Advanced analytical methods for fraud detection: a systematic literature review

The developments of the digital era demand new ways of producing goods and rendering services. This fast-paced evolution in the companies implies a new approach from the auditors, who must keep up with the constant transformation. With the dynamic dimensions of data, it is important to seize the opportunity to add value to the companies. The need to apply more robust methods to detect fraud is evident. In this thesis the use of advanced analytical methods for fraud detection will be investigated, through the analysis of the existent literature on this topic. Both a systematic review of the literature and a bibliometric approach will be applied to the most appropriate database to measure the scientific production and current trends. This study intends to contribute to the academic research that have been conducted, in order to centralize the existing information on this topic

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Field and classroom initiatives for portable sequence-based monitoring of dengue virus in Brazil

This work was supported by Decit, SCTIE, Brazilian Ministry of Health, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico - CNPq (440685/ 2016-8, 440856/2016-7 and 421598/2018-2), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES - (88887.130716/2016-00), European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ZIKAlliance Grant Agreement (734548), STARBIOS (709517), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ (E-26/2002.930/2016), International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Canada (108411-001), European Union’s Horizon 2020 under grant agreements ZIKACTION (734857) and ZIKAPLAN (734548).Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil / Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil / Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane. Laboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Milton Bezerra Sobral. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso. Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Distrito Federal. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Vitória da Conquista, BA, Brazil.Laboratorio Central de Salud Pública. Asunción, Paraguay.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilMinistério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. San Lorenzo, Paraguay.Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Milton Bezerra Sobral. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Distrito Federal. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, Ba, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Hospital das Forças Armadas. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical. Lisboa, Portugal.University of Sydney. School of Life and Environmental Sciences and School of Medical Sciences. Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity. Sydney, NSW, Australia.University of KwaZulu-Natal. College of Health Sciences. KwaZulu-Natal Research Innovation and Sequencing Platform. Durban, South Africa.University of Oxford. Peter Medawar Building. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Universidade de Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Salvador. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Hantaviroses e Rickettsioses. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane. Laboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Paraná. Curitiba, PR, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Rondônia. Porto Velho, RO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Amazonas. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso. Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Instituto Adolfo Lutz. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.University of Oxford. Peter Medawar Building. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Virales Humanas Dr. Julio Maiztegui. Pergamino, Argentina.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Instituto de Salud Pública de Chile. Santiago, Chile.Instituto de Diagnóstico y Referencia Epidemiológicos Dr. Manuel Martínez Báez. Ciudad de México, México.Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas Dr Carlos G Malbrán. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Ministerio de Salud Pública de Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay.Instituto Costarricense de Investigación y Enseñanza em Nutrición y Salud. Tres Ríos, Costa Rica.Instituto Nacional de Investigacion en Salud Publica Dr Leopoldo Izquieta Pérez. Guayaquil, Ecuador.Instituto Nacional de Investigacion en Salud Publica Dr Leopoldo Izquieta Pérez. Guayaquil, Ecuador.Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Recife, PE, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte. MG, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Brazil experienced a large dengue virus (DENV) epidemic in 2019, highlighting a continuous struggle with effective control and public health preparedness. Using Oxford Nanopore sequencing, we led field and classroom initiatives for the monitoring of DENV in Brazil, generating 227 novel genome sequences of DENV1-2 from 85 municipalities (2015–2019). This equated to an over 50% increase in the number of DENV genomes from Brazil available in public databases. Using both phylogenetic and epidemiological models we retrospectively reconstructed the recent transmission history of DENV1-2. Phylogenetic analysis revealed complex patterns of transmission, with both lineage co-circulation and replacement. We identified two lineages within the DENV2 BR-4 clade, for which we estimated the effective reproduction number and pattern of seasonality. Overall, the surveillance outputs and training initiative described here serve as a proof-of-concept for the utility of real-time portable sequencing for research and local capacity building in the genomic surveillance of emerging viruses

