Are we ready to deal with a global COVID-19 pandemic? Rethinking countries' capacity based on the Global Health Security Index

High Global Health Security Index is a determinant of early detection and response to monkeypox: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Recent outbreaks of monkeypox (Mpox) have occurred in countries outside of Africa, with large numbers of cases spreading rapidly to almost every continent. We aimed to analyze the correlation between the Global Health Security (GHS) Index (categories and indicators) and the Mpox case rate in different regions and globally.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we used data from Mpox cases from the WHO, and the GHS categories and indicators for detection, prevention, reporting, health system, rapid response, international norms compliance, and risk environment. Outcome measures were the relationship between GHS index (categories and indicators) and Mpox case rate using crude and adjusted non-linear regression models.

RESULTS

After performing adjusted analyses, only risk environment and detection and reporting index were associated with Mpox case rates in the 99 countries and the Region of the Americas, respectively. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) indicators of the prevention category, risk communication of the rapid response category, the joint external evaluation and performance veterinary services of the norms category, and the infrastructure adequacy of the risk environment category were associated with Mpox case rates in the 99 countries (p<0.05). Laboratory systems strength and quality indicator of the detection and reporting category, and emergency response operation indicator of the response rapid category were associated with Mpox case rates in the countries of the region of the Americas (p<0.05). AMR indicator of the prevention of the emergence category, and the infrastructure adequacy of the risk environment category were associated with Mpox case rates in the countries of the European Region (p<0.05). In the countries of the other regions, only the trade and travel restrictions indicator of the rapid response category was associated with Mpox case rates (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Countries, particularly in the Americas region, with high levels of infrastructure adequacy and laboratory system strength and quality as measured by the GHS index are better equipped to detect more Mpox cases. Therefore, they have higher Mpox case detection rates and can successfully respond to Mpox outbreaks.

Monkeypox Outbreak in Peru

Monkeypox (Mpox) is a zoonotic disease caused by the Orthopoxvirus monkeypox virus (MPXV). Since 1970, outbreaks of MPXV have occurred in several Sub-Saharan African countries. However, from May 2022 to April 2023, recent outbreaks of Mpox occurred in several countries outside of Africa, and these cases quickly spread to over 100 non-endemic countries on all continents. Most of these cases were found in the region of the Americas and the Europe region. In Latin America, the highest all-age Mpox rates per million inhabitants were in Peru, Colombia, Chile, and Brazil. Given its global impact, Mpox was declared as an international Public Health Emergency by WHO in July 2022. MPXV infection disproportionately affects men who have sex with men and members of the HIV-infected population. Vaccination is the current strategy for controlling and preventing Mpox in high-risk groups. In this context, Peru has the fourth-highest number of Mpox cases in Latin America and faces significant challenges in disease control. Because of this, in this review, we discuss the epidemiology, public health indicators, and prevention of Mpox in the 2022 Peru outbreak so that health authorities can join forces to control MPXV transmission.

Impact of Vaccination and Control Measures on the Fatality of COVID-19: An Ecological Study

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing the case fatality rate (CFR) becomes an urgent goal.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the effect of vaccination and variants on COVID-19 fatality and provide a basis for the adjustment of control measures.

METHODS

This study collected epidemiological information on COVID-19 from January to October 2021. By setting different lag times, we calculated the adjusted CFR. The Spearman correlation coefficient and beta regression were used to explore factors that may affect COVID-19 fatality.

RESULTS

Every 1% increase in the percentage of full vaccinations may reduce the 3 weeks lagging CFR by 0.66%. Increasing the restrictions on internal movement from level 0 to 1, restrictions on international travel controls from level 2 to 3, and stay-at-home restrictions from level 0 to 2 were associated with an average reduction in 3 weeks lagging CFR of 0.20%, 0.39%, and 0.36%, respectively. Increasing strictness in canceling public events from level 0 to 1 and 2 may reduce the 3 weeks lagging CFR by 0.49% and 0.37, respectively. Increasing the severity of school and workplace closures from level 1 or level 0 to 3 may increase the 3 weeks lagging CFR of 0.39% and 0.83, respectively. Every 1-point increase in the Global Health Security (GHS) index score may increase the 3 weeks lagging CFR by 0.12%.

CONCLUSION

A higher percentage of full vaccinations, higher levels of internal movement restrictions, international travel control restrictions, cancelations of public events, and stay-at-home restrictions are factors that may reduce the adjusted CFR.

Analyzing the GHSI puzzle of whether highly developed countries fared worse in COVID-19

Global Health Security Index (GHSI) categories are formulated to assess the capacity of world countries to deal with infectious disease risks. Thus, higher values of these indices were expected to translate to lower COVID-19 severity. However, it turned out to be the opposite, surprisingly suggesting that higher estimated country preparedness to epidemics may lead to higher disease mortality. To address this puzzle, we: (i) use a model-derived measure of COVID-19 severity; (ii) employ a range of statistical learning approaches, including non-parametric machine learning methods; (iii) consider the overall excess mortality, in addition to official COVID-19 fatality counts. Our results suggest that the puzzle is, to a large extent, an artifact of oversimplified data analysis and a consequence of misclassified COVID-19 deaths, combined with the higher median age of the population and earlier epidemics onset in countries with high GHSI scores.

