La pandemia de COVID-19, causada por el SARS-CoV-2, puso de relieve los riesgos, cada vez más frecuentes, de los cambios significativos en la Tierra. Tanto el calentamiento global, al alterar los ecosistemas, como el aumento de la movilidad, promoviendo un contacto rápido y regular entre poblaciones de diferentes regiones, están implicados en la aparición de brotes epidémicos y pandemias. Durante la pandemia de COVID-19, la ciencia jugó un papel destacado en varios campos. La biología permitió el rápido conocimiento del SARS-CoV-2 y la epidemiología el estudio de los patrones de transmisión de virus y propagación de la infección. Las matemáticas y la física aportaron la elaboración de modelos para predecir la evolución de la enfermedad y el impacto de las medidas de contención no farmacológicas, e. g. Las múltiples especialidades de las ciencias de la salud, como la medicina, la fisioterapia, o la enfermería, entre otras, también desempeñaron un papel evidente. En este texto, destacamos la contribución de la inmunología a través de su papel en los campos del diagnóstico, la comprensión de los mecanismos de la enfermedad, que conducen a métodos de tratamiento más eficientes, y el desarrollo de vacunas capaces de proteger contra el COVID-19.
Abstract Background: The cardiovascular risk burden among diverse indigenous populations is not totally known and may be influenced by lifestyle changes related to the urbanization process. Objectives: To investigate the cardiovascular (CV) mortality profile of indigenous populations during a rapid urbanization process largely influenced by governmental infrastructure interventions in Northeast Brazil. Methods: We assessed the mortality of indigenous populations (≥ 30 y/o) from 2007 to 2011 in Northeast Brazil (Bahia and Pernambuco states). Cardiovascular mortality was considered if the cause of death was in the ICD-10 CV disease group or if registered as sudden death. The indigenous populations were then divided into two groups according to the degree of urbanization based on anthropological criteria:9,10 Group 1 - less urbanized tribes (Funi-ô, Pankararu, Kiriri, and Pankararé); and Group 2 - more urbanized tribes (Tuxá, Truká, and Tumbalalá). Mortality rates of highly urbanized cities (Petrolina and Juazeiro) in the proximity of indigenous areas were also evaluated. The analysis explored trends in the percentage of CV mortality for each studied population. Statistical significance was established for p value < 0.05. Results: There were 1,333 indigenous deaths in tribes of Bahia and Pernambuco (2007-2011): 281 in Group 1 (1.8% of the 2012 group population) and 73 in Group 2 (3.7% of the 2012 group population), CV mortality of 24% and 37%, respectively (p = 0.02). In 2007-2009, there were 133 deaths in Group 1 and 44 in Group 2, CV mortality of 23% and 34%, respectively. In 2009-2010, there were 148 deaths in Group 1 and 29 in Group 2, CV mortality of 25% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: Urbanization appears to influence increases in CV mortality of indigenous peoples living in traditional tribes. Lifestyle and environmental changes due to urbanization added to suboptimal health care may increase CV risk in this population.
Abstract Background: The cardiovascular risk burden among diverse indigenous populations is not totally known and may be influenced by lifestyle changes related to the urbanization process. Objectives: To investigate the cardiovascular (CV) mortality profile of indigenous populations during a rapid urbanization process largely influenced by governmental infrastructure interventions in Northeast Brazil. Methods: We assessed the mortality of indigenous populations (≥ 30 y/o) from 2007 to 2011 in Northeast Brazil (Bahia and Pernambuco states). Cardiovascular mortality was considered if the cause of death was in the ICD-10 CV disease group or if registered as sudden death. The indigenous populations were then divided into two groups according to the degree of urbanization based on anthropological criteria:9,10 Group 1 - less urbanized tribes (Funi-ô, Pankararu, Kiriri, and Pankararé); and Group 2 - more urbanized tribes (Tuxá, Truká, and Tumbalalá). Mortality rates of highly urbanized cities (Petrolina and Juazeiro) in the proximity of indigenous areas were also evaluated. The analysis explored trends in the percentage of CV mortality for each studied population. Statistical significance was established for p value < 0.05. Results: There were 1,333 indigenous deaths in tribes of Bahia and Pernambuco (2007-2011): 281 in Group 1 (1.8% of the 2012 group population) and 73 in Group 2 (3.7% of the 2012 group population), CV mortality of 24% and 37%, respectively (p = 0.02). In 2007-2009, there were 133 deaths in Group 1 and 44 in Group 2, CV mortality of 23% and 34%, respectively. In 2009-2010, there were 148 deaths in Group 1 and 29 in Group 2, CV mortality of 25% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: Urbanization appears to influence increases in CV mortality of indigenous peoples living in traditional tribes. Lifestyle and environmental changes due to urbanization added to suboptimal health care may increase CV risk in this population.
The Center for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS) was created in 2016 in Salvador (Bahia, Brazil). This paper aims to present a profile of CIDACS, including its current databases. CIDACS aims to conduct interdisciplinary studies and research, develop new scientific methodology and promote professional training using linked large-scale databases and high-performance computational resources in a secure environment. Administrative data is at the core of the activities conducted by CIDACS. The advantages of administrative data include significantly larger sample sizes, an inherent longitudinal structure and high-quality information. The center's research projects are primarily focused on enhancing the understanding surrounding the impact of social protection policies (e.g., public cash-transfer and housing programs) on health outcomes in low-income populations throughout Brazil. CIDACS' primary data source is citizens who register with the Cadastro Único program, which encompasses individuals eligible to receive benefits from over 20 governmental social programs. CIDACS has two separate environments for data handling: 1) Data Production Center, a secure room housing the computational infrastructure for ingesting, storing, cleaning, processing and linking original databases, as well as extracting research-ready datasets and 2) Data Analysis Environment, a computational infrastructure based on data safe haven principles, which allows researchers to access and process requested datasets. Brazil has a large public health community that uses national health and social databases for research programs, and the linkage of different databases has been a widely employed practice in the country. CIDACS is the result of efforts by researchers, policymakers and public health officials to use and improve the quality of Brazilian health databases. CIDACS is expected to be an important resource for researchers and policymakers interested in improving the evidence base in different aspects of health, as well as with regard to the social determinants of health and the effects of social and environmental policies on health in general.
Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks. We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Funding : UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. ; Background Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants—especially delta (B.1.617.2)—is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). Methods In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2–3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. Findings 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54–2·62) at 10–11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26–3·99) at 14–15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00–7·38) at 18–19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01–2·61) at 10–11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63–3·64) at 14–15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83–5·78) at 18–19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7–87·0) at 2–3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9–78·6) at 14–15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6–67·4) at 18–19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4–87·3) at 2–3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6–64·2) at 14–15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4–50·6) at 18–19 weeks. Interpretation We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
Background: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants—especially delta (B.1.617.2)—is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). Methods: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2–3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. Findings: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54–2·62) at 10–11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26–3·99) at 14–15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00–7·38) at 18–19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01–2·61) at 10–11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63–3·64) at 14–15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83–5·78) at 18–19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7–87·0) at 2–3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9–78·6) at 14–15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6–67·4) at 18–19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4–87·3) at 2–3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6–64·2) at 14–15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4–50·6) at 18–19 weeks. Interpretation: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Translation: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.
