No abstract

Background To date, several clinical laboratory parameters associated with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity have been reported. However, these parameters have not been observed consistently across studies. The aim of this review was to assess clinical laboratory parameters which may serve as markers or predictors of severe or critical COVID-19. Methods and findings We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases from 2019 through April 18, 2020, and reviewed bibliographies of eligible studies, relevant systematic reviews, and the medRxiv pre-print server. We included hospital-based observational studies reporting clinical laboratory parameters of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and excluded studies having large proportions (>10%) of children and pregnant women. Two authors independently carried out screening of articles, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analyses were done using random effects model. Meta-median difference (MMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each laboratory parameter. Forty-five studies in 6 countries were included. Compared to non-severe COVID-19 cases, severe or critical COVID-19 was characterised by higher neutrophil count (MMD: 1.23 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.88] ×10 9 cells/L), and lower lymphocyte, CD4 and CD8 T cell counts with MMD (95% CI) of-0.39 (-0.47,-0.31) ×10 9 cells/L,-204.9 (-302.6,-107.1) cells/μl and-123.6 (-170.6,-76.6) cells/μl, respectively. Other notable results were observed for C-reactive protein (MMD: 36.

Background Cervical cancer is a leading cause of death among Cameroon women. The burden of cervical cancer is in part traceable to the inadequate understanding of socio-contextual determinants of access to screening and prevention opportunities. We explored multilevel individual, community and structural factors that facilitate or inhibit cervical cancer prevention in women at risk in a low-income, high HIV prevalence context. Methods We utilized an exploratory qualitative approach to obtain data through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews from May to August, 2018. A two-stage purposive sampling strategy was used to select 80 women and 20 men who participated in 8 focus group discussions and 8 in-depth interviews. The socio-ecological model guided data analyses to identify micro-, meso-, and macro-level determinants of cervical cancer screening. Results Micro-level factors including lack of awareness and knowledge about cervical cancer, lack of access to information, excessive cost of cervical cancer screening, low risk perceptions, and poor health seeking behaviors were major barriers for women seeking cervical cancer screening. Meso-level factors, such as social networks, socio-cultural norms, perceptions of the role of men and HIV-related stigma when screening is integrated into HIV care, also engender negative attitudes and behaviors. Macro-level barriers to cervical cancer screening included poorly equipped health facilities and a lack of national cancer prevention policies and programs. Conclusion In the context of the call for elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem, our findings highlight challenges and opportunities that should be considered when implementing interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening in low-middle income settings.

Background: To date, several clinical laboratory parameters associated with COVID-19 severity have been reported. However, these parameters have not been observed consistently across studies. The aim of this review was to assess clinical laboratory parameters which may serve as markers or predictors of severe or critical COVID-19 disease Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases from 2019 through April 18, 2020, and reviewed bibliographies of eligible studies, relevant systematic reviews, and the medRxiv pre-print server. We included hospital-based observational studies reporting clinical laboratory parameters of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and excluded studies having large proportions (>10%) of children and pregnant women. Two authors independently carried out screening of articles, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analyses were done using random effects model. Meta-median difference (MMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each laboratory parameter. Results:Forty-five studies in 6 countries were included. Compared to non-severe COVID-19 cases, severe or critical COVID-19 disease was characterised by higher neutrophil count (MMD:1.23 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.88] ×10 9 cells/L), and lower lymphocyte and CD4 counts with MMD (95% CI) of -0.39 (-0.47, -0.31) ×10 9 cells/L and -204.9 (-302.6, -107.1) cells/μl, respectively.Other notable results were observed for C-reactive protein (MMD: 36.97 [95% CI: 27.58, 46.35] mg/L), interleukin-6 (MMD: 17.37 [95% CI: 4.74, 30.00] pg/ml,), Troponin I (MMD: 0.01 [0.00, 0.02] ng/ml), and D-dimer (MMD: 0.65 [0.45, 0.85] mg/ml).

There have been growing concerns of a potential re-establishment of measles transmission in the United States (US) in the years to come. This study aims to explore potential factors underlying the resurgence of measles in the US by objectively assessing the associations between annual incidence rates (AIR), case importation, vaccination status and disease outbreaks. Data on measles transmission between January 1st, 2001 and December 31st, 2019 were obtained from the national centres for disease control and prevention (CDC) surveillance databases and other published reports. Changes in incidence rates over time were assessed by binomial regression models. Of the 3874 cases of measles in the US over the study period, 3506 (90.5%, 95% CI: 89.5–91.4) occurred in US residents. The AIR per million population in US residents over this period was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.59–0.61), with an overall significant increase over time (p = 0.011). The median percentage of imported and vaccinated cases were 36% [17.9–46.6] and 15% [12.1–23.2] respectively. There was a significant decrease in the percentage of imported cases (p < 0.001) but not of vaccinated cases (p = 0.159) over time. There was a moderate and weak negative correlation between the AIR and the percentage of imported and vaccinated cases respectively (r = –0.59 and r = –0.27 respectively). On multiple linear regression there was a significant linear association between the AIR and the number of outbreaks (p = 0.003) but not with the percentage of imported cases (p = 0.436) and vaccinated cases (p = 0.692), R2 = 0.73. Strong negative and positive correlations were seen between the number of outbreaks and the percentage of imported cases (r = –0.61) and the of number states affected (r = 0.88) respectively. Despite the overall reduction in the percentage of imported cases of measles over the past two decades, pockets of internal transmission of the disease following importation via increasing number of outbreaks in unvaccinated subpopulations, reinforced by vaccine hesitancy, account for the sustained increase in measles incidence rates in the US. Controlling indigenous transmission through efficient vaccination coverage in at-risk subpopulations and among international US travellers, improved disease surveillance and rapid outbreak containment are essential in curbing the measles resurgence.