Search

ObjectivesWhile almost 60% of the world has received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, the global distribution of vaccination has not been equitable. Only 4% of the population of low-income countries (LICs) has received a full primary vaccine series, compared with over 70% of the population of high-income nations.DesignWe used economic and epidemiological models, parameterised with public data on global vaccination and COVID-19 deaths, to estimate the potential benefits of scaling up vaccination programmes in LICs and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) in 2022 in the context of global spread of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV2.SettingLow-income and lower-middle-income nations.Main outcome measuresOutcomes were expressed as number of avertable deaths through vaccination, costs of scale-up and cost per death averted. We conducted sensitivity analyses over a wide range of parameter estimates to account for uncertainty around key inputs.FindingsGlobally, universal vaccination in LIC/LMIC with three doses of an mRNA vaccine would result in an estimated 1.5 million COVID-19 deaths averted with a total estimated cost of US$61 billion and an estimated cost-per-COVID-19 death averted of US$40 800 (sensitivity analysis range: US$7400–US$81 500). Lower estimated infection fatality ratios, higher cost-per-dose and lower vaccine effectiveness or uptake lead to higher cost-per-death averted estimates in the analysis.ConclusionsScaling up COVID-19 global vaccination would avert millions of COVID-19 deaths and represents a reasonable investment in the context of the value of a statistical life. Given the magnitude of expected mortality facing LIC/LMIC without vaccination, this effort should be an urgent priority.

BackgroundOver one million COVID-19 deaths have been recorded in the United States. Sustained global SARS-CoV-2 transmission has led to the emergence of new variants with increased transmissibility, virulence, and/or immune evasion. The specific burden of mortality from each variant over the course of the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic remains unclear.MethodsWe constructed an epidemiologic model using data reported by the CDC on COVID-19 mortality and circulating variant proportions to estimate the number of recorded COVID-19 deaths attributable to each SARS-CoV-2 variant in the U.S. We conducted sensitivity analysis to account for parameter uncertainty.FindingsOf the 1,003,419 COVID-19 deaths recorded as of May 12, 2022, we estimate that 460,124 (46%) were attributable to WHO-designated variants. By U.S. Census Region, the South recorded the most variant deaths per capita (median estimate 158 per 100,000), while the Northeast recorded the fewest (111 per 100,000). Over 40 percent of national COVID-19 deaths were estimated to be caused by the combination of Alpha (median estimate 39,548 deaths), Delta (273,801), and Omicron (117,560).InterpretationSARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged around the world have imposed a significant mortality burden in the U.S. In addition to national public health strategies, greater efforts are needed to lower the risk of new variants emerging, including through global COVID-19 vaccination, treatment, and outbreak mitigation.

Oral cavity cancer represents a heterogeneous group of cancers with unique etiologic, diagnostic, and treatment considerations based on the subsite. While decreases in smoking have resulted in the development of fewer oral cavity cancers, the incidence remains high in certain geographic areas. History and physical examination, as well as tissue biopsy, are key to diagnosis. Although surgical resection is the primary treatment modality for oral cavity cancer, the optimal treatment plan for a patient is an individualized approach accounting for comorbidities, goals of care, and functional outcomes related to speech and swallowing.

BackgroundWhile almost 60% of the world has received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, the global distribution of vaccination has not been equitable. Only 4% of the population of low-income countries has received a full primary vaccine series, compared to over 70% of the population of high-income nations.MethodsWe used economic and epidemiologic models, parameterized with public data on global vaccination and COVID-19 deaths, to estimate the potential benefits of scaling up vaccination programs in low and lower-middle income countries (LIC/LMIC) in 2022 in the context of global spread of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV2. Outcomes were expressed as number of avertable deaths through vaccination, costs of scale-up, and cost per death averted. We conducted sensitivity analyses over a wide range of parameter estimates to account for uncertainty around key inputs.FindingsGlobal scale up of vaccination to provide two doses of mRNA vaccine to everyone in LIC/LMIC would cost $35.5 billion and avert 1.3 million deaths from COVID-19, at a cost of $26,900 per death averted. Scaling up vaccination to provide three doses of mRNA vaccine to everyone in LIC/LMIC would cost $61.2 billion and avert 1.5 million deaths from COVID-19 at a cost of $40,800 per death averted. Lower estimated infection fatality ratios, higher cost-per-dose, and lower vaccine effectiveness or uptake lead to higher cost-per-death averted estimates in the analysis.InterpretationScaling up COVID-19 global vaccination would avert millions of COVID-19 deaths and represents a reasonable investment in the context of the value of a statistical life (VSL). Given the magnitude of expected mortality facing LIC/LMIC without vaccination, this effort should be an urgent priority.

Brucellosis is a form of zoonotic infection caused by various Brucella organisms. It most commonly presents as a case of pyrexia of unknown origin, alongside symptoms such as night sweats, malaise, arthralgias, and myalgias. This report describes the case of a man who presented with pyrexia of unknown origin for one month; he was diagnosed to be a case of brucellosis after enteric fever was ruled out. Investigations were ordered as it was a differential diagnosis with high clinical suspicion due to the presenting complaint and potential exposure of tainted consumable products. The systemic disease was determined to be brucellosis following blood results demonstrating positive antibody titers, and the suspicion of exposure due to widespread inadequacies in sterilization of food products.

Erythema nodosum is a form of panniculitis that presents as red lumps most commonly on the shins. It commonly presents due to tuberculosis, streptococcal infections, sarcoidosis, or can be drug related. This report describes the case of a young woman who presented with erythema nodosum and reactive arthritis; this was determined to be a sequelae of tuberculosis. Investigations were ordered as there was a high level of clinical suspicion for an underlying systemic cause for the presenting complaints. The systemic condition was determined to be tuberculosis due to the endemic environment and a positive tuberculin skin test.

Securing access to effective antimicrobials is one of the greatest challenges today. Until now, efforts to address this issue have been isolated and uncoordinated, with little focus on sustainable and international solutions. Global collective action is necessary to improve access to life-saving antimicrobials, conserving them, and ensuring continued innovation. Access, conservation, and innovation are beneficial when achieved independently, but much more effective and sustainable if implemented in concert within and across countries. WHO alone will not be able to drive these actions. It will require a multisector response (including the health, agriculture, and veterinary sectors), global coordination, and financing mechanisms with sufficient mandates, authority, resources, and power. Fortunately, securing access to effective antimicrobials has finally gained a place on the global political agenda, and we call on policy makers to develop, endorse, and finance new global institutional arrangements that can ensure robust implementation and bold collective action.

Global collective action is needed to address the growing transnational threat of antibiotic resistance (ABR). Some commentators have recommended an international legal agreement as the most promising mechanism for coordinating such action. While much has been said about what must be done to address ABR, far less work has analyzed how or where such collective action should be facilitated - even though the success of any international agreement depends greatly on where it is negotiated and implemented. This article evaluates four different forums that states may use to develop an international legal agreement for antibiotic resistance: (1) a self-organized venue; (2) the World Health Organization; (3) the World Trade Organization; and (4) the United Nations General Assembly. The need for a multisectoral approach and the diverse institutional landscape suggest that an effective response may best be coordinated through linked action pursued through multiple forums.

Antimicrobial resistance is recognized as a grave threat to global health.1,2 It already causes an estimated 700 000 deaths annually and – without effective action – is predicted to cause 10 million deaths annually by 2050.3 The World Health Organization (WHO) has prepared a draft Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance that will be discussed at this year’s World Health Assembly.4 However, more is required if the world is to grapple effectively with this huge and complex problem. Global collective action is required in three areas: (i) access, to ensure that the prevention tools, diagnostics and therapies needed to reduce the infectious disease burden are available and affordable to everyone, everywhere; (ii) conservation, to reduce the need for antimicrobials and ensure their responsible use through prevention efforts, infection control, surveillance and appropriate prescriptions; and (iii) innovation, to develop the next generation of antimicrobials, vaccines, diagnostics and infection control technologies. The problem of antimicrobial resistance requires that all three areas be tackled simultaneously. Without conservation and innovation, universal access will simply drive resistance and deplete existing stocks of effective antimicrobials. Conservation, if pursued alone, will constrict the market for antimicrobials, restrict investment and innovation in the field and hinder access.5 Innovation without conservation will waste new drugs and diminish the value of investments. Innovation without better access is inequitable. Like the legs of a tripod, each area needs the support of the other two. However, solving the issues of access, conservation and innovation simultaneously will require new coordination and financing mechanisms, some of which must be organized globally. To avert millions of deaths caused by treatable infections, access to antimicrobials should be scaled-up for the many people worldwide who cannot obtain or afford such drugs. Access could be facilitated by equitable pricing or licensing models, but external resources will be required to subsidize access for the world’s poorest people. Such subsidies create common benefit, by reducing disease transmission and preventing reservoirs of resistant pathogens created by inconsistent use. Conservation activities should continue to be directed by national and local governments but global standards are needed for surveillance, infection control, health-worker training, sales promotion, direct-to-consumer advertising and safeguards against incentives for overuse.6 Although public innovation funding will realistically continue to flow mostly from national budgets, stronger coordination is needed among key research funders and commercial investors in innovation. Some funding and rewards should also be pooled globally. To avoid incentives for overuse, rewards will need to be delinked, entirely or partially, from volume of sales.7,8 The financial contributions from countries should be differentiated according to their means. Given these global coordination issues, there is a clear role for a binding international legal framework to encompass the issues of access, conservation and innovation. When paired with strong implementation mechanisms,9 international law represents the strongest possible way in which countries can commit themselves to act.10 Where and how should this be done? While a small number of high-income countries could make progress on innovation,11 long-term success on conservation and access requires nearly universal participation. Several options could be explored but two seem particularly salient and should be pursued in parallel. One is the development of a new WHO regulation, under Article 21 of WHO’s Constitution, that is akin to, but separate from, the International Health Regulations.12 Any Article 21 regulation is automatically binding on all WHO’s Member States – unless a Member State opts out. The second option is the development of a new international treaty negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly. Our future health depends on forming an international legal framework that resolves – or at least substantially reduces – the problem of antimicrobial resistance.

A recent review of WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) implementation database revealed numerous inconsistencies with national implementation reports. Since this database is integral to achieving compliance with FCTC, we must advocate for a stronger WHO that is capable of correctly reporting national FCTC implementation data and leading the global tobacco control movement.