Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 719
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Nutrients ; 13(12)2021 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1607647

ABSTRACT

On 11 March 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) and, up to 18:37 a.m. on 9 December 2021, it has produced 268,440,530 cases and 5,299,511 deaths. This disease, in some patients, included pneumonia and shortness of breath, being transmitted through droplets and aerosols. To date, there is no scientific literature to justify transmission directly from foods. In this review, we applied the precautionary principle for the home and the food industry using the known "Five Keys to Safer Food" manual developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and extended punctually in its core information from five keys, in the light of new COVID-19 evidence, to guarantee a possible food safety tool.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Food Safety , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , World Health Organization
4.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(1): 148-156, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581412

ABSTRACT

We compared case definitions for suspected, probable, and confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19), as well as diagnostic testing criteria, used in the 25 countries with the highest reported case counts as of October 1, 2020. Of the identified countries, 56% followed World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for using a combination of clinical and epidemiologic criteria as part of the suspected case definition. A total of 75% of identified countries followed WHO recommendations on using clinical, epidemiologic, and diagnostic criteria for probable cases; 72% followed WHO recommendations to use PCR testing to confirm COVID-19. Finally, 64% of countries used testing eligibility criteria at least as permissive as WHO. We observed marked heterogeneity in testing eligibility requirements and in how countries define a COVID-19 case. This heterogeneity affects the ability to compare case counts, transmission, and vaccine effectiveness, as well as estimates derived from case surveillance data across countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
5.
Global Health ; 17(1): 142, 2021 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1577195

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The WHO's success in its vital role is constrained by inadequate financial support from member states and overreliance on earmarked voluntary contributions, which erodes autonomy. The agency's broad functions, including coordination among 194 members, cannot be performed by any other entity. However, despite experts' well-articulated concerns that the agency's legitimacy and authority in global health matters have been undermined, a decades-long freeze on member assessments means that WHO priorities are disproportionately influenced by a few powerful donors. A STRUCTURAL DEFECT: To overcome inertia in addressing well-known limitations, it may be helpful to consider the weaknesses in WHO's financing mechanism as a persistent structural defect. This perspective strengthens the focus on corrections needed to remove the defect. In our view, the main features of the structural defect are the self-imposed constraints that foster the perception-if not the reality-that the agency's legitimacy is compromised. These constraints include WHO's inadequate level of financing; lack of direct control over 80% of its funds; and unbalanced participation, such that over 60% of financing originates from only 9 donors. With renewed commitment, however, member countries can remove these constraints. REMOVING THE STRUCTURAL DEFECT: To meaningfully strengthen structural integrity of the financing mechanism, restore WHO's autonomy, and minimize concerns about wealthy-donor supremacy, it will be necessary to define specific requirements and implement restrictions on financial contributions. We make five recommendations, including tripling total financing; ensuring that 70% or more of financial support derives from member assessments; limiting contributions from individual members to a maximum of 4% of total WHO financing; and limiting donations from individual partners to a maximum of 3% of total WHO financing (1% for earmarked donations). Although some might consider these measures impractical, they are justified by the magnitude of the crises the world faces, by member states' increased economic strength in recent decades, and by the importance of shielding the WHO's financing structure from perceived neocolonialism. This necessary step calls for an adjustment of priorities: the higher level of assessed contribution-from nearly all members regardless of wealth-required to reach the proposed targets would still represent only a small fraction of most members' annual military expenditures. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic, with its devastating toll on human life and global economic stability, presents an opportunity for reflection and refocusing. Realigning WHO's financial structure to its founders' vision, as proposed here, would likely safeguard both the agency's autonomy and member states' trust, while alleviating concerns about undue influence from powerful donors. Removing the persistent structural defect in financing would empower WHO to lead and coordinate global response to meet the inevitable challenges of the coming decades.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
6.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 23921, 2021 12 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585804

ABSTRACT

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are key biomarkers considered to be associated with vaccine efficacy. In United States government-sponsored phase 3 efficacy trials of COVID-19 vaccines, nAbs are measured by two different validated pseudovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays, with each trial using one of the two assays. Here we describe and compare the nAb titers obtained in the two assays. We observe that one assay consistently yielded higher nAb titers than the other when both assays were performed on the World Health Organization's anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin International Standard, COVID-19 convalescent sera, and mRNA-1273 vaccinee sera. To overcome the challenge this difference in readout poses in comparing/combining data from the two assays, we evaluate three calibration approaches and show that readouts from the two assays can be calibrated to a common scale. These results may aid decision-making based on data from these assays for the evaluation and licensure of new or adapted COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Neutralization Tests/standards , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , /immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , Clinical Decision-Making , Clinical Trials as Topic , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Neutralization Tests/methods , World Health Organization
7.
Prim Health Care Res Dev ; 22: e80, 2021 12 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1569194

ABSTRACT

Telemedicine is the use of telecommunication and information technologies to support the delivery of healthcare at a distance, guaranteeing patients healthcare by facilitating access where barriers exist; the COVID-19 pandemic has attracted worldwide interest in this field.The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main pros and cons of telemedicine, which serve as the basis of the WONCA Europe Statement at the WHO Europe 70th Regional Meeting on 14 September 2020.Pros of telemedicine include virtual healthcare at home, where patients receive support in certain conditions without leaving their houses. During a pandemic, it can be adopted to limit physical human interaction. Unfortunately, it can negatively affect the quality of the doctor-patient relationship, the quality of the physical examination, and the quality of care. Telemedicine requires effective infrastructure and robust investments to be feasible and effective.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , Pandemics , Physician-Patient Relations , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
8.
J Virol Methods ; 300: 114430, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568897

ABSTRACT

WHO 20/136 is standard reference material for SARS-COV-2 serology assays. Standardization of serology assays that target the same antigen and class of immunoglobulin will enable comparison of results between studies that use various lab-developed and commercial assays around the world. Standardization of assays will help better define immune correlates of protection and possibly immune correlates of vaccine efficacy. Two automated SARS-COV-2 anti-S1 RBD immunoglobulin serology assays on the Atellica IM Analyzer were calibrated to WHO 20/136 Standard Reference Material which was assigned 1000 binding antibody units (BAU/mL). The anti-S1 RBD IgG assay (sCOVG) cut-off Index of 1.00 corresponded to WHO 45.1 BAU/mL, and the anti-S1 RBD Ig Total assay (COV2T) cut-off Index of 1.00 corresponded to WHO 6.70 BAU/mL.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Reference Standards , World Health Organization
9.
Clin Transl Med ; 11(12): e685, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568018

ABSTRACT

The recently discovered Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly burst into the public and scientific eye, being detected in more than 26 countries around the world. Given its more than 50 mutations, there is widespread concern about its public health impact, leading the World Health Organization to designate it a variant of concern. This Commentary provides a summary of current knowledge and unknowns about this viral variant as of December 2, 2021 and summarizes the key questions that need to be rapidly answered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/genetics , Botswana , COVID-19 Vaccines , Global Health , Humans , Mutation , Netherlands , Pandemics , South Africa , World Health Organization
11.
Biomed Pharmacother ; 144: 112353, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544808

ABSTRACT

Almost 80% of people confronting COVID-19 recover from COVID-19 disease without any particular treatments. They experience heterogeneous symptoms; a wide range of respiratory symptoms, cough, dyspnea, fever, and viral pneumonia. However, some others need urgent intervention and special treatment to get rid of this widespread disease. So far, there isn't any unique drug for the potential treatment of COVID 19. However, some available therapeutic drugs used for other diseases seem beneficial for the COVID-19 treatment. On the other hand, there is a robust global concern for developing an efficient COVID-19 vaccine to control the COVID-19 pandemic sustainably. According to the WHO report, since 8 October 2021, 320 vaccines have been in progress. 194 vaccines are in the pre-clinical development stage that 126 of them are in clinical progression. Here, in this paper, we have comprehensively reviewed the most recent and updated information about coronavirus and its mutations, all the potential therapeutic approaches for treating COVID-19, developed diagnostic systems for COVID- 19 and the available COVID-19 vaccines and their mechanism of action.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Biosensing Techniques/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Mutation , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , World Health Organization
12.
Euro Surveill ; 26(47)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1538334

ABSTRACT

Since December 2019, over 1.5 million SARS-CoV-2-related fatalities have been recorded in the World Health Organization European Region - 90.2% in people ≥ 60 years. We calculated lives saved in this age group by COVID-19 vaccination in 33 countries from December 2020 to November 2021, using weekly reported deaths and vaccination coverage. We estimated that vaccination averted 469,186 deaths (51% of 911,302 expected deaths; sensitivity range: 129,851-733,744; 23-62%). Impact by country ranged 6-93%, largest when implementation was early.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , World Health Organization
15.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(1): JC2, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526979

ABSTRACT

SOURCE CITATION: Lamontagne F, Agoritsas T, Macdonald H, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19. BMJ. 2020;370:m3379. 32887691.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Betacoronavirus , Critical Illness , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
16.
Stud Health Technol Inform ; 287: 163-164, 2021 Nov 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526757

ABSTRACT

OpenWHO provides open access, online, free and real time learning responses to health emergencies. Before the pandemic, courses on 18 diseases were provided. The increase to 38 courses in response to COVID-19 have led to a massive increase in the number of new learners. As a result, the COVID-19 pandemic affected learners' trends. This paper presents initial findings of changes perceived in the use and user groups' attendance to the World Health Organization's (WHO) health emergency learning platform OpenWHO. Enrolment statistics were based on data collected in December 2019 and March 2021. A descriptive analysis was conducted to explore changes in the usage pattern of the platform. Several user characteristics shifted between before and during the pandemic. More women, younger and older learners joined the learning during the pandemic. Public health education leaned toward a more equitable reach including previously underrepresented groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Education, Distance , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
19.
BMJ ; 375: e068302, 2021 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522938

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis, Joanna Briggs, Global Health, and World Health Organization COVID-19 database (preprints). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Observational and interventional studies that assessed the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was incidence of covid-19. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 transmission and covid-19 mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: DerSimonian Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of mask wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing measures on incidence of covid-19. Pooled effect estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed, and heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I2 metrics, with two tailed P values. RESULTS: 72 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 evaluated individual public health measures and 37 assessed multiple public health measures as a "package of interventions." Eight of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated a reduction in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.12, I2=12%), mask wearing (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75, I2=84%), and physical distancing (0.75, 0.59 to 0.95, I2=87%). Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of quarantine and isolation, universal lockdowns, and closures of borders, schools, and workplaces. The effects of these interventions were synthesised descriptively. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19. Public health efforts to implement public health measures should consider community health and sociocultural needs, and future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of public health measures in the context of covid-19 vaccination. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178692.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Public Health , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Global Health , Hand Disinfection/methods , Humans , Incidence , Masks , Physical Distancing , Quarantine/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Schools , Travel , World Health Organization
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...