World Health Organization

About: World Health Organization is a government organization based out in Islamabad, Pakistan. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Public health. The organization has 13330 authors who have published 22232 publications receiving 1322023 citations. The organization is also known as: World Health Organisation & WHO.

A Co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate: Report1 from the Committee of Principal Investigators

Abstract: A double-blind intervention trial was started in 1965 to test the hypothesis that the incidence of ischaemic heart disease in middle-aged men can be reduced by lowering raised serum cholesterol levels. It was carried out in 3 European centres-Edinburgh, Budapest, and Prague. Serum cholesterol was to be lowered by the drug clofibrate (ethyl chlorophenoxyisobutyrate) which was considered to be free from serious side effects. Studies were carried out on 15 745 males, aged 30 to 59 at entry, for an average of 5-3 years, accumulating 83 534 years of experience. The treatment group, of about 5000, Group I, was a randomly chosen half of the men in the upper third of the serum cholesterol distribution in some 30 000 volunteers. The comparable control group, Group II, comprised the other 5000 men of the upper third of the cholesterol distribution, and these were given a placebo. A further control group, Group III, of 5000 men, was selected randomly from the lower third of the cholesterol distribution. These numbers were chosen in order to be 90 per cent certain of detecting a 30 per cent reduction in the incidence of ischaemic heart disease should this occur. Subjects with manifest heart or other major disease were excluded from the trial. No attempt was made to correct other 'risk factors' for IHD, but their presence was monitored and considered in the analysis. Investigators and participants in the trial were unaware of the groups to which individual men belonged. A mean reduction of approximately 9 per cent of the initial serum cholesterol levels was achieved in the treatment group (ranging from 7 to 11% in the 3 centres); this was less than the 15 per cent fall expected. In Edinburgh, during treatment, serum triglyceride concentrations in Group I resembled those naturally occurring in Group III. The incidence ofIHO was lower by 20 per cent in the clofibrate group compared with the high cholesterol controls (P <0.05); this fall was confined to non-fatal myocardial infarcts which were reduced by 25 per cent. The incidence offatal heart attacks was similar in the 2 high cholesterol groups and there was no significant difference in the incidence of angina. Group III showed substantially lower rates of ischaemic heart disease. The reduction of myocardial infarction in the clofibrate-treated group was greatest in men with the highest levels, and greatest reduction in serum cholesterol. Men with a substantial reduction of cholesterol concentration, who smoked, and also had above average blood pressure levels showed the most benefit. The numbers of deaths, and crude mortality rates from all causes in the clofibrate-treated group significantly exceeded those in the high cholesterol control group (P < 0.05), though the age-standardised mortality rates did not differ significantly between the 3 groups. The numbers of deaths from 'other

Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates.

Abstract: Rates of caesarean section are of concern in both developed and developing countries. We set out to estimate the proportion of births by caesarean section (CS) at national, regional and global levels, describe regional and subregional patterns and correlate rates with other reproductive health indicators. We analysed nationally representative data available from surveys or vital registration systems on the proportion of births by CS. We used local non-parametric regression techniques to correlate CS with maternal mortality ratio, infant and neonatal mortality rates, and the proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel. Although very unevenly distributed, 15% of births worldwide occur by CS. Latin America and the Caribbean show the highest rate (29.2%), and Africa shows the lowest (3.5%). In developed countries, the proportion of caesarean births is 21.1% whereas in least developed countries only 2% of deliveries are by CS. The analysis suggests a strong inverse association between CS rates and maternal, infant and neonatal mortality in countries with high mortality levels. There is some suggestion of a direct positive association at lower levels of mortality. CS levels may respond primarily to economic determinants.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract: Background Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. Main results Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19. Antigen tests Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. Authors' conclusions Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.