Global mapping of epidemic risk assessment toolkits: A scoping review for COVID-19 and future epidemics preparedness implications

Preparedness and responses to infectious disease epidemics and pandemics require the understanding of communities’ and multisectoral systems’ characteristics with regards to diseases transmission and population’s vulnerabilities. This study aimed to summarize measurement profiles of existing risk assessment toolkits to inform COVID-19 control at global and national levels. An online search in different databases and online sources was performed to identify all epidemic risk and vulnerability assessment instruments. Medline/PubMed, Web of Science databases, and websites of public health organizations were used for the searching process. Of 14 toolkits, levels of setting were mostly at the global or nation level. Components such as Governance and Legislation, Financing, Health Service Provision, and Human Resources are key domains in almost all toolkits. Some important issues for disease detection and surveillance, such as laboratory or capacity of the community for disease control, were not adequately addressed in several toolkits. Limited studies were found that validated the toolkits. Only five toolkits were used in COVID-19 studies. This study provides a summary of risk assessment toolkits to inform epidemic responses. We call for global and national efforts in developing more contextualized and responsive epidemic risk assessment scales incorporating specific-disease and -country factors to inform operational decisions making and strengthen countries’ capacities in epidemic responses.

The predictors of COVID-19 mortality among health systems parameters: an ecological study across 203 countries

Background

Health systems responsiveness is the key to addressing infectious disease threats such as pandemics. The paper outlines an assessment of health systems resilience by exploring the association of health systems and Global Health Security (GHS) parameters with case load and mortality resulting from COVID-19 across 203 countries using an ecological design.

Methodology

Correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationship of each of the indicators with COVID 19 cases and deaths per million population. Stepwise multiple regression models were developed to determine the predictors of COVID-19 cumulative cases and deaths per million population separately.

Results

Global health security indicators seemed to have a strong association when analyzed individually but those did not necessarily translate into less burden of cases or deaths in the multivariable analysis. The predictors of cumulative deaths per million population included general government expenditure on health as a proportion of general government expenditure, responsiveness of the system to prevent the emergence and release of pathogens and governance related voice and accountability.

Conclusion

To conclude, health financing parameters and preventive activities with regard to emergence of pathogens were better predictors of cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths per million population compared to other health systems and global health security indicators.

Health financing parameters are better predictors of cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths per million population compared to other health systems and global health security indicators.

More robust and valid indicators are required to assess the performance of health system.

The Global Health Security Index: Another Look

The Global Health Security Index (GHSI) was published in October 2019 (after more than 2 years in preparation); at about the same time that the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID) started. The GHSI was intended to score countries' pandemic preparedness. Within months of the start of the pandemic, articles began to be published that claimed to assess the GHSI's validity. They correlated GHSI scores with countries' COVID per capita death rates. They showed that the better prepared a country, the higher the death rate: a result that was counter to what would have been expected. This article takes another look at the GHSI by exploring the relationship in major European Union countries plus the United Kingdom. The analysis reported here confirms that early on the higher the GHSI score, the higher the COVID per capita death rate (r = 0.52, P < 0.05). But, by the end of 2020, there was no correlation. By July 2021, the correlation was in the expected direction: the higher the GHSI score, the lower the COVID per capita death rate (r = -0.55, P < 0.05); ditto case fatality rate (r = -0.74, P < 0.01). Further, the GHSI was better correlated with excess mortality, the best measure of pandemic impact (r = -0.69, P < 0.01). However, per capita GDP was as good a predictor of excess mortality (r = -0.71, P < 0.01) and the Health System Performance Index of case fatality rate (r = -0.71; P < 0.01). By the end of 2021, the correlation between GHSI scores and COVID per capita death rates had strengthened (r = -0.71; P < 0.01). This exploratory analysis is not intended to produce generalizable conclusions about the effectiveness of countries' COVID pandemic response management, which continues to evolve and hence can only be properly assessed after the pandemic has ended. Nevertheless, the following conclusions would seem to be warranted: 1) there seems to have been a rush to judge, or, at least, to publish, and 2) the validity of any forward looking pandemic preparedness score depends not only on being able to assess countries' capabilities but also being able to forecast what governments will (and will not) do in any given situation, a seemingly quixotic quest.

Social Media Efficacy in Crisis Management: Effectiveness of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions to Manage COVID-19 Challenges

The new identified virus COVID-19 has become one of the most contagious diseases in human history. The ongoing coronavirus has created severe threats to global mental health, which have resulted in crisis management challenges and international concerns related to health issues. As of September 9, 2021, there were over 223.4 million patients with COVID-19, including 4.6 million deaths and over 200 million recovered patients reported worldwide, which has made the COVID-19 outbreak one of the deadliest pandemics in human history. The aggressive public health implementations endorsed various precautionary safety and preventive strategies to suppress and minimize COVID-19 disease transmission. The second, third, and fourth waves of COVID-19 continue to pose global challenges to crisis management, as its evolution and implications are still unfolding. This study posits that examining the strategic ripostes and pandemic experiences sheds light on combatting this global emergency. This study recommends two model strategies that help reduce the adverse effects of the pandemic on the immune systems of the general population. This present paper recommends NPI interventions (non-pharmaceutical intervention) to combine various measures, such as the suppression strategy (lockdown and restrictions) and mitigation model to decrease the burden on health systems. The current COVID-19 health crisis has influenced all vital economic sectors and developed crisis management problems. The global supply of vaccines is still not sufficient to manage this global health emergency. In this crisis, NPIs are helpful to manage the spillover impacts of the pandemic. It articulates the prominence of resilience and economic and strategic agility to resume economic activities and resolve healthcare issues. This study primarily focuses on the role of social media to tackle challenges and crises posed by COVID-19 on economies, business activities, healthcare burdens, and government support for societies to resume businesses, and implications for global economic and healthcare provision disruptions. This study suggests that intervention strategies can control the rapid spread of COVID-19 with hands-on crisis management measures, and the healthcare system will resume normal conditions quickly. Global economies will revitalize scientific contributions and collaborations, including social science and business industries, through government support.

Effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against severe illness in B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant-infected patients in Jiangsu, China

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant has caused a new surge in the number of COVID-19 cases. The effectiveness of inactivated vaccines against this variant is not fully understood.

Methods

Using data from a recent large-scale outbreak of B.1.617.2 SARS-CoV-2 infection in Jiangsu, China, we conducted a real-world study to explore the effect of inactivated vaccine immunization on the course of disease in patients infected with the Delta variant.

Results

Of 476 patients with B.1.617.2 infection, 184 were unvaccinated, 105 were partially vaccinated, and 187 were fully vaccinated. A total of 42 (8.8%) patients developed severe illness, of whom, 27 (14.7%), 13 (12.4%), and 2 (1.1%) were unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, and fully vaccinated, respectively (P <0.001). All 15 (3.2%) patients who required mechanical ventilation were unvaccinated. After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, fully vaccinated patients had an 88% reduced risk of progressing to severe illness (OR_adjusted: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02-0.45). However, this protective effect was not observed in partially vaccinated patients (OR_adjusted: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.51-2.36). Full immunization offered 100% protection from severe illness among women. The effect of the vaccine was potentially affected by underlying medical conditions (OR_adjusted: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.03-1.23).

Conclusion

Full vaccination with inactivated vaccines is highly effective in preventing severe illness in Delta variant–infected patients. However, partial vaccination does not offer clinically meaningful protection against severe disease.

Analysing COVID-19 outcomes in the context of the 2019 Global Health Security (GHS) Index

Introduction

The Global Health Security Index benchmarks countries’ capacities to carry out the functions necessary to prevent, detect and respond to biological threats. The COVID-19 pandemic served as an opportunity to evaluate whether the Index contained the correct array of variables that influence countries’ abilities to respond to these threats; assess additional variables that may influence preparedness; and examine how the impact of preparedness components change during public health crises.

Methods

Linear regression models were examined to determine the relationship between excess mortality per capita for the first 500 days of countries’ COVID-19 pandemic and internal Index variables, as well as external variables including social cohesion; island status; perceived corruption; elderly population size; previous epidemic experience; stringency of non-pharmaceutical interventions; and social and political polarisation.

Results

COVID-19 outcomes were significantly associated with sociodemographic, political and governance variables external to the 2019 Index: social cohesion, reduction in social polarisation and reduced perceptions of corruption were consistently correlated with reduced excess mortality throughout the pandemic. The association of other variables assessed by the Index, like epidemiological workforce robustness, changed over time. Fixed country features, including geographic connectedness, larger elderly population and lack of prior coronavirus outbreak experience were detrimental to COVID-19 outcomes. Finally, there was evidence that countries that lacked certain capacities were able to develop these over the course of the pandemic.

Conclusions

Additional sociodemographic, political and governance variables should be included in future indices to improve their ability to characterise preparedness. Fixed characteristics, while not directly addressable, are useful for establishing countries’ inherent risk profile and can motivate those at greater risk to invest in preparedness. Particular components of preparedness vary in their impact on outcomes over the course of the pandemic, which may inform resource direction during ongoing crises. Future research should seek to further characterise time-dependent impacts as additional COVID-19 outcome data become available.