Is Colombia an example of successful containment of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic? A critical analysis of the epidemiological data, March to July 2020.

BACKGROUND: Colombia detected its first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case on March 2, 2020. From March 22 to April 25, it implemented a national lockdown that, apparently, allowed the country to keep a low incidence and mortality rate up to mid-May. Forced by the economic losses, the government then opened many commercial activities, which was followed by an increase in cases and deaths. This paper presents a critical analysis of the Colombian surveillance data in order to identify strengths and pitfalls of the control measures. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of PCR-confirmed cases between March and July 25 was performed. Data were described according to the level of measurement. Incidence and mortality rates of COVID-19 were estimated by age, sex, and geographical area. Sampling rates for suspected cases were estimated by geographical area, and the potential for case underestimation was assessed using sampling differences. RESULTS: By July 25, Colombia (population 50 372 424) had reported 240 745 cases and 8269 deaths (case fatality rate of 3.4%). A total of 1 370 271 samples had been analyzed (27 405 samples per million people), with a positivity rate of 17%. Sampling rates per million varied by region from 2664 to 158 681 per million, and consequently the incidence and mortality rates also varied. Due to geographical variations in surveillance capacity, Colombia may have overlooked up to 82% of the actual cases. CONCLUSION: Colombia has a lower case and mortality incidence compared to other South American countries. This may be an effect of the lockdown, but may also be attributed, to some extent, to geographical differences in surveillance capacity. Indigenous populations with little health infrastructure have been hit the hardest.

Distinct and shared contributions of diagnosis and symptom domains to cognitive performance in severe mental illness in the Paisa population: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness diagnoses have overlapping symptomatology and shared genetic risk, motivating cross-diagnostic investigations of disease-relevant quantitative measures. We analysed relationships between neurocognitive performance, symptom domains, and diagnoses in a large sample of people with severe mental illness not ascertained for a specific diagnosis (cases), and people without mental illness (controls) from a single, homogeneous population. METHODS: In this case-control study, cases with severe mental illness were ascertained through electronic medical records at Clínica San Juan de Dios de Manizales (Manizales, Caldas, Colombia) and the Hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación (Medellín, Antioquía, Colombia). Participants were assessed for speed and accuracy using the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB). Cases had structured interview-based diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar 1, bipolar 2, or major depressive disorder. Linear mixed models, using CNB tests as repeated measures, modelled neurocognition as a function of diagnosis, sex, and all interactions. Follow-up analyses in cases included symptom factor scores obtained from exploratory factor analysis of symptom data as main effects. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2017, and Nov 1, 2019, 2406 participants (1689 cases [schizophrenia n=160; bipolar 1 disorder n=519; bipolar 2 disorder n=204; and major depressive disorder n=806] and 717 controls; mean age 39 years (SD 14); and 1533 female) were assessed. Participants with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia had similar impairments in accuracy and speed across cognitive domains. Participants with bipolar 2 disorder and major depressive disorder performed similarly to controls, with subtle deficits in executive and social cognition. A three-factor model (psychosis, mania, and depression) best represented symptom data. Controlling for diagnosis, premorbid IQ, and disease severity, high lifetime psychosis scores were associated with reduced accuracy and speed across cognitive domains, whereas high depression scores were associated with increased social cognition accuracy. INTERPRETATION: Cross-diagnostic investigations showed that neurocognitive function in severe mental illness is characterised by two distinct profiles (bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia, and bipolar 2 disorder and major depressive disorder), and is associated with specific symptom domains. These results suggest the utility of this design for elucidating severe mental illness causes and trajectories. FUNDING: US National Institute of Mental Health.