Objective. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of COVID-19 in Rostov region. Material and methods. This article focuses on social and economic aspects of COVID-19. By estimating direct medical costs and gross domestic product (GDP) losses (sick leave days), we assessed the economic damage caused by the pandemic in Rostov region. When calculating direct medical costs, we considered per-case costs of completed outpatient and inpatient treatment and costs of laboratory testing (identification of coronavirus). When calculating the costs associated with paid sick Rostov region in 2020. Results. We found that COVID-19-associated direct medical costs and GDP losses (sick leave days) were 3,174,344,917.04 RUB. Almost half (42.7%) of direct medical costs were spent on outpatient treatment. GDP losses were 1,014,047,274.24 RUB. Conclusion. In addition to the direct impact on the health of vulnerable individuals, current pandemic will inevitably cause longterm socioeconomic consequences for both people and the economy. The assessment of the socioeconomic impact of COVID-19 is important to develop effective preventive and anti-epidemic measures, as well as to make optimal management decisions. Key words: GDP losses, pandemic, direct medical costs, PCR diagnostics, Rostov region, COVID-19

No abstract

No abstract

The authors stress in the paper that at a moment when a large-scale administrative reform of controlsurveillance activities in the Russian Federation took place there was an efficient tool greatly compatible with control and surveillance activities, a so called social-hygienic monitoring system. When control and surveillance activities and social and hygienic monitoring are brought together, it is a process when mutual integration of both systems takes place; results obtained in one of them give grounds for planning in another. Control and surveillance activities should give precise and targeted recommendations for the social social-hygienic monitoring system for those objects which are to be observed systematically. Both systems accumulate data on which obligatory requirement this or that surveillance object is likely to violate. The monitoring systems allows to make scientifically grounded choice on observation points and monitoring programs development taking all zones influenced by risk sources into account. Measurement results are aimed at validated and precise determination of unacceptable health risk occurrence or threats to human life or health as well as an object causing such threats. But still each systems continues to solve each own tasks attributable only to it. Both systems, social-hygienic monitoring and control and surveillance activates, are becoming dynamic. Monitoring points and observations programs are changing in accordance with surveillance authorities actions and economic entities reactions to such actions. Control and surveillance authorities get another tool which helps to further validate their efficiency over the previous time periods. System management processes are cyclic and have time gaps between specific stages during a year; it causes substantial time expenses which are necessary to obtain optimal parameters. The overall management cycle for one system is equal to 4 years, and for combined systems, 8 years.

Despite the fact that the incidence of leprosy in Russia is sporadic, the number of newly identified patients has increased in recent years. In 2017–2018, 4 new cases of leprosy were registered in Russia. The standard methods of research for diagnosis, in addition to the clinical picture, are bacterioscopic study of the skin scarificates and histological study of the skin biopsy specimen. Currently, additional methods are being developed and used to confirm the diagnosis of leprosy, namely, modern serological and genetic diagnostic methods. To use methods such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and membrane immunochromatographic analysis (leprosy LF serotest), it is appropriate to use domestic synthetic mycobacterial antigens (SMA). Key words: Mycobacterium leprae, leprosy, synthetic mycobacterial antigens, PGL-1(phenolic glycolipid-1), LAM (lipoarabinomannan), serodiagnostics, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow (LF) test, BSA (bovine serum albumin)