Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
2.
Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) ; 45(8): 530-536, 2021 10.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1415156

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in the management of urology patients, especially those with prostate cancer. The aim of this work is to show the changes in the ambulatory care practices by individualized telematic care for each patient profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles published from March 2020 to January 2021 were reviewed. We selected those that provided the highest levels of evidence regarding risk in different aspects: screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer. RESULTS: We developed a classification system based on priorities, at different stages of the disease (screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up) to which the type of care given, in-person or telephone visits, was adapted. We established 4 options, as follows: in priority A or low, care will be given by telephone in all cases; in priority B or intermediate, if patients are considered subsidiary of an in-person visit after telephone consultation, they will be scheduled within 3 months; in priority C or high, patients will be seen in person within a margin from 1 to 3 months and in priority D or very high, patients must always be seen in person within a margin of up to 48 h and considered very preferential. CONCLUSIONS: Telematic care in prostate cancer offers an opportunity to develop new performance and follow-up protocols, which should be thoroughly analyzed in future studies, in order to create a safe environment and guarantee oncologic outcomes for patients.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Pandemics , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Telemedicine , Appointments and Schedules , Continuity of Patient Care , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
3.
CMAJ Open ; 9(3): E848-E854, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1399642

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: When vaccine supplies are anticipated to be limited, necessitating the vaccination of certain groups earlier than others, the assessment of values and preferences of stakeholders is an important component of an ethically sound vaccine prioritization framework. The objective of this study was to conduct a priority-setting exercise to establish an expert stakeholder perspective on the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada. METHODS: The priority-setting exercise included a survey of stakeholders that was conducted from July 22 to Aug. 14, 2020. Stakeholders included clinical and public health expert groups, provincial and territorial committees and national Indigenous groups, patient and community advocacy representatives and experts, health professional associations and federal government departments. Survey results were analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 155 stakeholders contacted, 76 surveys were received for a participation rate of 49%. During a period of anticipated initial vaccine scarcity for all pandemic scenarios, stakeholders generally considered the most important vaccination strategy to be protecting those who are most vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. This was followed in importance by strategies to protect health care capacity, minimize transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and protect critical infrastructure. INTERPRETATION: This priority-setting exercise established that there is general alignment in the values and preferences across stakeholder groups: the most important vaccination strategy at the time of limited initial vaccine availability is to protect those who are most vulnerable. The findings of this priority-setting exercise provided a timely expert perspective to guide early public health planning for COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Priorities/ethics , Vaccination/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Canada/epidemiology , Capacity Building/organization & administration , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Health Occupations/statistics & numerical data , Health Occupations/trends , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Stakeholder Participation , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vulnerable Populations
4.
Can J Cardiol ; 37(7): 1112-1116, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1293650

ABSTRACT

The supply limitations of COVID-19 vaccines have led to the need to prioritize vaccine distribution. Obesity, diabetes, and hypertension have been associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Approximately half as many individuals with a cardiovascular risk factor need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to prevent related death compared with individuals without a risk factor. Adults with body mass index ≥ 30, diabetes, or hypertension should be of a similar priority for COVID-19 vaccination to adults 10 years older with a body mass index of 20 to < 30, no diabetes, and no hypertension.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Needs Assessment , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Canada , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
7.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl ; 103(6): 390-394, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1223791

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most serious health crisis of our time. Global public measures have been enacted to try to prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. The trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) community has overcome challenges in order to continue to deliver acute trauma care to patients and plan for challenges ahead. This review explores the lessons learnt, the priorities and the controversies that the T&O community has faced during the crisis. Historically, the experience of major incidents in T&O has focused on mass casualty events. The current pandemic requires a different approach to resource management in order to create a long-term, system-sustaining model of care alongside a move towards resource balancing and facilitation. Significant limitations in theatre access, anaesthetists and bed capacity have necessitated adaptation. Strategic changes to trauma networks and risk mitigation allowed for ongoing surgical treatment of trauma. Outpatient care was reformed with the uptake of technology. The return to elective surgery requires careful planning, restructuring of elective pathways and risk management. Despite the hope that mass vaccination will lift the pressure on bed capacity and on bleak economic forecasts, the orthopaedic community must readjust its focus to meet the challenge of huge backlogs in elective caseloads before looking to the future with a robust strategy of integrated resilient pathways. The pandemic will provide the impetus for research that defines essential interventions and facilitates the implementation of strategies to overcome current barriers and to prepare for future crises.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Priorities , Orthopedic Procedures , Wounds and Injuries/surgery , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Priorities/standards , Humans , Orthopedic Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Traumatology/organization & administration , Traumatology/standards
9.
Hum Reprod ; 36(3): 666-675, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1096531

ABSTRACT

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Fertilization in Vitro , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Time-to-Treatment/organization & administration , Adult , Birth Rate , Cohort Studies , Datasets as Topic , Female , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Male , Maternal Age , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
10.
Bull World Health Organ ; 98(11): 801-808, 2020 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1024482

ABSTRACT

Four decades after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, its vision of health for all and strategy of primary health care are still an inspiration to many people. In this article we evaluate the current status of primary health care in the era of the Declaration of Astana, the sustainable development goals, universal health coverage and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We consider how best to guide greater application of the primary health care strategy, reflecting on tensions that remain between the political vision of primary health care and its implementation in countries. We also consider what is required to support countries to realize the aspirations of primary health care, arguing that national needs and action must dominate over global preoccupations. Changing contexts and realities need to be accommodated. A clear distinction is needed between primary health care as an inspirational vision and set of values for health development, and primary health care as policy and implementation space. To achieve this vision, political action is required. Stakeholders beyond the health sector will often need to lead, which is challenging because the concept of primary health care is poorly understood by other sectors. Efforts on primary health care as policy and implementation space might focus explicitly on primary care and the frontline of service delivery with clear links and support to complementary work on social determinants and building healthy societies. Such efforts can be partial but important implementation solutions to contribute to the much bigger political vision of primary health care.


Quarante ans après la Déclaration d'Alma-Ata, sa vision en matière de santé universelle et sa stratégie de soins de santé primaires demeurent une inspiration pour de nombreuses personnes. Dans cet article, nous évaluons l'état actuel des soins de santé primaires à l'ère de la Déclaration d'Astana, des objectifs de développement durable, de la couverture maladie universelle et de la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Nous tentons de déterminer quel est le meilleur moyen de favoriser une application plus vaste de la stratégie de soins de santé primaires, en tenant compte des tensions qui subsistent entre la vision politique des soins de santé primaires et leur mise en œuvre dans les différents pays. Nous identifions également les éléments qui aident les pays à concrétiser les aspirations liées aux soins de santé primaires, et affirmons que les besoins et actions à l'échelle nationale doivent primer sur les préoccupations internationales. L'évolution des contextes et des réalités doit être prise en considération. Il est impératif d'opérer une nette distinction entre les soins de santé primaires comme source d'inspiration et ensemble de valeurs guidant le développement sanitaire d'une part, et comme espace politique et de mise en œuvre de l'autre. Pour y parvenir, des actes politiques sont indispensables. Des intervenants n'appartenant pas au secteur de la santé devront souvent prendre l'initiative, ce qui représente un défi car le concept des soins de santé primaires suscite l'incompréhension dans les autres secteurs. Les efforts en matière d'espace politique et de mise en œuvre pourraient se concentrer explicitement sur les soins de santé primaires et la première ligne des prestations de service, avec des liens clairement établis et un soutien aux travaux complémentaires consacrés aux déterminants sociaux et à la création d'une société saine. De tels efforts peuvent offrir des solutions partielles mais essentielles à l'élaboration d'une vision politique bien plus large des soins de santé primaires.


Cuatro décadas después de la Declaración de Almá Atá, su visión de la salud para todos y su estrategia de atención primaria de salud siguen siendo una inspiración para muchas personas. En este artículo se evalúa el estado actual de la atención primaria de salud en la era de la Declaración de Astaná, los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible, la cobertura sanitaria universal y la pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus de 2019. Se analiza la mejor manera de orientar una mayor aplicación de la estrategia de atención primaria de salud al estudiar las tensiones que subsisten entre la visión política de la atención primaria de salud y su aplicación en los países. También se analiza lo que se requiere para ayudar a los países a materializar las aspiraciones de la atención primaria de salud al argumentar que las necesidades y las medidas nacionales deben prevalecer sobre las preocupaciones mundiales. Se deben tener en cuenta los contextos y las realidades cambiantes. Hay que establecer una clara diferencia entre la atención primaria de salud como visión inspiradora y conjunto de valores para el desarrollo de la salud, y la atención primaria de salud como entorno normativo y de aplicación. Por consiguiente, se requiere la adopción de medidas políticas para hacer realidad esta visión. Con frecuencia, las partes interesadas que no pertenecen al sector sanitario tendrán que tomar la iniciativa, lo que supone un reto porque el concepto de atención primaria de salud no se comprende bien en otros sectores. Los esfuerzos relacionados con la atención primaria como entorno normativo y de aplicación se podrían centrar de manera explícita en la atención primaria y en la prestación de servicios de primera línea a través de vínculos claros y el apoyo a la labor complementaria sobre los determinantes sociales y la construcción de sociedades sanas. Esos esfuerzos pueden ser soluciones parciales pero importantes de aplicación para contribuir a la visión política mucho más amplia de la atención primaria de salud.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Global Health , Health Policy , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Universal Health Care , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Health Care Sector/organization & administration , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , Information Systems , Pandemics , Patient Rights/standards , Politics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sustainable Development
11.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 36(6): 540-544, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-997732

ABSTRACT

As COVID-19 ravages the world, many countries are faced with the grim reality of not having enough critical-care resources to go around. Knowing what could be in store, the Thai Ministry of Public Health called for the creation of an explicit protocol to determine how these resources are to be rationed in the situation of demand exceeding supply. This paper shares the experience of developing triage criteria and a mechanism for prioritizing intensive care unit resources in a middle-income country with the potential to be applied to other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faced with a similar (if not more of a) challenge when responding to the global pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, this locally developed guideline would be among the first of its kind from an LMIC setting. In summary, the experience from the Thai protocol development highlights three important lessons. First, stakeholder consultation and public engagement are crucial steps to ensure the protocol reflects the priorities of society and to maintain public trust in the health system. Second, all bodies and actions proposed in the protocol must not conflict with existing laws to ensure smooth implementation and adherence by professionals. Last, all components of the protocol must be compatible with the local context including medical culture, physician-patient relationship, and religious and societal norms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/organization & administration , Health Care Rationing/organization & administration , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Triage , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Thailand/epidemiology
12.
Lancet Glob Health ; 8(9): e1142-e1151, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-981693

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is spreading rapidly in India and other parts of the world. Despite the Indian Government's efforts to contain the disease in the affected districts, cases have been reported in 627 (98%) of 640 districts. There is a need to devise a tool for district-level planning and prioritisation and effective allocation of resources. Based on publicly available data, this study reports a vulnerability index for identification of vulnerable regions in India on the basis of population and infrastructural characteristics. METHODS: We computed a composite index of vulnerability at the state and district levels based on 15 indicators across the following five domains: socioeconomic, demographic, housing and hygiene, epidemiological, and health system. We used a percentile ranking method to compute both domain-specific and overall vulnerability and presented results spatially with number of positive COVID-19 cases in districts. FINDINGS: A number of districts in nine large states-Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Odisha, and Gujarat-located in every region of the country except the northeast, were found to have high overall vulnerability (index value more than 0·75). These states also had high vulnerability according to most of the five domains. Although our intention was not to predict the risk of infection for a district or a state, we observed similarities between vulnerability and the current concentration of COVID-19 cases at the state level. However, this relationship was not clear at the district level. INTERPRETATION: The vulnerability index presented in this paper identified a number of vulnerable districts in India, which currently do not have large numbers of COVID-19 cases but could be strongly impacted by the epidemic. Our index aims to help planners and policy makers effectively prioritise regions for resource allocation and adopt risk mitigation strategies for better preparedness and responses to the COVID-19 epidemic. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Epidemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Vulnerable Populations , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Care Rationing/organization & administration , Health Planning/organization & administration , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , India/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Risk Assessment/methods
13.
Arch Dis Child ; 106(6): 533-538, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-967036

ABSTRACT

Child health is at risk from the unintended consequences of the COVID-19 response and will suffer further unless it is given proper consideration. The pandemic can be conceived as a systemic shock to the wider determinants of child health, with impacts on family functioning and income, access to healthcare and education. This article outlines COVID-19 impacts on children in England. Key priorities relate to the diversion of healthcare during lockdown; interruption and return to schooling; increased health risks and long-term impacts on child poverty and social inequalities. We provide an overview of mitigation strategies and policy recommendations aimed to assist both national and local professionals across child health, education, social care and related fields to inform the policy response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Child Health Services/organization & administration , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Public Health Practice , Recovery of Function , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/therapy , Child , England , Humans
15.
Qual Manag Health Care ; 30(1): 49-60, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-940819

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is transforming the health care sector. As health care organizations move from crisis mobilization to a new landscape of health and social needs, organizational health literacy offers practical building blocks to provide high-quality, efficient, and meaningful care to patients and their families. Organizational health literacy is defined by the Institute of Medicine as "the degree to which an organization implements policies, practices, and systems that make it easier for people to navigate, understand, and use information and services to take care of their health." METHODS: This article synthesizes insights from organizational health literacy in the context of current major health care challenges and toward the goal of innovation in patient-centered care. We first provide a brief overview of the origins and outlines of organizational health literacy research and practice. Second, using an established patient-centered innovation framework, we show how the existing work on organizational health literacy can offer a menu of effective, patient-centered innovative options for care delivery systems to improve systems and outcomes. Finally, we consider the high value of management focusing on organizational health literacy efforts, specifically for patients in health care transitions and in the rapid transformation of care into myriad distance modalities. RESULTS: This article provides practical guidance for systems and informs decisions around resource allocation and organizational priorities to best meet the needs of patient populations even in the face of financial and workforce disruption. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational health literacy principles and guidelines provide a road map for promoting patient-centered care even in this time of crisis, change, and transformation. Health system leaders seeking innovative approaches can have access to well-established tool kits, guiding models, and materials toward many organizational health literacy goals across treatment, diagnosis, prevention, education, research, and outreach.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Literacy , Patient-Centered Care , Health Literacy/methods , Health Literacy/organization & administration , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , Leadership , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , Resource Allocation/methods , Resource Allocation/organization & administration
16.
Hum Reprod ; 36(3): 666-675, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-939567

ABSTRACT

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Fertilization in Vitro , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Time-to-Treatment/organization & administration , Adult , Birth Rate , Cohort Studies , Datasets as Topic , Female , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Male , Maternal Age , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
17.
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg ; 69(3): 252-258, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-939460

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus primarily affecting the respiratory system, was initially diagnosed in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Identified as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the World Health Organization, the virus rapidly became a global pandemic. The effects on health care worldwide were unprecedented as countries adapted services to treat masses of critically ill patients.The aim of this study is to analyze the effect that the COVID-19 pandemic had on thoracic surgery at a major trauma center during peak prevalence. METHODS: Prospective unit data were collected for all patients who underwent thoracic surgery during March 2020 until May 2020 inclusive. Retrospective data were collected from an earlier comparable time period as a comparison. RESULTS: In the aforementioned time frame, 117 thoracic surgical operations were performed under the care of four thoracic surgeons. Six operations were performed on three patients who were being treated for SARS-CoV-2. One operation was performed on a patient who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2. There were no deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 in any patient undergoing thoracic surgery. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that during the first surge of SARS-CoV-2, it was possible to adapt a thoracic oncology and trauma service without increase in mortality due to COVID-19. This was only possible due to a significant reduction in trauma referrals, cessation of benign and elective work, and the more stringent reprioritization of cancer surgery. This information is vital to learn from our experience and prepare for the predicted second surge and any similar future pandemics we might face.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Thoracic Surgical Procedures , Trauma Centers , Adult , Aged , Appointments and Schedules , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Decision-Making , Elective Surgical Procedures , Emergencies , Female , Humans , London/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Thoracic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects
19.
Eur J Ophthalmol ; 31(1): 10-12, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-791664

ABSTRACT

We report our experience during COVID-19 outbreak for intravitreal injections in patients with maculopathy. We proposed a treatment priority levels and timings; the "High" priority level includes all monocular patients; the "Moderate" is assigned to all patients with an active macular neovascularization; the patients affected by diabetic macular edema or retinal vein occlusion belong to the "Low" class. This organization allowed us to treat the most urgent patients although the injections performed had a 91.7% drop compared to the same period of 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Pharmaceutical Preparations/administration & dosage , Retinal Diseases/classification , SARS-CoV-2 , Tertiary Care Centers/organization & administration , Central Serous Chorioretinopathy/classification , Central Serous Chorioretinopathy/drug therapy , Diabetic Retinopathy/classification , Diabetic Retinopathy/drug therapy , Humans , Intravitreal Injections , Italy/epidemiology , Macular Degeneration/classification , Macular Degeneration/drug therapy , Macular Edema/classification , Macular Edema/drug therapy , Quarantine , Retinal Diseases/drug therapy , Retinal Vein Occlusion/classification , Retinal Vein Occlusion/drug therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL