification of Diseases (tenth edition). SL-SRS death proportions were applied to 5-year mortality averages from the UN World Population Prospects (2019) to derive cause-specific death totals and risks of death nationally and in four Sierra Leone regions, with comparisons made with the Western region where Freetown, the capital, is located. We compared SL-SRS results with the cause-specific mortality estimates for Sierra Leone in the 2019 WHO Global Health Estimates. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2019, and Dec 15, 2020, we enrolled 343 000 people and ascertained 8374 deaths of individuals younger than 70 years. Malaria was the leading cause of death in children and adults, nationally and in each region, representing 22% of deaths under age 70 years in 2020. Other infectious diseases accounted for an additional 16% of deaths. Overall maternal mortality ratio was 510 deaths per 100 000 livebirths (95% CI 483-538), and neonatal mortality rate was 31·1 deaths per 1000 livebirths (95% CI 30·4-31·8), both among the highest rates in the world. Haemorrhage was the major cause of maternal mortality and birth asphyxia or trauma was the major cause of neonatal mortality. Excess deaths were not detected in the months of 2020 corresponding to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Half of the deaths occurred in rural areas and at home. If the Northern, Eastern, and Southern regions of Sierra Leone had the lower death rates observed in the Western region, about 20 000 deaths (just over a quarter of national total deaths in people younger than 70 years) would have been avoided. WHO model-based data vastly underestimated malaria deaths and some specific causes of injury deaths, and substantially overestimated maternal mortality. INTERPRETATION: Over 60% of individuals in Sierra Leone die prematurely, before age 70 years, most from preventable or treatable causes. Nationally representative mortality surveys such as the SL-SRS are of high value in providing reliable cause-of-death information to set public health priorities and target interventions in low-income countries. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Program.


Subject(s)
Cause of Death , Mortality, Premature , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Child , Child Mortality , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant Mortality , Infant, Newborn , Malaria/mortality , Male , Maternal Mortality , Middle Aged , Sierra Leone/epidemiology
20.
BMJ ; 376: o100, 2022 01 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1627544
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL