Search

BackgroundImplementing and lifting social distancing (LSD) is an urgent global issue during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly when the travel ban is lifted to revive international businesses and economies. However, when and whether LSD can be considered is subject to the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the recovery rate, and the case-fatality rate. It is imperative to provide real-time assessment of three factors to guide LSD. ObjectiveA simple LSD index was developed for health decision makers to do real-time assessment of COVID-19 at the global, country, region, and community level. MethodsData on the retrospective cohort of 186 countries with three factors were retrieved from a publicly available repository from January to early July. A simple index for guiding LSD was measured by the cumulative number of COVID-19 cases and recoveries, and the case-fatality rate was envisaged. If the LSD index was less than 1, LSD can be considered. The dynamic changes of the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated to assess whether and when health decision makers allowed for LSD and when to reimplement social distancing after resurgences of the epidemic. ResultsAfter large-scale outbreaks in a few countries before mid-March (prepandemic phase), the global weekly LSD index peaked at 4.27 in March and lasted until mid-June (pandemic phase), during which most countries were affected and needed to take various social distancing measures. Since, the value of LSD has gradually declined to 0.99 on July 5 (postpandemic phase), at which 64.7% (120/186) of countries and regions had an LSD

BackgroundLow infection and case-fatality rates have been thus far observed in Taiwan. One of the reasons for this major success is better use of big data analytics in efficient contact tracing and management and surveillance of those who require quarantine and isolation. ObjectiveWe present here a unique application of big data analytics among Taiwanese people who had contact with more than 3000 passengers that disembarked at Keelung harbor in Taiwan for a 1-day tour on January 31, 2020, 5 days before the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the Diamond Princess cruise ship on February 5, 2020, after an index case was identified on January 20, 2020. MethodsThe smart contact tracing–based mobile sensor data, cross-validated by other big sensor surveillance data, were analyzed by the mobile geopositioning method and rapid analysis to identify 627,386 potential contact-persons. Information on self-monitoring and self-quarantine was provided via SMS, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests were offered for symptomatic contacts. National Health Insurance claims big data were linked, to follow-up on the outcome related to COVID-19 among those who were hospitalized due to pneumonia and advised to undergo screening for SARS-CoV-2. ResultsAs of February 29, a total of 67 contacts who were tested by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction were all negative and no confirmed COVID-19 cases were found. Less cases of respiratory syndrome and pneumonia were found after the follow-up of the contact population compared with the general population until March 10, 2020. ConclusionsBig data analytics with smart contact tracing, automated alert messaging for self-restriction, and follow-up of the outcome related to COVID-19 using health insurance data could curtail the resources required for conventional epidemiological contact tracing.

Objectives: The benefit of mammography screening in reducing population mortality from breast cancer is well established. In this paper, we estimate the effect of repeated participation at scheduled screens on case survival. Methods: We analysed incidence and survival data on 37,079 women from nine Swedish counties who had at least one to five invitation(s) to screening prior to diagnosis, and were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1992 and 2016. Of these, 4564 subsequently died of breast cancer. We estimated the association of survival with participation in up to the most recent five screens before diagnosis. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the effect on survival of the number of scheduled screens in which subjects participated prior to the diagnosis of breast cancer. Results: There was successively better survival with an increasing number of screens in which the subject participated. For a woman with five previous screening invitations who participated in all five, the hazard ratio was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25–0.33, p < 0.0001) compared to a woman attending none (86.9% vs 68.9% 20-year survival). Following a conservative adjustment for potential self-selection factors, the hazard ratio was 0.34 (95% CI 0.26–0.43, p < 0.0001), an approximate three-fold reduction in the hazard of dying from breast cancer. Conclusion: For those women who develop breast cancer, regular prior participation in mammography screening confers significantly better survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Currently, some countries still acknowledge double‐contrast barium enema (DCBE) as a backup confirmatory examination when colonoscopy is not feasible or incomplete in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. This study aims to compare the performance of colonoscopy and DCBE in terms of the risk of incident CRC after negative results in the fecal immunochemical test (FIT)‐based Taiwan Colorectal Cancer Screening Program. Methods: Subjects who had positive FITs and received confirmatory exams, either colonoscopy or DCBE, without the findings of neoplastic lesions from 2004 to 2013 in the screening program comprised the study cohort. Both the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts were followed until the end of 2018 and linked to the Taiwan Cancer Registry to identify incident CRC cases. Multivariate analysis was conducted to compare the risk of incident CRC in both subcohorts after controlling for potential confounders. Results: A total of 102 761 colonoscopies and 5885 DCBEs were performed after positive FITs without neoplastic findings during the study period. By the end of 2018, 2113 CRCs (2.7 per 1000 person‐years) and 368 CRCs (7.6 per 1000 person‐years) occurred in the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts, respectively. After adjusting for major confounders, DCBE had a significantly higher risk of incident CRC than colonoscopy, with an adjusted HR of 2.81 (95% CI = 2.51–3.14). Conclusions: In the FIT screening program, using DCBE as a backup examination was associated with a nearly threefold risk of incident CRC compared with colonoscopy, demonstrating that it is no longer justified as a backup examination for incomplete colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]