The mortality burden related to COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 - years of life lost and excess mortality in 13 countries and sub-national regions in Southern and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

Introduction: Between 2021 and 2023, a project was funded in order to explore the mortality burden (YLL-Years of Life Lost, excess mortality) of COVID-19 in Southern and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. Methods: For each national or sub-national region, data on COVID-19 deaths and population data were collected for the period March 2020 to December 2021. Unstandardized and age-standardised YLL rates were calculated according to standard burden of disease methodology. In addition, all-cause mortality data for the period 2015-2019 were collected and used as a baseline to estimate excess mortality in each national or sub-national region in the years 2020 and 2021. Results: On average, 15-30 years of life were lost per death in the various countries and regions. Generally, YLL rates per 100,000 were higher in countries and regions in Southern and Eastern Europe compared to Central Asia. However, there were differences in how countries and regions defined and counted COVID-19 deaths. In most countries and sub-national regions, YLL rates per 100,000 (both age-standardised and unstandardized) were higher in 2021 compared to 2020, and higher amongst men compared to women. Some countries showed high excess mortality rates, suggesting under-diagnosis or under-reporting of COVID-19 deaths, and/or relatively large numbers of deaths due to indirect effects of the pandemic. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the COVID-19 mortality burden was greater in many countries and regions in Southern and Eastern Europe compared to Central Asia. However, heterogeneity in the data (differences in the definitions and counting of COVID-19 deaths) may have influenced our results. Understanding possible reasons for the differences was difficult, as many factors are likely to play a role (e.g., differences in the extent of public health and social measures to control the spread of COVID-19, differences in testing strategies and/or vaccination rates). Future cross-country analyses should try to develop structured approaches in an attempt to understand the relative importance of such factors. Furthermore, in order to improve the robustness and comparability of burden of disease indicators, efforts should be made to harmonise case definitions and reporting for COVID-19 deaths across countries.

The Burden of Disease due to COVID-19 (BoCO-19): A study protocol for a secondary analysis of surveillance data in Southern and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an extensive impact on public health worldwide. However, in many countries burden of disease indicators for COVID-19 have not yet been calculated or used for monitoring. The present study protocol describes an approach developed in the project "The Burden of Disease due to COVID-19. Towards a harmonization of population health metrics for the surveillance of dynamic outbreaks" (BoCO-19). The process of data collection and aggregation across 14 different countries and sub-national regions in Southern and Eastern Europe and Central Asia is described, as well as the methodological approaches used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study implemented in BoCO-19 is a secondary data analysis, using information from national surveillance systems as part of mandatory reporting on notifiable diseases. A customized data collection template is used to gather aggregated data on population size as well as COVID-19 cases and deaths. Years of life lost (YLL), as one component of the number of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY), are calculated as described in a recently proposed COVID-19 disease model (the 'Burden-EU' model) for the calculation of DALY. All-cause mortality data are collected for excess mortality sensitivity analyses. For the calculation of Years lived with disability (YLD), the Burden-EU model is adapted based on recent evidence. Because Covid-19 cases vary in terms of disease severity, the possibility and suitability of applying a uniform severity distribution of cases across all countries and sub-national regions will be explored. An approach recently developed for the Global Burden of Disease Study, that considers post-acute consequences of COVID-19, is likely to be adopted. Findings will be compared to explore the quality and usability of the existing data, to identify trends across age-groups and sexes and to formulate recommendations concerning potential improvements in data availability and quality. DISCUSSION: BoCO-19 serves as a collaborative platform in order to build international capacity for the calculation of burden of disease indicators, and to support national experts in the analysis and interpretation of country-specific data, including their strengths and weaknesses. Challenges include inherent differences in data collection and reporting systems between countries, as well as assumptions that have to be made during the calculation process.

Burden of infectious disease studies in Europe and the United Kingdom: a review of methodological design choices.

