24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      One year after the arrival of COVID-19 in Latin America: what have we learned in Brazil and other countries?

      editorial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          On February 25, 2020, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), was firstly confirmed in Brazil and Latin America, proceeding as an imported case from Italy.1, 2 After one year of the lately declared pandemic, the COVID-19 has caused deep impacts in Brazil and the region. 2 Up to March 4, 2021, a total of 21.7 million cases (out of 115 million in the world, 18.8%) (Table 1) have been reported and concentrated in the Latin American and Caribbean region, led by Brazil (10.6 million), as the third country in the world with more cumulated cases, after United States of America (28.8 million), and India (11.2 million). Table 1 Cumulative confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases reported by Countries and Territories in Latin America and the Caribbean, modified from the Pan American Health Organization (March 4, 2021). Table 1 Subregion Country/territory Cases Deaths Recovered CFR% Subregion Country/territory Cases Deaths Recovered CFR% North America Mexico 2,097,194 187,187 1,645,312 8.93 Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean Islands Bermuda 713 12 684 1.68 Central America Guatemala 175,411 6412 162,398 3.66 Guadeloupe 9968 164 2242 1.65 Nicaragua 5176 174 4958 3.36 Sint Maarten 2061 27 2007 1.31 El Salvador 60,491 1878 56,339 3.10 Dominican Republic (the) 240,773 3130 193,433 1.30 Belize 12,320 314 11,870 2.55 Barbados 3140 36 2552 1.15 Honduras 171,758 4187 66,903 2.44 Saint Lucia 3779 37 3067 0.98 Panama 342,019 5871 328,100 1.72 Bonaire 424 4 395 0.94 Costa Rica 205,514 2820 183,911 1.37 Aruba 7938 74 7695 0.93 Subregion 972,689 21,656 814,479 2.23 Virgin Islands (US) 2695 25 2539 0.93 South America Ecuador 289,472 15,921 247,898 5.50 Saint Martin 1554 12 598 0.77 Bolivia 250,557 11,703 194,370 4.67 Martinique 6746 45 98 0.67 Peru 1,338,297 46,894 1,244,029 3.50 Grenada 151 1 147 0.66 Colombia 2,259,599 59,972 2,156,057 2.65 Turks and Caicos 2115 14 1876 0.66 Chile 835,552 20,704 790,528 2.48 Virgin Islands (UK) 153 1 152 0.65 Argentina 2,126,531 52,453 1,921,589 2.47 Cuba 52,501 333 47,626 0.63 Brazil 10,646,926 257,361 9,527,173 2.42 French Guiana 16,627 85 9995 0.51 Paraguay 161,530 3218 135,373 1.99 Saint Vincent and Grenadines 1645 8 949 0.49 Uruguay 59,171 617 51,365 1.04 Curacao 4736 22 4651 0.46 Venezuela 139,934 1353 132,052 0.97 Cayman Islands 447 2 415 0.45 Subregion 18,107,569 470,196 16,400,434 2.60 Anguilla 18 0 18 0.00 Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean Islands Montserrat 20 1 11 5.00 Dominica 144 0 130 0.00 Antigua and Barbuda 769 18 307 2.34 Falkland Islands 51 0 48 0.00 Guyana 8626 197 8024 2.28 Saba 6 0 6 0.00 Bahamas 8573 181 7398 2.11 Saint Barthelemy 612 0 94 0.00 Puerto Rico 100,765 2048 91,338 2.03 Saint Kitts and Nevis 41 0 40 0.00 Haiti 12,536 250 9828 1.99 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 24 0 24 0.00 Suriname 8939 173 8426 1.94 Sint Eustatius 20 0 20 0.00 Jamaica 24,103 435 13,745 1.80 Subregion 531,130 7474 428,059 1.41 Trinidad and Tobago 7717 139 7481 1.80 Total Latin America and the Caribbean 21,708,582 686,513 19,288,284 3.16 Source: https://ais.paho.org/phip/viz/COVID19Table.asp. Contrary to the initially considered by many experts, COVID-19 has caused a significant proportion of deaths. A total 2.5 million deaths have been reported so far (2.17% global fatality rate). In Latin America, this ranges up to 8.93% in countries such as Mexico or Ecuador with 5.0%. In Brazil, 257,361 deaths have been reported for a case fatality rate of 2.42%. Over the last year, multiple new clinical findings have been detected, including smell and taste disorders, such as ageusia and anosmia, and diarrhea, among many others. 3 The COVID-19 became a respiratory infection and a systemic condition that potentially affects many other organ and systems, including cardiovascular, neurological, and renal complications, among others. In at least 2–7% of the patients have required management at intensive care units (ICU), varying by countries, the risk profile of the patients (e.g., age and risk factors), as well as the healthcare system, including the availability of ICU beds, mechanical ventilation as well as critical care specialists, among other factors. COVID-19 varies from asymptomatic infection (in most cases) to severe disease that may lead to fatal outcomes. 4 As expected, in countries such as Brazil and others in Latin America, the overlapping with other regional importance conditions began to be reported and represent a matter of concern, including HIV, tuberculosis, dengue, and other tropical endemic diseases.5, 6 And these coinfections still need to be better understood in terms of their epidemiological and clinical impact. In terms of laboratory capacity, Brazil and other Latin American countries have built up many skilled molecular biology laboratories that routinely perform the RT-PCR, based on international protocols, to diagnose the SARS-CoV-2. Also, a significant deployment of antigen and antibody tests has been employed in clinical and epidemiological settings, including multiple seroprevalence studies performed in different cities of Brazil and other Latin American countries. This year, multiple challenges have been faced, including assessing new and specially repurposed drugs for their potential use as prophylaxis or treatment in different clinical conditions. So far, few of them have demonstrated usefulness in COVID-19, such as dexamethasone for patients requiring oxygen, including those on mechanical ventilation. On the other hand, chloroquine and ivermectin have not showed significant benefits in COVID-19. Unfortunately, these and other drugs are widely used in the region, despite the advice against by infectious diseases societies for the region, after the evidence assessment of their utility. Also, in December 2020, many countries detected and observed the threat of the so-called new variants of concern of the SARS-CoV-2 (VOC) that have been associated with the increase in transmission, as reported in the United Kingdom and South Africa with the VOCs 501Y.V1(B.1.1.7) and 501Y.V2(B.1.351), respectively. These new strains are likely to be more transmissible and may also impact the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines negatively, still to be fully confirmed. Precisely Brazil is one of the countries that in January 2021 reported the VOC P.1(501Y.V3), now spreading to other countries of Latin America, such as Colombia, Suriname, Venezuela, Peru, and Argentina. This emerging situation resulted in new restrictions on air travel to and from these countries. 7 The VOC P.1 was first reported by Japan from two travelers from Manaus, one of Brazil’s most important rainforest city. This shows the difficult found in Latin American countries, including Brazil, to genotype and identify VOC that might be spreading through the countries in the continent. Concurrently, ending 2020/beginning 2021, multiple countries started their vaccination plans using different COVID-19 vaccines, including Brazil and most Latin American territories. In South America, more than 14.2 million doses have been applied, more than 9 million in Brazil (Fig. 1). Vaccines such as Comirnaty BNT162b2 (Pfizer/Biontech), AZD1222 (or Covishield) (AstraZeneca/Oxford), CoronaVac (formerly PiCoVacc) (Sinovac), BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), and Sputnik V (Gamaleya Research Institute), among many other arriving, are being used in the region, expecting favorable results, based on phase 3 and target trials already published showing high efficacy and even effectiveness for them. Still, the efficacy and effectiveness of these vaccines need to be assessed carefully under the scenario of the VOCs. 7 Fig. 1 Cumulative COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people in selected countries of Latin America, up to March 3, 2021. Fig. 1 Additionally, and not least important, as previously discussed by our group, 2 the political scenario has not been friendly for evidence-based decisions. That was mostly the situation in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela, among others were not scientifically supported interventions recommended by high-rank stakeholders. Some of them have not broadly followed the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2 People who refuse to practice COVID-19 preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, hand hygiene, physical distance, remaining in respiratory isolation at home when affected by the disease and not participating in agglomerations are largely responsible for the critical social and effective consequences that affect our countries in Latin America. It is known that the solution, already experienced by countries such as the USA, United Kingdom and Israel, is the adoption of preventive measures by the entire population, together with the rapid mass vaccination of the population. Unfortunately, this target seems to be far for most Latin American countries yet. Even with effective vaccines, multiple measures will need constant assessment and continuing use in Latin America, including selective quarantine for specific territories and periods, isolation, physical distancing, correct use of facial mask, hand washing, controlled rooms capacity, among others. Still, many work and study activities should be carried out virtually. 2 Finally, the critical role played by the scientific societies, giving proper support and advice, such as the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), in addition to the international organizations, such as the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) and the WHO, have helped to slow the number of new cases expected, define cases, detect them, and especially with the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines, appropriate clinical management, including diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Over this first year, many lessons have been learned from different points of view. Very sadly, many colleagues and health professionals have died working in the first line, and some have survived with sequelae. Physicians in Brazil and Latin America are working hard to face the ongoing challenges of the pandemic and hopefully move into the transition to a new “normal” world that may firstly control this emerging coronavirus effectively over the course of the next few months and years, sooner than later. For the moment of proofs correction of this Editorial (March 17, 2021), Brazil reached to 11.6 million cases, becoming the second country in the world with highest cases after USA (29.5 million cases), and facing one of the worse health crises due the collapse of health services. Funding None. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          COVID-19 in Latin America: The implications of the first confirmed case in Brazil

          Over the past weeks the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1], has been steady in Asia and other regions in the world. Latin America was an exception until February 25, 2020, when the Brazilian Ministry of Health, confirmed the first case. This first case was a Brazilian man, 61 years-old, who traveled from February 9 to 20, 2020, to Lombardy, northern Italy, where a significant outbreak is ongoing. He arrived home on February 21, 2020, and was attended at the Hospital Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. At this institution, an initial real-time RT-PCR was positive for SARS-CoV-2 and then confirmed by the National Reference Laboratory at the Instituto Adolfo Lutz using the real-time RT-PCR protocol developed by the Institute of Virology at Charité in Berlin, Germany [2]. The established protocol also included now, as part of the Sao Paulo State Health Secretary, metagenomics and immunohistochemistry with PCR, as part of the response plan to COVID-19 outbreak in the city [3]. The patient presented with fever, dry cough, sore throat, and coryza. So far, as of February 27, the patient is well, with mild signs. He received standard precautionary care, and in the meantime, he is isolated at home [4]. Local health authorities are carrying out the identification and tracing of contacts at home, at the hospital, and on the flight. For now, other cases are under investigation in São Paulo, and other cities in Latin America. In addition to the São Paulo State Health Secretary, the Brazilian Society for Infectious Diseases have developed technical recommendations [4]. This is the first case of COVID-19 in the South American region with a population of over 640 million people [5] who have also experienced significant outbreaks of infections which were declared Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHIC), by the World Health Organization (WHO). So it was with Zika in 2016. The Zika outbreak also began in Brazil [6]. In the current scenario, the spread of COVID-19 to other neighboring countries is expected and is probably inevitable in the light of the arrival of suspected cases from Italy, China, and other significantly affected countries. São Paulo is the most populated city in South America, with more than 23 million people and high flight connectivity in the region (Fig. 1 ). Its main airport, the São Paulo-Guarulhos International Airport, is the largest in Brazil, with non-stop passenger flights scheduled to 103 destinations in 30 countries, and 52 domestic flights, connecting not only with major cities in Latin America but also with direct flights to North America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East (Dubai). There are also buses that offer a service to and from the metropolitan centers of Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and Bolivia. Brazil also connects with the countries of Chile, Argentina and Bolivia through some rail connections. The main seaport of Brazil is in Rio de Janeiro, where many international cruises also arrive. Thus, over the course of the next few days, a significant expansion in the region would be possible. Fig. 1 Flight connections from São Paulo's main international airport, Brazil. Source: flightconnections.com. Fig. 1 The healthcare systems in this region are already fragile [7]. Moreover, fragmentation and segmentation are ongoing challenges for most of these vulnerable systems. Multiple social and economic issues are ongoing and will impact the situation, including the massive exodus from Venezuela to many countries in the region. This human migration is associated with other infectious diseases, such as malaria or measles [8]. The burden that will be imposed on the region, if and when COVID-19 spreads, would be an additional challenge for the healthcare systems and economies in the region, as we faced with Zika and even the Chikungunya outbreaks [9]. For example, there is concern about the availability of intensive care units, that are necessary for at least 20–25% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19—also, the availability of specific diagnostic tests, particularly the real-time RT-PCR is a crucial challenge for early detection of COVID-19 importation and prevention of onward transmission. Even maybe in some countries, cases have been not diagnosed due to lack of availability of specific tests. Are Latin American healthcare systems sufficiently prepared? Probably not, but in general, this is the same in other regions of the world, such as in many parts of Asia and Africa [10]. Although most countries in Latin America are trying to step up their preparedness to detect and cope with COVID-19 outbreaks, it will be essential to intensify inter-continental and intra-continental, communication and health workforce training. In the Latin American region, there is a large heterogeneity of political and social development, economic growth, and political capacities. For example, in the Caribbean subregion, countries such as Haiti have