27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria in low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study

      research-article
      , PhD a , , , PhD a , , , PhD a , , , PhD a , , , PhD a , , , MSc a , , , PhD a , , DPhil a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , DPhil a , , MD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , MPhil a , , MRes a , , MMath a , , MRes a , , MRes a , , Prof, ScD a , b , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , MRes a , , PhD a , , MSc a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , MPH a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , MSc a , a , , MSc a , , Prof, DPhil a , , PhD a , , PhD a , , DPhil a , , Prof, PhD a , , PhD a , , Prof, PhD a , *
      The Lancet. Global Health
      The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          COVID-19 has the potential to cause substantial disruptions to health services, due to cases overburdening the health system or response measures limiting usual programmatic activities. We aimed to quantify the extent to which disruptions to services for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria in low-income and middle-income countries with high burdens of these diseases could lead to additional loss of life over the next 5 years.

          Methods

          Assuming a basic reproduction number of 3·0, we constructed four scenarios for possible responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: no action, mitigation for 6 months, suppression for 2 months, or suppression for 1 year. We used established transmission models of HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria to estimate the additional impact on health that could be caused in selected settings, either due to COVID-19 interventions limiting activities, or due to the high demand on the health system due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Findings

          In high-burden settings, deaths due to HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria over 5 years could increase by up to 10%, 20%, and 36%, respectively, compared with if there was no COVID-19 pandemic. The greatest impact on HIV was estimated to be from interruption to antiretroviral therapy, which could occur during a period of high health system demand. For tuberculosis, the greatest impact would be from reductions in timely diagnosis and treatment of new cases, which could result from any prolonged period of COVID-19 suppression interventions. The greatest impact on malaria burden could be as a result of interruption of planned net campaigns. These disruptions could lead to a loss of life-years over 5 years that is of the same order of magnitude as the direct impact from COVID-19 in places with a high burden of malaria and large HIV and tuberculosis epidemics.

          Interpretation

          Maintaining the most critical prevention activities and health-care services for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria could substantially reduce the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Funding

          Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, UK Department for International Development, and Medical Research Council.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis

          Summary Background In the face of rapidly changing data, a range of case fatality ratio estimates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been produced that differ substantially in magnitude. We aimed to provide robust estimates, accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases. Methods We collected individual-case data for patients who died from COVID-19 in Hubei, mainland China (reported by national and provincial health commissions to Feb 8, 2020), and for cases outside of mainland China (from government or ministry of health websites and media reports for 37 countries, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, until Feb 25, 2020). These individual-case data were used to estimate the time between onset of symptoms and outcome (death or discharge from hospital). We next obtained age-stratified estimates of the case fatality ratio by relating the aggregate distribution of cases to the observed cumulative deaths in China, assuming a constant attack rate by age and adjusting for demography and age-based and location-based under-ascertainment. We also estimated the case fatality ratio from individual line-list data on 1334 cases identified outside of mainland China. Using data on the prevalence of PCR-confirmed cases in international residents repatriated from China, we obtained age-stratified estimates of the infection fatality ratio. Furthermore, data on age-stratified severity in a subset of 3665 cases from China were used to estimate the proportion of infected individuals who are likely to require hospitalisation. Findings Using data on 24 deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9–19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9–28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for censoring) of 3·67% (95% CrI 3·56–3·80). However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment, we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27–0·38] in those aged <60 years vs 6·4% [5·7–7·2] in those aged ≥60 years), up to 13·4% (11·2–15·9) in those aged 80 years or older. Estimates of case fatality ratio from international cases stratified by age were consistent with those from China (parametric estimate 1·4% [0·4–3·5] in those aged <60 years [n=360] and 4·5% [1·8–11·1] in those aged ≥60 years [n=151]). Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33), with an increasing profile with age. Similarly, estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0–7·6) in those aged 80 years or older. Interpretation These early estimates give an indication of the fatality ratio across the spectrum of COVID-19 disease and show a strong age gradient in risk of death. Funding UK Medical Research Council.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mitigation and suppression in low- and middle-income countries

            The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses a severe threat to public health worldwide. We combine data on demography, contact patterns, disease severity, and health care capacity and quality to understand its impact and inform strategies for its control. Younger populations in lower income countries may reduce overall risk but limited health system capacity coupled with closer inter-generational contact largely negates this benefit. Mitigation strategies that slow but do not interrupt transmission will still lead to COVID-19 epidemics rapidly overwhelming health systems, with substantial excess deaths in lower income countries due to the poorer health care available. Of countries that have undertaken suppression to date, lower income countries have acted earlier. However, this will need to be maintained or triggered more frequently in these settings to keep below available health capacity, with associated detrimental consequences for the wider health, well-being and economies of these countries.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              COVID-19: the case for health-care worker screening to prevent hospital transmission

              The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has placed unprecedented strain on health-care services worldwide, leading to more than 100 000 deaths worldwide, as of April 15, 2020. 1 Most testing for SARS-CoV-2 aims to identify current infection by molecular detection of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen; this involves a RT-PCR of viral RNA in fluid, typically obtained from the nasopharynx or oropharynx. 2 The global approach to SARS-CoV-2 testing has been non-uniform. In South Korea, testing has been extensive, with emphasis on identifying individuals with respiratory illness, and tracing and testing any contacts. Other countries (eg, Spain) initially limited testing to individuals with severe symptoms or those at high risk of developing them. Here we outline the case for mass testing of both symptomatic and asymptomatic health-care workers (HCWs) to: (1) mitigate workforce depletion by unnecessary quarantine; (2) reduce spread in atypical, mild, or asymptomatic cases; and (3) protect the health-care workforce. Staff shortages in health care are significant amidst the global effort against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the UK, guidance for staffing of intensive care units has changed drastically, permitting specialist critical care nurse-to-patient ratios of 1:6 when supported by non-specialists (normally 1:1) and one critical care consultant per 30 patients (formerly 1:8–1:15). 3 Fears of the impact of this shortage have led to other measures that would, in normal circumstances, be considered extreme: junior doctors’ rotations have been temporarily halted during the outbreak; annual leave for staff has been delayed; and doctors undertaking research activities have been redeployed. Workforce depletion will not only affect health care; the Independent Care Group, representing care homes in the UK, has suggested that social care is already “at full stretch”, 4 with providers calling for compulsory testing of social and health workers to maintain staffing. In spite of this, a lack of effective testing has meant that a large number of HCWs are self-isolating (125 000 HCWs, according to one report 5 ). In one small sample, only one in seven self-isolating HCWs were found to have the virus. 6 A letter to National Health Service (NHS) Trust executives on April 12, 2020, outlined that priority is being given to staff in critical care, emergency departments, and ambulance services to prevent the impact of absenteeism in those areas. 7 Increased testing capacity will enable all staff who are self-isolating unnecessarily to bolster a depleted workforce. Asymptomatic HCWs are an underappreciated potential source of infection and worthy of testing. The number of asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 is significant. In a study of COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 328 of the 634 positive cases (51·7%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. 8 Estimated asymptomatic carriage was 17·9%. 8 Among 215 obstetric cases in New York City, 29 (87·9%) of 33 positive cases were asymptomatic, 9 whereas China's National Health Commission 10 recorded on April 1, 2020, that 130 (78%) of 166 positive cases were asymptomatic. Moreover, transmission before the onset of symptoms has been reported11, 12, 13, 14 and might have contributed to spread among residents of a nursing facility in Washington, USA. 15 Furthermore, evidence from modelled COVID-19 infectiousness profiles suggests that 44% of secondary cases were infected during the presymptomatic phase of illnesses from index cases, 16 whereas a study of COVID-19 cases in a homeless shelter in Boston, MA, USA, implies that individual COVID-19 symptoms might be uncommon and proposed universal testing irrespective of symptomatic burden. 17 Substantial asymptomatic transmission might also mean that current estimates of the basic reproduction number, R0, for COVID-19 are inaccurate. 18 HCW testing could reduce in-hospital transmission. In a retrospective, single-centre study in Wuhan, 41% of 138 patients were thought to have acquired infection in hospital. 19 At the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport, Wales, approximately half of the emergency room workforce have tested positive. 20 Blanket testing near Venice, Italy, helped to identify asymptomatic cases and might have helped eliminate SARS-CoV-2 in a village. 21 Moreover, asymptomatic and presymptomatic HCWs continue to commute to places of work where personal protective equipment (PPE) might be suboptimal. This disease spread could, in turn, propagate out of hospitals: during a period of lockdown asymptomatic COVID-19 carriage among hospital staff could conceivably act as a potent source of ongoing transmission. Protecting the health of HCWs is paramount when staffing is limited. As well as by the provision of adequate PPE, the wellbeing of HCWs can be promoted by ensuring that infected colleagues are promptly tested and isolated. The scale of this problem is not yet fully understood, nor is the full potential for asymptomatic and presymptomatic HCWs to transmit infection to patients who do not have COVID-19, other HCWs, or the public. However, given that asymptomatic transmission has been documented, utmost caution is urged.11, 12, 13, 14 Our own NHS Trust at University College London Hospitals, London, UK, will soon be testing asymptomatic HCWs. In partnership with the Francis Crick Institute in London, UK, where COVID-19 testing will be performed, this initiative is an attempt to further limit nosocomial transmission. It could also alleviate a critical source of anxiety for HCWs. 22 A healthy, COVID-19-free workforce that is not burned out will be an asset to the prolonged response to the COVID-19 crisis. As testing facilities increase in number and throughput in the coming weeks, testing should aim to accommodate weekly or fortnightly screening of HCWs working in high-risk areas. There is a powerful case in support of mass testing of both symptomatic and asymptomatic HCWs to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission. At the time of writing, the UK is capable of performing 18 000 tests per day, 23 with the Health Secretary targeting a capacity of 100 000 tests per day by the end of April, 2020. Initially, the focus of testing was patients, with NHS England stating only 15% of available testing would be used to test NHS staff. 24 Although this cap has been lifted, symptomatic HCWs, rather than asymptomatic HCWs, are currently prioritised in testing. This approach could mean that presymptomatic HCWs who are capable of transmitting the virus are not being tested; if they were tested and found to be COVID-19 positive, they could be advised to isolate and await the onset of symptoms or, if no symptoms develop, undergo repeat testing. As countries seek to flatten the growth phase of COVID-19, we see a significant opportunity in expanding testing among HCWs; this will be critical when pursuing an exit strategy from strict lockdown measures that curb spread of the virus.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global Health
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                2214-109X
                13 July 2020
                13 July 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Medical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [b ]Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Timothy B Hallett, Medical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, UK timothy.hallett@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                [†]

                Contributed equally

                Article
                S2214-109X(20)30288-6
                10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30288-6
                7357988
                32673577
                b9ece047-6c81-450d-965e-2edea392ae63
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article