In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission by restricting population movement through social distancing interventions, thus reducing the number of contacts. Mobility data represent an important proxy measure of social distancing, and here, we characterise the relationship between transmission and mobility for 52 countries around the world. Transmission significantly decreased with the initial reduction in mobility in 73% of the countries analysed, but we found evidence of decoupling of transmission and mobility following the relaxation of strict control measures for 80% of countries. For the majority of countries, mobility explained a substantial proportion of the variation in transmissibility (median adjusted R-squared: 48%, interquartile range - IQR - across countries [27–77%]). Where a change in the relationship occurred, predictive ability decreased after the relaxation; from a median adjusted R-squared of 74% (IQR across countries [49–91%]) pre-relaxation, to a median adjusted R-squared of 30% (IQR across countries [12–48%]) post-relaxation. In countries with a clear relationship between mobility and transmission both before and after strict control measures were relaxed, mobility was associated with lower transmission rates after control measures were relaxed indicating that the beneficial effects of ongoing social distancing behaviours were substantial.
Background Universal testing and treatment (UTT) is a potential strategy to reduce HIV incidence, yet prior trial results are inconsistent. We report results from HPTN 071 (PopART), the largest HIV prevention trial to date. Methods In this community-randomized trial (2013-18), 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa were randomized to Arm A (PopART intervention, universal antiretroviral therapy [ART]), Arm B (PopART intervention, ART per local guidelines), and Arm C (standard-of-care). The PopART intervention included home-based HIV-testing delivered by community workers who supported linkage-to-care, ART adherence, and other services. The primary outcome, HIV incidence between months 12-36, was measured in a Population Cohort (PC) of ~2,000 randomly-sampled adults/community aged 18-44y. Viral suppression (VS, <400 copies HIV RNA/ml) was measured in all HIV-positive PC participants at 24m. Results The PC included 48,301 participants. Baseline HIV prevalence was similar across study arms (21%-22%). Between months 12-36, 553 incident HIV infections were observed over 39,702 person-years (py; 1.4/100py; women: 1.7/100py; men: 0.8/100py). Adjusted rate-ratios were A vs. C: 0.93 (95%CI: 0.74-1.18, p=0.51); B vs. C: 0.70 (95%CI: 0.55-0.88, p=0.006). At 24m, VS was 71.9% in Arm A; 67.5% in Arm B; and 60.2% in Arm C. ART coverage after 36m was 81% in Arm A and 80% in Arm B. Conclusions The PopART intervention with ART per local guidelines reduced HIV incidence by 30%. The lack of effect with universal ART was surprising and inconsistent with VS data. This study provides evidence that UTT can reduce HIV incidence at population level. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01900977
Background To calculate hospital surge capacity, achieved via hospital provision interventions implemented for the emergency treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other patients through March to May 2020; to evaluate the conditions for admitting patients for elective surgery under varying admission levels of COVID-19 patients. Methods We analysed National Health Service (NHS) datasets and literature reviews to estimate hospital care capacity before the pandemic (pre-pandemic baseline) and to quantify the impact of interventions (cancellation of elective surgery, field hospitals, use of private hospitals, deployment of former medical staff and deployment of newly qualified medical staff) for treatment of adult COVID-19 patients, focusing on general and acute (G&A) and critical care (CC) beds, staff and ventilators. Results NHS England would not have had sufficient capacity to treat all COVID-19 and other patients in March and April 2020 without the hospital provision interventions, which alleviated significant shortfalls in CC nurses, CC and G&A beds and CC junior doctors. All elective surgery can be conducted at normal pre-pandemic levels provided the other interventions are sustained, but only if the daily number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 1550 in the whole of England. If the other interventions are not maintained, then elective surgery can only be conducted if the number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 320. However, there is greater national capacity to treat G&A patients: without interventions, it takes almost 10,000 G&A COVID-19 patients before any G&A elective patients would be unable to be accommodated. Conclusions Unless COVID-19 hospitalisations drop to low levels, there is a continued need to enhance critical care capacity in England with field hospitals, use of private hospitals or deployment of former and newly qualified medical staff to allow some or all elective surgery to take place.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.