This systematic literature review aimed to provide an overview of the characteristics and methods used in studies applying the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) concept for infectious diseases within European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries and the United Kingdom. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched for articles reporting the assessment of DALY and its components. We considered studies in which researchers performed DALY calculations using primary epidemiological data input sources. We screened 3053 studies of which 2948 were excluded and 105 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 22 were multi-country and 83 were single-country studies, of which 46 were from the Netherlands. Food- and water-borne diseases were the most frequently studied infectious diseases. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of burden of infectious disease studies was 1.6 times higher compared to that published between 2000 and 2014. Almost all studies (97%) estimated DALYs based on the incidence- and pathogen-based approach and without social weighting functions; however, there was less methodological consensus with regards to the disability weights and life tables that were applied. The number of burden of infectious disease studies undertaken across Europe has increased over time. Development and use of guidelines will promote performing burden of infectious disease studies and facilitate comparability of the results.

Methodological considerations in injury burden of disease studies across Europe: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Calculating the disease burden due to injury is complex, as it requires many methodological choices. Until now, an overview of the methodological design choices that have been made in burden of disease (BoD) studies in injury populations is not available. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify existing injury BoD studies undertaken across Europe and to comprehensively review the methodological design choices and assumption parameters that have been made to calculate years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) in these studies. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, and the grey literature supplemented by handsearching, for BoD studies. We included injury BoD studies that quantified the BoD expressed in YLL, YLD, and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in countries within the European Region between early-1990 and mid-2021. RESULTS: We retrieved 2,914 results of which 48 performed an injury-specific BoD assessment. Single-country independent and Global Burden of Disease (GBD)-linked injury BoD studies were performed in 11 European countries. Approximately 79% of injury BoD studies reported the BoD by external cause-of-injury. Most independent studies used the incidence-based approach to calculate YLDs. About half of the injury disease burden studies applied disability weights (DWs) developed by the GBD study. Almost all independent injury studies have determined YLL using national life tables. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable methodological variation across independent injury BoD assessments was observed; differences were mainly apparent in the design choices and assumption parameters towards injury YLD calculations, implementation of DWs, and the choice of life table for YLL calculations. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting of injury BoD studies is crucial to enhance transparency and comparability of injury BoD estimates across Europe and beyond.

Evaluation of patients cooperation in hypertension control.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension (high blood pressure) is one of the most widely spread diseases of our time and one of the leading risk factors for heart and vascular diseases, particularly stroke and coronary heart disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the world of who dies each year about 17 million persons, of which 5 million in Europe. The World Health Organization estimates based on monitoring of demographic trends, trends in mortality and morbidity as economic models, further growth of cardiovascular diseases, especially in developing countries. GOAL: Correlate the success of antihypertensive therapy and provoking factors, and to determine the degree of satisfaction with the effect of antihypertensive therapy of the patient. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted at the Primary Health Care Center Stari Grad - Sarajevo. Conducted is study that included 80 patients. Data for this study were collected by a questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed by the examiner using interviews with patients and their relatives (parents, guardians).After sorting, control and grouping the data were imported into the statistical software package SPSS 20.0, where after defining variables was performed statistical analysis. RESULTS: The average age of male respondents was 60.80±13.03 and 63.50 ± 7.48 years of female respondents. The average value of systolic blood pressure amounted to 148mmHg (130-180), while the average value of diastolic blood pressure was 88.75mmHg (70-120). Student's t test showed that the average value of systolic pressure was statistically significantly different from the reference value (t=2.387, DF=19, p=0.028), and also the average values of diastolic blood pressure were statistically significantly different compared to baseline (p=3.561, DF=19, p=0.002). Of the total number of subjects included in this study good blood pressure control had 58 participants, and the average value of systolic blood pressure was 122mmHg and diastolic 74mmHg. With poor regulation of blood pressure were 22 patients, with average values of systolic pressure of 155.5mmHg and diastolic 92 mmHg. The most common additional factor influencing the increase in blood pressure of patients surveyed was stress is 65 % (n=52), followed by heat 20% (n=16), and salty foods was a provoking factor in 15% (n=12) subjects. By analyzing the frequency of controlling blood pressure has been determined that respondents on average control blood pressure once a week, and control frequency is in range from daily to monthly. The average value of the blood pressure of subjects who regularly used antihypertensive therapy amounted to 125/69 mmHg, while the respondents who did not regularly use the antihypertensive therapy that value was 157/96 mmHg.