Effect of Loading Densities in Closed Vessel Tests on the Burning Rate of a Propelling Charge
In: Defence science journal: a journal devotet to science & technology in defence, Volume 65, Issue 2, p. 126-130
ISSN: 0011-748X
14 results
Sort by:
In: Defence science journal: a journal devotet to science & technology in defence, Volume 65, Issue 2, p. 126-130
ISSN: 0011-748X
In: Defence science journal: DSJ, Volume 65, Issue 2, p. 126-130
ISSN: 0011-748X
India, a country with the second largest population in the world, does not have a national newborn screening programme as part of its health policy. With funding support from the Grand Challenges Canada, a pilot newborn screening programme was implemented for the Udupi district of South India to study the need and viability of a national programme in India. Six disorders were selected for the study based on the availability of funding and recommendation from pediatricians in the district. Here, we report the observed incidence during the study. A cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing newborn screening in India was performed. It is evident from our analysis that the financial loss for the nation due to these preventable diseases is much higher than the overall expenditure for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. This cost-effectiveness analysis justifies the need for a national newborn screening programme in India.
BASE
BACKGROUND: Health conditions perceived as contagious, dangerous, or incurable are associated with some facets of social stigma. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 9, 2020 to June 9, 2020, among frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) in India to understand their perceived stigmatizing experiences (SE) and self-esteem during the COVID-19 pandemic. Google forms, an online forms tool, was used to create the survey, and samples were recruited through snowball sampling. Data comprised baseline characteristics of HCWs and their responses to the modified version of the Inventory of Stigmatizing Experiences and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. RESULTS: Of the 600 participants (mean age: 30.9 ± 6.7 years), 76% comprised of nurses. Most participants were residing in urban areas and working in government sectors in clinical areas. Approximately 66.3% HCWs had at least 1 SE, and 51.7% reported a high impact of stigma (SI) across their various life domains, viz. quality of life, social contacts, self-esteem, and family relations, but 73% had normal self-esteem. The SI was more at the family level than at the individual level. The prevalence of SE (69.5% vs. 56.6%) and psychosocial SI (54.5% vs. 44.1%) was higher among nurses than among doctors. Being a nurse and working in clinical areas were statistically significant (P < 0.05 and < 0.01, respectively) for predicting SE likelihood. CONCLUSION: Although HCWs have their own apprehensions, they do have high self-esteem and continue to deliver professional duties despite their SE. The government should frame guidelines to stop such discrimination and hail the saviors.
BASE
India, a country with the second largest population in the world, does not have a national newborn screening programme as part of its health policy. With funding support from the Grand Challenges Canada, a pilot newborn screening programme was implemented for the Udupi district of South India to study the need and viability of a national programme in India. Six disorders were selected for the study based on the availability of funding and recommendation from pediatricians in the district. Here, we report the observed incidence during the study. A cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing newborn screening in India was performed. It is evident from our analysis that the financial loss for the nation due to these preventable diseases is much higher than the overall expenditure for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. This cost-effectiveness analysis justifies the need for a national newborn screening programme in India.
BASE
International audience ; PURPOSE: The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability.METHODS: On September 17-18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments.RESULTS: In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.
BASE
PURPOSE: The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. METHODS: On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. RESULTS: In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.
BASE
In: Costanzo , G , Misaggi , B , Ricciardi , L , AlEissa , S I , Tamai , K , Alhelal , F , Alqahtani , Y , Alsobayel , H I , Arand , M , Balsano , M , Blattert , T R , Brayda-Bruno , M , Busari , J O , Campello , M , Chhabra , H S , Tamburrelli , F C , Côté , P , Darwono , B , Kandziora , F , La Maida , G A , Muehlbauer , E J , Mulukutla , R D , Pereira , P , Rajasekaran , S , Rothenfluh , D A , Sullivan , W J , Truumees , E , Dohring , E J , Pigott , T , Shetty , A P , Teli , M G A , Wang , J C , Ames , C , Anema , J R , Bang , A , Cheung , K M C , Gross , D P , Haldeman , S , Minisola , S , Mullerpatan , R , Negrini , S , Salmi , L-R , Spinelli , M S , Vlok , A , Yankey , K P , Zaina , F , Alturkistany , A , Franke , J , Liljenqvist , U R , Piccirillo , M & Nordin , M 2022 , ' SPINE20 recommendations 2021 : spine care for people's health and prosperity ' , European Spine Journal , vol. 31 , no. 6 , pp. 1333-1342 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07194-y
PURPOSE: The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. METHODS: On September 17-18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. RESULTS: In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.
BASE
International audience ; PURPOSE: The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability.METHODS: On September 17-18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments.RESULTS: In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.
BASE
Purpose The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. Methods On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the partici- pants to object and provide comments. Results In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disor- ders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. Conclusions SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.
BASE
Background Improving survival and extending the longevity of life for all populations requires timely, robust evidence on local mortality levels and trends. The Global Burden of Disease 2015 Study (GBD 2015) provides a comprehensive assessment of all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1980 to 2015. These results informed an in-depth investigation of observed and expected mortality patterns based on sociodemographic measures. Methods We estimated all-cause mortality by age, sex, geography, and year using an improved analytical approach originally developed for GBD 2013 and GBD 2010. Improvements included refinements to the estimation of child and adult mortality and corresponding uncertainty, parameter selection for under-5 mortality synthesis by spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, and sibling history data processing. We also expanded the database of vital registration, survey, and census data to 14 294 geography–year datapoints. For GBD 2015, eight causes, including Ebola virus disease, were added to the previous GBD cause list for mortality. We used six modelling approaches to assess cause-specific mortality, with the Cause of Death Ensemble Model (CODEm) generating estimates for most causes. We used a series of novel analyses to systematically quantify the drivers of trends in mortality across geographies. First, we assessed observed and expected levels and trends of cause-specific mortality as they relate to the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary indicator derived from measures of income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. Second, we examined factors affecting total mortality patterns through a series of counterfactual scenarios, testing the magnitude by which population growth, population age structures, and epidemiological changes contributed to shifts in mortality. Finally, we attributed changes in life expectancy to changes in cause of death. We documented each step of the GBD 2015 estimation processes, as well as data sources, in accordance with Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Findings Globally, life expectancy from birth increased from 61·7 years (95% uncertainty interval 61·4–61·9) in 1980 to 71·8 years (71·5–72·2) in 2015. Several countries in sub-Saharan Africa had very large gains in life expectancy from 2005 to 2015, rebounding from an era of exceedingly high loss of life due to HIV/AIDS. At the same time, many geographies saw life expectancy stagnate or decline, particularly for men and in countries with rising mortality from war or interpersonal violence. From 2005 to 2015, male life expectancy in Syria dropped by 11·3 years (3·7–17·4), to 62·6 years (56·5–70·2). Total deaths increased by 4·1% (2·6–5·6) from 2005 to 2015, rising to 55·8 million (54·9 million to 56·6 million) in 2015, but age-standardised death rates fell by 17·0% (15·8–18·1) during this time, underscoring changes in population growth and shifts in global age structures. The result was similar for non-communicable diseases (NCDs), with total deaths from these causes increasing by 14·1% (12·6–16·0) to 39·8 million (39·2 million to 40·5 million) in 2015, whereas age-standardised rates decreased by 13·1% (11·9–14·3). Globally, this mortality pattern emerged for several NCDs, including several types of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, cirrhosis, and Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. By contrast, both total deaths and age-standardised death rates due to communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional conditions significantly declined from 2005 to 2015, gains largely attributable to decreases in mortality rates due to HIV/AIDS (42·1%, 39·1–44·6), malaria (43·1%, 34·7–51·8), neonatal preterm birth complications (29·8%, 24·8–34·9), and maternal disorders (29·1%, 19·3–37·1). Progress was slower for several causes, such as lower respiratory infections and nutritional deficiencies, whereas deaths increased for others, including dengue and drug use disorders. Age-standardised death rates due to injuries significantly declined from 2005 to 2015, yet interpersonal violence and war claimed increasingly more lives in some regions, particularly in the Middle East. In 2015, rotaviral enteritis (rotavirus) was the leading cause of under-5 deaths due to diarrhoea (146 000 deaths, 118 000–183 000) and pneumococcal pneumonia was the leading cause of under-5 deaths due to lower respiratory infections (393 000 deaths, 228 000–532 000), although pathogen-specific mortality varied by region. Globally, the effects of population growth, ageing, and changes in age-standardised death rates substantially differed by cause. Our analyses on the expected associations between cause-specific mortality and SDI show the regular shifts in cause of death composition and population age structure with rising SDI. Country patterns of premature mortality (measured as years of life lost [YLLs]) and how they differ from the level expected on the basis of SDI alone revealed distinct but highly heterogeneous patterns by region and country or territory. Ischaemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes were among the leading causes of YLLs in most regions, but in many cases, intraregional results sharply diverged for ratios of observed and expected YLLs based on SDI. Communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases caused the most YLLs throughout sub-Saharan Africa, with observed YLLs far exceeding expected YLLs for countries in which malaria or HIV/AIDS remained the leading causes of early death. Interpretation At the global scale, age-specific mortality has steadily improved over the past 35 years; this pattern of general progress continued in the past decade. Progress has been faster in most countries than expected on the basis of development measured by the SDI. Against this background of progress, some countries have seen falls in life expectancy, and age-standardised death rates for some causes are increasing. Despite progress in reducing age-standardised death rates, population growth and ageing mean that the number of deaths from most non-communicable causes are increasing in most countries, putting increased demands on health systems. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; We thank the countless individuals who have contributed to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 in various capacities. The data reported here have been supplied by the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Data for this research was provided by MEASURE Evaluation, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Collection of these data was made possible by USAID under the terms of cooperative agreement GPO-A-00-08-000_D3-00. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of USAID, the US Government, or MEASURE Evaluation. Parts of this material are based on data and information provided by the Canadian institute for Health Information. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed herein are those of the author and not those of the Canadian Institute for Health information. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics granted the researchers access to relevant data in accordance with licence number SLN2014-3-170, after subjecting data to processing aiming to preserve the confidentiality of individual data in accordance with the General Statistics Law–2000. The researchers are solely responsible for the conclusions and inferences drawn upon available data. The following individuals acknowledge various forms of institutional support. Simon I Hay is funded by a Senior Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (#095066), and grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1119467, OPP1093011, OPP1106023 and OPP1132415). Panniyammakal Jeemon is supported by a Clinical and Public Health Intermediate Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust-DBT India Alliance (2015–20). Luciano A Sposato is partly supported by the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund, London Health Sciences Foundation, London, ON, Canada. George A Mensah notes that the views expressed in this Article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, or the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Boris Bikbov acknowledges that work related to this paper has been done on the behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group supported by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN). Ana Maria Nogales Vasconcelos acknowledges that her team in Brazil received funding from Ministry of Health (process number 25000192049/2014-14). Rodrigo Sarmiento-Suarez receives institutional support from Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales, UDCA, Bogotá, Colombia. Ulrich O Mueller and Andrea Werdecker gratefully acknowledge funding by the German National Cohort BMBF (grant number OIER 1301/22). Peter James was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (Award K99CA201542). Brett M Kissela would like to acknowledge NIH/NINDS R-01 30678. Louisa Degenhardt is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research fellowship. Daisy M X Abreu received institutional support from the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Proc number 25000192049/2014-14). Jennifer H MacLachlan receives funding support from the Australian Government Department of Health and Royal Melbourne Hospital Research Funding Program. Miriam Levi acknowledges institutional support received from CeRIMP, Regional Centre for Occupational Diseases and Injuries, Tuscany Region, Florence, Italy. Tea Lallukka reports funding from The Academy of Finland (grant 287488). No individuals acknowledged received additional compensation for their efforts. ; Peer-reviewed ; Publisher Version
BASE
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE