Explore the vast range of titles available.

Paper contains the first results on the development of a SPHERE-3 telescope for the primary cosmic ray studies in 1–1000 PeV energy range using reflected and direct Cherenkov light generated by extensive air showers. It also sheds some light on the development of our new approach to the design of the new telescope.

The first COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial setting was administered on Dec 8, 2020. To ensure global vaccine equity, vaccine targets were set by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) Facility and WHO. However, due to vaccine shortfalls, these targets were not achieved by the end of 2021. We aimed to quantify the global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination programmes. A mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission and vaccination was separately fit to reported COVID-19 mortality and all-cause excess mortality in 185 countries and territories. The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programmes was determined by estimating the additional lives lost if no vaccines had been distributed. We also estimated the additional deaths that would have been averted had the vaccination coverage targets of 20% set by COVAX and 40% set by WHO been achieved by the end of 2021. Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1–20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. In COVAX Advance Market Commitment countries, we estimated that 41% of excess mortality (7·4 million [95% Crl 6·8–7·7] of 17·9 million deaths) was averted. In low-income countries, we estimated that an additional 45% (95% CrI 42–49) of deaths could have been averted had the 20% vaccination coverage target set by COVAX been met by each country, and that an additional 111% (105–118) of deaths could have been averted had the 40% target set by WHO been met by each country by the end of 2021. COVID-19 vaccination has substantially altered the course of the pandemic, saving tens of millions of lives globally. However, inadequate access to vaccines in low-income countries has limited the impact in these settings, reinforcing the need for global vaccine equity and coverage. Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel.

Background To calculate hospital surge capacity, achieved via hospital provision interventions implemented for the emergency treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other patients through March to May 2020; to evaluate the conditions for admitting patients for elective surgery under varying admission levels of COVID-19 patients. Methods We analysed National Health Service (NHS) datasets and literature reviews to estimate hospital care capacity before the pandemic (pre-pandemic baseline) and to quantify the impact of interventions (cancellation of elective surgery, field hospitals, use of private hospitals, deployment of former medical staff and deployment of newly qualified medical staff) for treatment of adult COVID-19 patients, focusing on general and acute (G&A) and critical care (CC) beds, staff and ventilators. Results NHS England would not have had sufficient capacity to treat all COVID-19 and other patients in March and April 2020 without the hospital provision interventions, which alleviated significant shortfalls in CC nurses, CC and G&A beds and CC junior doctors. All elective surgery can be conducted at normal pre-pandemic levels provided the other interventions are sustained, but only if the daily number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 1550 in the whole of England. If the other interventions are not maintained, then elective surgery can only be conducted if the number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 320. However, there is greater national capacity to treat G&A patients: without interventions, it takes almost 10,000 G&A COVID-19 patients before any G&A elective patients would be unable to be accommodated. Conclusions Unless COVID-19 hospitalisations drop to low levels, there is a continued need to enhance critical care capacity in England with field hospitals, use of private hospitals or deployment of former and newly qualified medical staff to allow some or all elective surgery to take place.

Delay in receiving treatment for uncomplicated malaria (UM) is often reported to increase the risk of developing severe malaria (SM), but access to treatment remains low in most high-burden areas. Understanding the contribution of treatment delay on progression to severe disease is critical to determine how quickly patients need to receive treatment and to quantify the impact of widely implemented treatment interventions, such as 'test-and-treat' policies administered by community health workers (CHWs). We conducted a pooled individual-participant meta-analysis to estimate the association between treatment delay and presenting with SM. A search using Ovid MEDLINE and Embase was initially conducted to identify studies on severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria that included information on treatment delay, such as fever duration (inception to 22nd September 2017). Studies identified included 5 case-control and 8 other observational clinical studies of SM and UM cases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and all studies were ranked as 'Good', scoring ≥7/10. Individual-patient data (IPD) were pooled from 13 studies of 3,989 (94.1% aged <15 years) SM patients and 5,780 (79.6% aged <15 years) UM cases in Benin, Malaysia, Mozambique, Tanzania, The Gambia, Uganda, Yemen, and Zambia. Definitions of SM were standardised across studies to compare treatment delay in patients with UM and different SM phenotypes using age-adjusted mixed-effects regression. The odds of any SM phenotype were significantly higher in children with longer delays between initial symptoms and arrival at the health facility (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.07-1.64 for a delay of >24 hours versus ≤24 hours; p = 0.009). Reported illness duration was a strong predictor of presenting with severe malarial anaemia (SMA) in children, with an OR of 2.79 (95% CI:1.92-4.06; p < 0.001) for a delay of 2-3 days and 5.46 (95% CI: 3.49-8.53; p < 0.001) for a delay of >7 days, compared with receiving treatment within 24 hours from symptom onset. We estimate that 42.8% of childhood SMA cases and 48.5% of adult SMA cases in the study areas would have been averted if all individuals were able to access treatment within the first day of symptom onset, if the association is fully causal. In studies specifically recording onset of nonsevere symptoms, long treatment delay was moderately associated with other SM phenotypes (OR [95% CI] >3 to ≤4 days versus ≤24 hours: cerebral malaria [CM] = 2.42 [1.24-4.72], p = 0.01; respiratory distress syndrome [RDS] = 4.09 [1.70-9.82], p = 0.002). In addition to unmeasured confounding, which is commonly present in observational studies, a key limitation is that many severe cases and deaths occur outside healthcare facilities in endemic countries, where the effect of delayed or no treatment is difficult to quantify. Our results quantify the relationship between rapid access to treatment and reduced risk of severe disease, which was particularly strong for SMA. There was some evidence to suggest that progression to other severe phenotypes may also be prevented by prompt treatment, though the association was not as strong, which may be explained by potential selection bias, sample size issues, or a difference in underlying pathology. These findings may help assess the impact of interventions that improve access to treatment.

Following the detection of the new coronavirus 1 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its spread outside of China, Europe has experienced large epidemics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response, many European countries have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as the closure of schools and national lockdowns. Here we study the effect of major interventions across 11 European countries for the period from the start of the COVID-19 epidemics in February 2020 until 4 May 2020, when lockdowns started to be lifted. Our model calculates backwards from observed deaths to estimate transmission that occurred several weeks previously, allowing for the time lag between infection and death. We use partial pooling of information between countries, with both individual and shared effects on the time-varying reproduction number ( R t ). Pooling allows for more information to be used, helps to overcome idiosyncrasies in the data and enables more-timely estimates. Our model relies on fixed estimates of some epidemiological parameters (such as the infection fatality rate), does not include importation or subnational variation and assumes that changes in R t are an immediate response to interventions rather than gradual changes in behaviour. Amidst the ongoing pandemic, we rely on death data that are incomplete, show systematic biases in reporting and are subject to future consolidation. We estimate that—for all of the countries we consider here—current interventions have been sufficient to drive R t below 1 (probability R t  < 1.0 is greater than 99%) and achieve control of the epidemic. We estimate that across all 11 countries combined, between 12 and 15 million individuals were infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 4 May 2020, representing between 3.2% and 4.0% of the population. Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control. Modelling based on pooled data from 11 European countries indicates that non-pharmaceutical interventions—particularly lockdowns—have had a marked effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, driving the reproduction number of the infection below 1.

Over the past decade malaria intervention coverage has been scaled up across Africa. However, it remains unclear what overall reduction in transmission is achievable using currently available tools. We developed an individual-based simulation model for Plasmodium falciparum transmission in an African context incorporating the three major vector species (Anopheles gambiae s.s., An. arabiensis, and An. funestus) with parameters obtained by fitting to parasite prevalence data from 34 transmission settings across Africa. We incorporated the effect of the switch to artemisinin-combination therapy (ACT) and increasing coverage of long-lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs) from the year 2000 onwards. We then explored the impact on transmission of continued roll-out of LLINs, additional rounds of indoor residual spraying (IRS), mass screening and treatment (MSAT), and a future RTS,S/AS01 vaccine in six representative settings with varying transmission intensity (as summarized by the annual entomological inoculation rate, EIR: 1 setting with low, 3 with moderate, and 2 with high EIRs), vector-species combinations, and patterns of seasonality. In all settings we considered a realistic target of 80% coverage of interventions. In the low-transmission setting (EIR approximately 3 ibppy [infectious bites per person per year]), LLINs have the potential to reduce malaria transmission to low levels (<1% parasite prevalence in all age-groups) provided usage levels are high and sustained. In two of the moderate-transmission settings (EIR approximately 43 and 81 ibppy), additional rounds of IRS with DDT coupled with MSAT could drive parasite prevalence below a 1% threshold. However, in the third (EIR = 46) with An. arabiensis prevailing, these interventions are insufficient to reach this threshold. In both high-transmission settings (EIR approximately 586 and 675 ibppy), either unrealistically high coverage levels (>90%) or novel tools and/or substantial social improvements will be required, although considerable reductions in prevalence can be achieved with existing tools and realistic coverage levels. Interventions using current tools can result in major reductions in P. falciparum malaria transmission and the associated disease burden in Africa. Reduction to the 1% parasite prevalence threshold is possible in low- to moderate-transmission settings when vectors are primarily endophilic (indoor-resting), provided a comprehensive and sustained intervention program is achieved through roll-out of interventions. In high-transmission settings and those in which vectors are mainly exophilic (outdoor-resting), additional new tools that target exophagic (outdoor-biting), exophilic, and partly zoophagic mosquitoes will be required.

