Search

In Parintins, Brazil, an increased rate of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-associated hospitalization, from 75.5 cases/100,000 persons in November 2020 to 397 cases/100,000 persons in February 2021, led to an unprecedent health [...]

Through active surveillance and contact tracing from outpatients, we aimed to identify and characterize SARS‐CoV‐2 variants circulating in Porto Velho‐Rondônia, a city in the Brazilian Amazon. As part of a prospective cohort, we gathered information from 2,506 individuals among COVID‐19 patients and household contacts. Epidemiological data, nasopharyngeal swabs, and blood samples were collected from all participants. Nasopharyngeal swabs were tested for antigen rapid diagnostic test and reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) followed by genomic sequencing. Blood samples underwent ELISA testing for IgA, IgG, and IgM antibody levels. From 757 specimens sequenced, three were identified as Mu variant, none of the individuals carrying this variant had a travel history in the previous 15 days before diagnosis. One case was asymptomatic and two presented mild symptoms. Two infected individuals from different households caring viruses with additional amino acid substitutions ORF7a P45L and ORF1a T1055A compared to the Mu virus reference sequence. One patient presented IgG levels. Our results highlight that genomic surveillance for SARS‐CoV‐2 variants can assist in detecting the emergency of SARS‐CoV‐2 variants in the community, before its identification in other parts of the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High case counts after the Gamma (P. 1) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 emerged in Brazil raised concerns that previously infected persons might become reinfected. Investigation of a cluster of coronavirus disease cases in Parintins, in the Brazilian Amazon, suggested household transmission but did not identify high rates of reinfection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Brazil and Colombia have pursued extensive reforms of their health care systems in the last couple of decades. The purported goals of such reforms were to improve access, increase efficiency and reduce health inequities. Notwithstanding their common goals, each country sought a very different pathway to achieve them. While Brazil attempted to reestablish a greater level of State control through a public national health system, Colombia embraced market competition under an employer-based social insurance scheme. This work thus aims to shed some light onto why they pursued divergent strategies and what that has meant in terms of health outcomes., Methods: A critical review of the literature concerning equity frameworks, as well as the health care reforms in Brazil and Colombia was conducted. Then, the shortfall inequality values of crude mortality rate, infant mortality rate, under-five mortality rate, and life expectancy for the period 1960-2005 were calculated for both countries. Subsequently, bivariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed and controlled for possibly confounding factors., Results: When controlling for the underlying historical time trend, both countries appear to have experienced a deceleration of the pace of improvements in the years following the reforms, for all the variables analyzed. In the case of Colombia, some of the previous gains in under-five mortality rate and crude mortality rate were, in fact, reversed., Conclusions: Neither reform seems to have had a decisive positive impact on the health outcomes analyzed for the defined time period of this research. This, in turn, may be a consequence of both internal characteristics of the respective reforms and external factors beyond the direct control of health reformers. Among the internal characteristics: underfunding, unbridled decentralization and inequitable access to care seem to have been the main constraints. Conversely, international economic adversities, high levels of rural and urban violence, along with entrenched income inequalities seem to have accounted for the highest burden among external factors.