Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
J Family Med Prim Care ; 11(1): 287-293, 2022 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35309602


Background: Presbyopia is a major cause for near visual impairment among adults. Presbyopia induced visual impairment can be corrected easily by spectacles. We aimed to study the prevalence of presbyopia among adults aged ≥35 years and spectacles coverage among them. We also studied the unmet need for presbyopia along with the barriers to uptake of services. Methods: This is a population-based cross-sectional study conducted among adults aged ≥35 years in a rural district of Haryana. Near vision assessment and semistructured interview schedule were administered by a team of trained ophthalmic assistant, social worker and health assistant. Results: A total of 3832 adults aged ≥35 years were enumerated, from which 3246 (84.7%) were examined. Prevalence of presbyopia was found to be 42.9% (95% confidence interval 41.2-44.6). Participants with increasing age, literacy and women had higher prevalence, and those that were employed and belonged to below poverty line economic status had lower prevalence of presbyopia. Spectacles coverage among presbyopes was found to be 25.8%. There was an inverse association between unmet need for presbyopia and women, increasing education status and office work. Lack of felt need and personal reasons were the most common barriers for unmet need due to presbyopia. Conclusions: There is high prevalence of presbyopia among adult population, with spectacles coverage being low. Awareness activities along with affordable, accessible and socially acceptable services for those affected with presbyopia would be one of the key components of management.

JAMA Netw Open ; 5(1): e2142210, 2022 01 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34994793


Importance: A surge of COVID-19 occurred from March to June 2021, in New Delhi, India, linked to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out for health care workers (HCWs) starting in January 2021. Objective: To assess the incidence density of reinfection among a cohort of HCWs and estimate the effectiveness of the inactivated whole virion vaccine BBV152 against reinfection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study among HCWs working at a tertiary care center in New Delhi, India. Exposures: Vaccination with 0, 1, or 2 doses of BBV152. Main Outcomes and Measures: The HCWs were categorized as fully vaccinated (with 2 doses and ≥15 days after the second dose), partially vaccinated (with 1 dose or 2 doses with <15 days after the second dose), or unvaccinated. The incidence density of COVID-19 reinfection per 100 person-years was computed, and events from March 3, 2020, to June 18, 2021, were included for analysis. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Estimated vaccine effectiveness (1 - adjusted HR) was reported. Results: Among 15 244 HCWs who participated in the study, 4978 (32.7%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 36.6 (10.3) years, and 55.0% were male. The reinfection incidence density was 7.26 (95% CI: 6.09-8.66) per 100 person-years (124 HCWs [2.5%], total person follow-up period of 1696 person-years as time at risk). Fully vaccinated HCWs had lower risk of reinfection (HR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.08-0.23]), symptomatic reinfection (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.07-0.24]), and asymptomatic reinfection (HR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.05-0.53]) compared with unvaccinated HCWs. Accordingly, among the 3 vaccine categories, reinfection was observed in 60 of 472 (12.7%) of unvaccinated (incidence density, 18.05 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 14.02-23.25), 39 of 356 (11.0%) of partially vaccinated (incidence density 15.62 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 11.42-21.38), and 17 of 1089 (1.6%) fully vaccinated (incidence density 2.18 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.35-3.51) HCWs. The estimated effectiveness of BBV152 against reinfection was 86% (95% CI, 77%-92%); symptomatic reinfection, 87% (95% CI, 76%-93%); and asymptomatic reinfection, 84% (95% CI, 47%-95%) among fully vaccinated HCWs. Partial vaccination was not associated with reduced risk of reinfection. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that BBV152 was associated with protection against both symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection in HCWs after a complete vaccination schedule, when the predominant circulating variant was B.1.617.2.

COVID-19/epidemiologia , Pessoal de Saúde , Reinfecção , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , COVID-19/etiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Imunogenicidade da Vacina , Índia/epidemiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Centros de Atenção Terciária , Vacinas de Produtos Inativados/administração & dosagem , Vírion/imunologia , Adulto Jovem
Lung India ; 37(1): 45-52, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31898620


The Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program was started in India in 1997. There has been no nationwide survey to assess the prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature to provide an estimate of the prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis in India. Several databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2018, which reported the prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis. Community-based cross-sectional studies conducted among population aged 15 years and above were included. Summary estimates were calculated using random effects models. We identified 13 articles with 16 individual studies having screened 961,633 individuals for pulmonary tuberculosis. The pooled prevalence of bacteriologically positive pulmonary tuberculosis was 295.9 (95% confidence interval: 201.1-390.6) per 100,000 population. The prevalence was higher among males than females and in rural areas compared to urban areas. The pooled prevalence of culture-positive pulmonary tuberculosis (277.8/100,000 population) was higher than smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis (196.6/100,000 population). The pooled prevalence of bacteriologically positive pulmonary tuberculosis in sensitivity analysis was 186.6/100,000 population. In all these estimates, heterogeneity remained high and significant publication bias was observed. The prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis varied based on sex and distribution of population in rural and urban areas. There is a need of nationwide population-based survey to estimate the burden of tuberculosis to inform control measures and facilitate monitoring and evaluation.