Mass treatment as a means to reducing P. falciparum malaria transmission was used during the first global malaria eradication campaign and is increasingly being considered for current control programmes. We used a previously developed mathematical transmission model to explore both the short and long-term impact of possible mass treatment strategies in different scenarios of endemic transmission. Mass treatment is predicted to provide a longer-term benefit in areas with lower malaria transmission, with reduced transmission levels for at least 2 years after mass treatment is ended in a scenario where the baseline slide-prevalence is 5%, compared to less than one year in a scenario with baseline slide-prevalence at 50%. However, repeated annual mass treatment at 80% coverage could achieve around 25% reduction in infectious bites in moderate-to-high transmission settings if sustained. Using vector control could reduce transmission to levels at which mass treatment has a longer-term impact. In a limited number of settings (which have isolated transmission in small populations of 1000-10,000 with low-to-medium levels of baseline transmission) we find that five closely spaced rounds of mass treatment combined with vector control could make at least temporary elimination a feasible goal. We also estimate the effects of using gametocytocidal treatments such as primaquine and of restricting treatment to parasite-positive individuals. In conclusion, mass treatment needs to be repeated or combined with other interventions for long-term impact in many endemic settings. The benefits of mass treatment need to be carefully weighed against the risks of increasing drug selection pressure.

IntroductionLight microscopy examination of blood slides is the main method of detecting malaria infection; however, it has limited sensitivity. Low-density infections are most likely to be missed, but they contribute to the infectious reservoir. Quantifying these submicroscopic infections is therefore key to understanding transmission dynamics and successfully reducing parasite transmission MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of endemic population surveys in which P. falciparum prevalence had been measured by both microscopy and a more-sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based technique. The combined microscopy:PCR prevalence ratio was estimated by random-effects meta-analysis, and the effect of covariates was determined by meta-regression ResultsSeventy-two pairs of prevalence measurements were included in the study. The prevalence of infection measured by microscopy was, on average, 50.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.2%–57.1%) of that measured by PCR. For gametocyte-specific detection, the microscopy prevalence was, on average, 8.7% (95% CI, 2.8%–26.6%) of the prevalence measured by PCR. A significantly higher percentage of total infections was detected by microscopy in areas of high, compared with low, transmission (74.5% when the prevalence determined by PCR was >75% versus 12.0% when the prevalence determined by PCR was <10%) DiscussionMicroscopy can miss a substantial proportion of P. falciparum infections in surveys of endemic populations, especially in areas with low transmission of infection. The extent of the submicroscopic reservoir needs to be taken into account for effective surveillance and control

The global burden of malaria has been substantially reduced over the past two decades. Future efforts to reduce malaria further will require moving beyond the treatment of clinical infections to targeting malaria transmission more broadly in the community. As such, the accurate identification of asymptomatic human infections, which can sustain a large proportion of transmission, is becoming a vital component of control and elimination programmes. We determined the relationship across common diagnostics used to measure malaria prevalence — polymerase chain reaction (PCR), rapid diagnostic test and microscopy — for the detection of Plasmodium falciparum infections in endemic populations based on a pooled analysis of cross-sectional data. We included data from more than 170,000 individuals comparing the detection by rapid diagnostic test and microscopy, and 30,000 for detection by rapid diagnostic test and PCR. The analysis showed that, on average, rapid diagnostic tests detected 41% (95% confidence interval = 26–66%) of PCR-positive infections. Data for the comparison of rapid diagnostic test to PCR detection at high transmission intensity and in adults were sparse. Prevalence measured by rapid diagnostic test and microscopy was comparable, although rapid diagnostic test detected slightly more infections than microscopy. On average, microscopy captured 87% (95% confidence interval = 74–102%) of rapid diagnostic test-positive infections. The extent to which higher rapid diagnostic test detection reflects increased sensitivity, lack of specificity or both, is unclear. Once the contribution of asymptomatic individuals to the infectious reservoir is better defined, future analyses should ideally establish optimal detection limits of new diagnostics for use in control and elimination strategies. This article has not been written or reviewed by Nature editors. Nature accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided.