Variation in the COVID-19 infection-fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: a systematic analysis

Background The infection-fatality ratio (IFR) is a metric that quantifies the likelihood of an individual dying once infected with a pathogen. Understanding the determinants of IFR variation for COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has direct implications for mitigation efforts with respect to clinical practice, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and the prioritisation of risk groups for targeted vaccine delivery. The IFR is also a crucial parameter in COVID-19 dynamic transmission models, providing a way to convert a population's mortality rate into an estimate of infections.Methods We estimated age-specific and all-age IFR by matching seroprevalence surveys to total COVID-19 mortality rates in a population. The term total COVID-19 mortality refers to an estimate of the total number of deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. After applying exclusion criteria to 5131 seroprevalence surveys, the IFR analyses were informed by 2073 all-age surveys and 718 age-specific surveys (3012 age-specific observations). When seroprevalence was reported by age group, we split total COVID-19 mortality into corresponding age groups using a Bayesian hierarchical model to characterise the non-linear age pattern of reported deaths for a given location. To remove the impact of vaccines on the estimated IFR age pattern, we excluded age-specific observations of seroprevalence and deaths that occurred after vaccines were introduced in a location. We estimated age-specific IFR with a non-linear meta-regression and used the resulting age pattern to standardise all-age IFR observations to the global age distribution. All IFR observations were adjusted for baseline and waning antibody-test sensitivity. We then modelled age-standardised IFR as a function of time, geography, and an ensemble of 100 of the top-performing covariate sets. The covariates included seven clinical predictors (eg, age-standardised obesity prevalence) and two measures of health system performance. Final estimates for 190 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in 11 countries and territories, were obtained by predicting age-standardised IFR conditional on covariates and reversing the age standardisation.Findings We report IFR estimates for April 15, 2020, to January 1, 2021, the period before the introduction of vaccines and widespread evolution of variants. We found substantial heterogeneity in the IFR by age, location, and time. Age-specific IFR estimates form a J shape, with the lowest IFR occurring at age 7 years (0-0023%, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 0-0015-0-0039) and increasing exponentially through ages 30 years (0-0573%, 0-0418-0-0870), 60 years (1-0035%, 0-7002-1-5727), and 90 years (20-3292%, 14-6888-28-9754). The countries with the highest IFR on July 15, 2020, were Portugal (2-085%, 0-946-4-395), Monaco (1-778%, 1-265-2-915), Japan (1-750%, 1-302-2-690), Spain (1-710%, 0-991-2-718), and Greece (1-637%, 1-155-2-678). All-age IFR varied by a factor of more than 30 among 190 countries and territories.After age standardisation, the countries with the highest IFR on July 15, 2020, were Peru (0-911%, 0-636-1-538), Portugal (0-850%, 0-386-1-793), Oman (0-762%, 0-381-1-399), Spain (0-751%, 0-435-1-193), and Mexico (0-717%, 0-426-1-404). Subnational locations with high IFRs also included hotspots in the UK and southern and eastern states of the USA. Sub-Saharan African countries and Asian countries generally had the lowest all-age and age-standardised IFRs. Population age structure accounted for 74% of logit-scale variation in IFRs estimated for 39 in-sample countries on July 15, 2020. A post-hoc analysis showed that high rates of transmission in the care home population might account for higher IFRs in some locations. Among all countries and territories, we found that the median IFR decreased from 0-466% (interquartile range 0-223-0-840) to 0-314% (0-143-0-551) between April 15, 2020, and Jan 1, 2021.Interpretation Estimating the IFR for global populations helps to identify relative vulnerabilities to COVID-19. Information about how IFR varies by age, time, and location informs clinical practice and non-pharmaceutical interventions like physical distancing measures, and underpins vaccine risk stratification. IFR and mortality risk form a J shape with respect to age, which previous research, such as that by Glynn and Moss in 2020, has identified to be a common pattern among infectious diseases. Understanding the experience of a population with COVID-19 mortality requires consideration for local factors; IFRs varied by a factor of more than 30 among 190 countries and territories in this analysis. In particular, the presence of elevated age-standardised IFRs in countries with well resourced health-care systems indicates that factors beyond health-care capacity are important. Potential extenuating circumstances include outbreaks among care home residents, variable burdens of severe cases, and the population prevalence of comorbid conditions that increase the severity of COVID-19 disease. During the pre-vaccine period, the estimated 33% decrease in median IFR over 8 months suggests that treatment for COVID-19 has improved over time. Estimating IFR for the pre-vaccine era provides an important baseline for describing the progression of COVID-19 mortality patterns.Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Health sector spending and spending on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and development assistance for health: progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3

Background: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available. Methods: We estimated domestic health spending, disaggregated by source (government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private) from 1995 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. For disease-specific health spending, we estimated spending for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis for 135 low-income and middle-income countries, and malaria in 106 malaria-endemic countries, from 2000 to 2017. We also estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2019, by source, disbursing development agency, recipient, and health focus area, including DAH for pandemic preparedness. Finally, we estimated future health spending for 195 countries and territories from 2018 until 2030. We report all spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2019 US$, unless otherwise stated. Findings: Since the development and implementation of the SDGs in 2015, global health spending has increased, reaching$7·9 trillion (95% uncertainty interval 7·8–8·0) in 2017 and is expected to increase to $11·0 trillion (10·7–11·2) by 2030. In 2017, in low-income and middle-income countries spending on HIV/AIDS was$20·2 billion (17·0–25·0) and on tuberculosis it was $10·9 billion (10·3–11·8), and in malaria-endemic countries spending on malaria was$5·1 billion (4·9–5·4). Development assistance for health was $40·6 billion in 2019 and HIV/AIDS has been the health focus area to receive the highest contribution since 2004. In 2019,$374 million of DAH was provided for pandemic preparedness, less than 1% of DAH. Although spending has increased across HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria since 2015, spending has not increased in all countries, and outcomes in terms of prevalence, incidence, and per-capita spending have been mixed. The proportion of health spending from pooled sources is expected to increase from 81·6% (81·6–81·7) in 2015 to 83·1% (82·8–83·3) in 2030. Interpretation: Health spending on SDG3 priority areas has increased, but not in all countries, and progress towards meeting the SDG3 targets has been mixed and has varied by country and by target. The evidence on the scale-up of spending and improvements in health outcomes suggest a nuanced relationship, such that increases in spending do not always results in improvements in outcomes. Although countries will probably need more resources to achieve SDG3, other constraints in the broader health system such as inefficient allocation of resources across interventions and populations, weak governance systems, human resource shortages, and drug shortages, will also need to be addressed. Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

A phase III randomized three-arm trial of physical therapist delivered pain coping skills training for patients with total knee arthroplasty: the KASTPain protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Approximately 20% of patients report persistent and disabling pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) despite an apparently normally functioning prosthesis. One potential risk factor for unexplained persistent pain is high levels of pain catastrophizing. We designed a three-arm trial to determine if a pain coping skills training program, delivered prior to TKA, effectively reduces function-limiting pain following the procedure in patients with high levels of pain catastrophizing.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The trial will be conducted at four University-based sites in the US. A sample of 402 patients with high levels of pain catastrophizing will be randomly assigned to either a pain coping skills training arm, an arthritis education control arm or usual care. Pain coping skills will be delivered by physical therapists trained and supervised by clinical psychologist experts. Arthritis education will be delivered by nurses trained in the delivery of arthritis-related content. The primary outcome will be change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain scale score 12 months following surgery. A variety of secondary clinical and economic outcomes also will be evaluated.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The trial will be conducted at four University-based sites in the US. A sample of 402 patients with high levels of pain catastrophizing will be randomly assigned to either a pain coping skills training arm, an arthritis education control arm or usual care. Pain coping skills will be delivered by physical therapists trained and supervised by clinical psychologist experts. Arthritis education will be delivered by nurses trained in the delivery of arthritis-related content. The primary outcome will be change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain scale score 12 months following surgery. A variety of secondary clinical and economic outcomes also will be evaluated.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>NCT01620983</p

Bibliotheca radiologica

Bone metastases are a common occurrence in carcinoma of the breast, prostate and lung. An understanding of the basic biology of metastatic disease is important for an appreciation of the selective nature of these tumour metastases for bone. Biomechanics of metastatic disease helps explain the proclivity of most metastatic disease for the vertebral column. An understanding of pathophysiology and biochemistry helps in understanding how some tumours produce osteolytic versus osteoblastic or mixed lesions and the relative risks of these deposits. This knowledge leads to an understanding of the difficulties in imaging these lesions and how best to utilize techniques such as SPECT/CT, MRI and PET/CT

Safe prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis--an expert consensus addressing benefits as well as gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks

BACKGROUND: There are several guidelines addressing the issues around the use of NSAIDs. However, none has specifically addressed the upper versus lower gastrointestinal (GI) risk of COX-2 selective and non-selective compounds nor the interaction at both the GI and cardiovascular (CV) level of either class of drugs with low-dose aspirin. This Consensus paper aims to develop statements and guidance devoted to these specific issues through a review of current evidence by a multidisciplinary group of experts. METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus process was adopted to determine the level of agreement with each statement and to determine the level of agreement with the strength of evidence to be assigned to the statement. RESULTS: For patients with both low GI and CV risks, any non-selective NSAID (ns-NSAID) alone may be acceptable. For those with low GI and high CV risk, naproxen may be preferred because of its potential lower CV risk compared with other ns-NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors, but celecoxib at the lowest approved dose (200 mg once daily) may be acceptable. In patients with high GI risk, if CV risk is low, a COX-2 selective inhibitor alone or ns-NSAID with a proton pump inhibitor appears to offer similar protection from upper GI events. However, only celecoxib will reduce mucosal harm throughout the entire GI tract. When both GI and CV risks are high, the optimal strategy is to avoid NSAID therapy, if at all possible. CONCLUSIONS: Time is now ripe for offering patients with osteoarthritis the safest and most cost-effective therapeutic option, thus preventing serious adverse events which could have important quality of life and resource use implications. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0291-x