Socio-demographic inequalities and excess non-COVID-19 mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic: a data-driven analysis of 1 069 174 death certificates in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, Mexico experienced one of the highest rates of excess mortality globally. However, the extent of non-COVID deaths on excess mortality, its regional distribution and the association between socio-demographic inequalities have not been characterized. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective municipal and individual-level study using 1 069 174 death certificates to analyse COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 deaths classified by ICD-10 codes. Excess mortality was estimated as the increase in cause-specific mortality in 2020 compared with the average of 2015-2019, disaggregated by primary cause of death, death setting (in-hospital and out-of-hospital) and geographical location. Correlates of individual and municipal non-COVID-19 mortality were assessed using mixed effects logistic regression and negative binomial regression models, respectively. RESULTS: We identified a 51% higher mortality rate (276.11 deaths per 100 000 inhabitants) compared with the 2015-2019 average period, largely attributable to COVID-19. Non-COVID-19 causes comprised one-fifth of excess deaths, with acute myocardial infarction and type 2 diabetes as the two leading non-COVID-19 causes of excess mortality. COVID-19 deaths occurred primarily in-hospital, whereas excess non-COVID-19 deaths occurred in out-of-hospital settings. Municipal-level predictors of non-COVID-19 excess mortality included levels of social security coverage, higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and social marginalization. At the individual level, lower educational attainment, blue-collar employment and lack of medical care assistance prior to death were associated with non-COVID-19 deaths. CONCLUSION: Non-COVID-19 causes of death, largely chronic cardiometabolic conditions, comprised up to one-fifth of excess deaths in Mexico during 2020. Non-COVID-19 excess deaths occurred disproportionately out-of-hospital and were associated with both individual- and municipal-level socio-demographic inequalities

Prevalence of prediabetes in Mexico: a retrospective analysis of nationally representative surveys spanning 2016–2022Research in context

Summary: Background: Characterizing prediabetes phenotypes may be useful in guiding diabetes prevention efforts; however, heterogeneous criteria to define prediabetes have led to inconsistent prevalence estimates, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Here, we estimated trends in prediabetes prevalence in Mexico across different prediabetes definitions and their association with prevalent cardiometabolic conditions. Methods: We conducted a serial cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Nutrition Surveys in Mexico (2016–2022), totalling 22 081 Mexican adults. After excluding individuals with diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes, we defined prediabetes using ADA (impaired fasting glucose [IFG] 100–125 mg/dL and/or HbA1c 5.7–6.4%), WHO (IFG 110–125 mg/dL), and IEC criteria (HbA1c 6.0–6.4%). Prevalence trends of prediabetes over time were evaluated using weighted Poisson regression and its association with prevalent cardiometabolic conditions with weighted logistic regression. Findings: The prevalence of prediabetes (either IFG or high HbA1c [ADA]) in Mexico was 20.9% in 2022. Despite an overall downward trend in prediabetes (RR 0.973, 95% CI 0.957–0.988), this was primarily driven by decreases in prediabetes by ADA-IFG (RR 0.898, 95% CI 0.880–0.917) and WHO-IFG criteria (RR 0.919, 95% CI 0.886–0.953), while prediabetes by ADA-HbA1c (RR 1.055, 95% CI 1.033–1.077) and IEC-HbA1C criteria (RR 1.085, 95% CI 1.045–1.126) increased over time. Prediabetes prevalence increased over time in adults >40 years, with central obesity, self-identified as indigenous or living in urban areas. For all definitions, prediabetes was associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic conditions. Interpretation: Prediabetes rates in Mexico from 2016 to 2022 varied based on defining criteria but consistently increased for HbA1c-based definitions and high-risk subgroups. Funding: This research was supported by Instituto Nacional de Geriatría in Mexico. JAS was supported by NIH/NIDDK Grant# K23DK135798

Effectiveness of a nationwide COVID-19 vaccination program in Mexico against symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalizations, and death: a retrospective analysis of national surveillance data

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Vaccination has been effective in ameliorating the impact of COVID-19. Here, we report vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the nationally available COVID-19 vaccines in Mexico. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a COVID-19 surveillance system to assess the VE of the BNT162b2, messenger RNA (mRNA)-12732, Gam-COVID-Vac, Ad5-nCoV, Ad26.COV2.S, ChAdOx1, and CoronaVac vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, and death in Mexico. The VE was estimated using time-varying Cox proportional hazard models in vaccinated and unvaccinated adults, adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities. VE was also estimated for adults with diabetes, aged ≥60 years, and comparing the predominance of SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.519 and B.1.617.2. Results: We assessed 793,487 vaccinated and 4,792,338 unvaccinated adults between December 24, 2020 and September 27, 2021. The VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection was the highest for fully vaccinated individuals with mRNA-12732 (91.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 90.3-92.4) and Ad26.COV2.S (82.2%, 95% CI 81.4-82.9); for COVID-19 hospitalization, BNT162b2 (84.3%, 95% CI 83.6-84.9) and Gam-COVID-Vac (81.4% 95% CI 79.5-83.1), and for mortality, BNT162b2 (89.8%, 95% CI 89.2-90.2) and mRNA-12732 (93.5%, 95% CI 86.0-97.0). The VE decreased for all vaccines in adults aged ≥60 years, people with diabetes, and periods of Delta variant predominance. Conclusion: All the vaccines implemented in Mexico were effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, and death. Mass vaccination with multiple vaccines is useful to maximize vaccination coverage

Clinical prediction models for mortality in patients with covid-19:external validation and individual participant data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate various prognostic models and scoring rules for predicting short term mortality in patients admitted to hospital for covid-19. DESIGN: Two stage individual participant data meta-analysis. SETTING: Secondary and tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: 46 914 patients across 18 countries, admitted to a hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19 from November 2019 to April 2021. DATA SOURCES: Multiple (clustered) cohorts in Brazil, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States previously identified by a living systematic review of covid-19 prediction models published in The BMJ, and through PROSPERO, reference checking, and expert knowledge. MODEL SELECTION AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prognostic models identified by the living systematic review and through contacting experts. A priori models were excluded that had a high risk of bias in the participant domain of PROBAST (prediction model study risk of bias assessment tool) or for which the applicability was deemed poor. METHODS: Eight prognostic models with diverse predictors were identified and validated. A two stage individual participant data meta-analysis was performed of the estimated model concordance (C) statistic, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and observed to expected ratio (O:E) across the included clusters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30 day mortality or in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Datasets included 27 clusters from 18 different countries and contained data on 46 914patients. The pooled estimates ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 (C statistic), 0.22 to 1.22 (calibration slope), and 0.18 to 2.59 (O:E ratio) and were prone to substantial between study heterogeneity. The 4C Mortality Score by Knight et al (pooled C statistic 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84, 95% prediction interval 0.72 to 0.86) and clinical model by Wang et al (0.77, 0.73 to 0.80, 0.63 to 0.87) had the highest discriminative ability. On average, 29% fewer deaths were observed than predicted by the 4C Mortality Score (pooled O:E 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.11, 95% prediction interval 0.21 to 2.39), 35% fewer than predicted by the Wang clinical model (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, 0.23 to 1.89), and 4% fewer than predicted by Xie et al’s model (0.96, 0.59 to 1.55, 0.21 to 4.28). CONCLUSION: The prognostic value of the included models varied greatly between the data sources. Although the Knight 4C Mortality Score and Wang clinical model appeared most promising, recalibration (intercept and slope updates) is needed before implementation in routine care