A multi-country analysis of COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status

Background: Individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), when infected, can still develop disease that requires hospitalization. It remains unclear whether these patients differ from hospitalized unvaccinated patients with regard to presentation, coexisting comorbidities, and outcomes. Methods: Here, we use data from an international consortium to study this question and assess whether differences between these groups are context specific. Data from 83,163 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (34,843 vaccinated, 48,320 unvaccinated) from 38 countries were analyzed. Findings: While typical symptoms were more often reported in unvaccinated patients, comorbidities, including some associated with worse prognosis in previous studies, were more common in vaccinated patients. Considerable between-country variation in both in-hospital fatality risk and vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated difference in this outcome was observed. Conclusions: These findings will inform allocation of healthcare resources in future surges as well as design of longer-term international studies to characterize changes in clinical profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients related to vaccination history. Funding: This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z, and 220757/Z/20/Z); the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135); and the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109). Additional funders are listed in the "acknowledgments" section

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Paediatric COVID-19 mortality: a database analysis of the impact of health resource disparity

Background The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric populations varied between high-income countries (HICs) versus low-income to middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to investigate differences in paediatric clinical outcomes and identify factors contributing to disparity between countries.Methods The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database was queried to include children under 19 years of age admitted to hospital from January 2020 to April 2021 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Univariate and multivariable analysis of contributing factors for mortality were assessed by country group (HICs vs LMICs) as defined by the World Bank criteria.Results A total of 12 860 children (3819 from 21 HICs and 9041 from 15 LMICs) participated in this study. Of these, 8961 were laboratory-confirmed and 3899 suspected COVID-19 cases. About 52% of LMICs children were black, and more than 40% were infants and adolescent. Overall in-hospital mortality rate (95% CI) was 3.3% [=(3.0% to 3.6%), higher in LMICs than HICs (4.0% (3.6% to 4.4%) and 1.7% (1.3% to 2.1%), respectively). There were significant differences between country income groups in intervention profile, with higher use of antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, prone positioning, high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs. Out of the 439 mechanically ventilated children, mortality occurred in 106 (24.1%) subjects, which was higher in LMICs than HICs (89 (43.6%) vs 17 (7.2%) respectively). Pre-existing infectious comorbidities (tuberculosis and HIV) and some complications (bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and myocarditis) were significantly higher in LMICs compared with HICs. On multivariable analysis, LMIC as country income group was associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 4.73 (3.16 to 7.10)).Conclusion Mortality and morbidities were higher in LMICs than HICs, and it may be attributable to differences in patient demographics, complications and access to supportive and treatment modalities

Association of Country Income Level With the Characteristics and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized With Acute Kidney Injury and COVID-19

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) has been identified as one of the most common and significant problems in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, studies examining the relationship between COVID-19 and AKI in low- and low-middle income countries (LLMIC) are lacking. Given that AKI is known to carry a higher mortality rate in these countries, it is important to understand differences in this population. Methods: This prospective, observational study examines the AKI incidence and characteristics of 32,210 patients with COVID-19 from 49 countries across all income levels who were admitted to an intensive care unit during their hospital stay. Results: Among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, AKI incidence was highest in patients in LLMIC, followed by patients in upper-middle income countries (UMIC) and high-income countries (HIC) (53%, 38%, and 30%, respectively), whereas dialysis rates were lowest among patients with AKI from LLMIC and highest among those from HIC (27% vs. 45%). Patients with AKI in LLMIC had the largest proportion of community-acquired AKI (CA-AKI) and highest rate of in-hospital death (79% vs. 54% in HIC and 66% in UMIC). The association between AKI, being from LLMIC and in-hospital death persisted even after adjusting for disease severity. Conclusions: AKI is a particularly devastating complication of COVID-19 among patients from poorer nations where the gaps in accessibility and quality of healthcare delivery have a major impact on patient outcomes

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc