The impact of conflict on infectious disease: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Conflict situations, armed or not, have been associated with emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. This review aims to identify the pathways through which infectious diseases emerge within conflict situations and to outline appropriate infectious disease preparedness and response strategies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed representing published evidence from January 2000 to October 2023. Ovid Medline and Embase were utilised to obtain literature on infectious diseases in any conflict settings. The systematic review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis). No geographical restrictions were imposed. FINDINGS: Our review identified 51 studies covering AIDS, Hepatitis B, Tuberculosis, Cholera, Coronavirus 2, Ebola, Poliomyelitis, Malaria, Leishmaniasis, Measles, Diphtheria, Dengue and Acute Bacterial Meningitis within conflict settings in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa since October 2023. Key factors contributing to disease emergence and transmission in conflict situations included population displacement, destruction of vital infrastructure, reduction in functioning healthcare systems and healthcare personnel, disruption of disease control programmes (including reduced surveillance, diagnostic delays, and interrupted vaccinations), reduced access by healthcare providers to populations within areas of active conflict, increased population vulnerability due to limited access to healthcare services, and disruptions in the supply chain of safe water, food, and medication. To mitigate these infectious disease risks reported preparedness and response strategies included both disease-specific intervention strategies as well as broader concepts such as the education of conflict-affected populations through infectious disease awareness programmes, investing in and enabling health care in locations with displaced populations, intensifying immunisation campaigns, and ensuring political commitment and intersectoral collaborations between governments and international organisations. CONCLUSION: Conflict plays a direct and indirect role in the transmission and propagation of infectious diseases. The findings from this review can assist decision-makers in the development of evidence-based preparedness and response strategies for the timely and effective containment of infectious disease outbreaks in conflict zones and amongst conflict-driven displaced populations. FUNDING: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control under specific contract No. 22 ECD.13,154 within Framework contract ECDC/2019/001 Lot 1B.

Cost of the COVID-19 pandemic versus the cost-effectiveness of mitigation strategies in EU/UK/OECD: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The economic burden of COVID-19 pandemic is substantial, with both direct and indirect costs playing a significant role. DESIGN: A systematic literature review was conducted to estimate the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions. All cost data were adjusted to the 2021 Euro, and interventions compared with null. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 2020 through 22 April 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies regarding COVID-19 outbreak or public health preparedness measures or interventions with outcome measures related to the direct and indirect costs for disease and preparedness and/or response in countries of the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA), the UK and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of all relevant epidemiological designs which estimate cost within the selected time frame were considered eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were searched, screened and coded independently by two reviewers with high measure of inter-rater agreement. Data were extracted to a predefined data extraction sheet. The risk of bias was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist. RESULTS: We included data from 41 economic studies. Ten studies evaluated the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic, while 31 assessed the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness and response measures. Overall, the economic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be substantial. Community screening, bed provision policies, investing in personal-protective-equipment and vaccination strategies were cost-effective. Physical distancing measures were associated with health benefits; however, their cost-effectiveness was dependent on the duration, compliance and the phase of the epidemic in which it was implemented. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pandemic is associated with substantial short-term and long-term economic costs to healthcare systems, payers and societies, while interventions including testing and screening policies, vaccination and physical distancing policies were identified as those presenting cost-effective options to deal with the pandemic, dependent on population vaccination and the Re at the stage of the pandemic.

Social determinants of health and vaccine uptake during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

Social determinants of health significantly impact population health status. The aim of this systematic review was to examine which social vulnerability factors or determinants of health at the individual or county level affected vaccine uptake within the first phase of the vaccination program. We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2020 until September 2021 in Medline and Embase (Bagaria et al., 2022) and complemented the review with an assessment of pre-print literature within the same period. We restricted our criteria to studies performed in the EU/UK/EEA/US that report vaccine uptake in the general population as the primary outcome and included various social determinants of health as explanatory variables. This review provides evidence of significant associations between the early phases of vaccination uptake for SARS-CoV-2 and multiple socioeconomic factors including income, poverty, deprivation, race/ethnicity, education and health insurance. The identified associations should be taken into account to increase vaccine uptake in socially vulnerable groups, and to reduce disparities in uptake, in particular within the context of public health preparedness for future pandemics. While further corroboration is needed to explore the generalizability of these findings across the European setting, these results confirm the need to consider vulnerable groups and social determinants of health in the planning and roll-out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs and within the context of future respiratory pandemics.