a low Human Development Index. In such areas, and Venezuela where a humanitarian crisis had occurred since 2019 spreading measles, diphtheria, and vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, over the region [[11], [12], [13]], the impact of a COVID-19 outbreak will be more devastating than in the more developed economies, such as Brazil or Mexico. Most of the countries in the region are remembering the lessons learned during SARS (2003) and pandemic influenza (2009). Protocols already developed during those crises, including laboratory and patient management, may prove useful in this new situation. Good communication strategies for preventive measures in the population, and in neighboring countries in addition to Brazil, will be essential and this response should be aligned with the recommendations of the WHO. In Latin America, the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) recent epidemiological alert for measles shows that from January 1, 2019 to January 24, 2020, 20,430 confirmed cases of measles were reported, including 19 deaths, in 14 countries: Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curaçao, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Brazil contributed 88% of the total confirmed cases in the Americas [14]. In the first 4 weeks of 2020, a staggering 125,514 cases of measles were notified. The dengue incidence rate is 12.86 cases/100,000 inhabitants in the region for the ongoing year, including 27 deaths, 12,891 cases confirmed by laboratory and 498 cases classified as severe dengue (0.4%). Countries like Bolivia, Honduras, Mexico and Paraguay have reported an increase of double or triple the number of cases of dengue compared to the same period from the previous year [15]. In this complex epidemiological scenario, we are about to witness a syndemic [16] of measles, dengue, and COVID-19, among others, unfold. The World Health Organization (WHO) has published guidelines encouraging the provision of information to health professionals and the general public. Resources, intensified surveillance, and capacity building should be urgently prioritized in countries with a moderate risk that might be ill-prepared to detect imported cases and to limit onward transmission, as has already occurred in Brazil. [For the moment of proofs correction of this Editorial –Mar. 1, 2020–, 2 cases have been confirmed in Brazil, but also new 5 confirmed cases were also reported in Mexico (2° country that reported cases), 6 in Ecuador (3°) and 1 in Dominican Republic (4°), summarizing 14 cases in Latin America]. Credit author statement AJRM conceived the idea of the Editorial and wrote the first draft. The rest of the authors reviewed and improved the second draft. All authors approved the final version. Author contributions Conceptualization: AJRM. Writing—original draft preparation: AJRM. Writing—review, and editing: All the authors. Funding source None. Ethical approval Approval was not required. Declaration of competing interest None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.All authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the Form for Disclosure of Potential.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Deep Impact of COVID-19 in the HealthCare of Latin America: the case of Brazil

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Variants, Vaccines and Vaccination passports: Challenges and Chances for Travel Medicine in 2021

              Since its onset, the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 has radically changed the travel medicine landscape resulting in significant air travel restrictions. In this editorial we broach the complexities of variants, vaccines and vaccination passports and their complex interplay with travel medicine and how these elements will change travel medicine practice. The threat of variants: During December 2020, an unexpected increase in the number of COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom and South Africa was found to be associated with the emergence of the new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) 501Y.V1 (B.1.1.7) and 501Y.V2 (B.1.351), respectively. Such variants had mutations (N501Y) at the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein associated with an apparent increase in transmission of the virus of 40% to 70%, and possibly also with an increased clinical severity. In January 2021, other VOC began to be reported, including from Brazil [P.1 (501Y.V3)], USA, France, Italy, Denmark and others [1, 2, 3]. This increase in VOC resulted in new restrictions on air travel to and from these countries. SARS-CoV-2 variants add extra complexity to the pre-travel risk assessment and advice. Consideration needs to be given to the clinical implications and country-related responses to emerging variants but is compounded by the lack of genomic sequencing capacity and real-time detection of VOC globally. Clinically, the primary considerations are the transmissibility of the variant, the severity of the disease it causes, its ability to be detected by diagnostic tests, its susceptibility to therapeutic agents, and its ability to evade natural or vaccine-induced immunity. The 501Y.V2 (B.1.351) and the P.1 (501Y.V3) have the E484K mutation with additional concerns that this affects the ability of the virus to be recognized by antibodies [4]. For the traveller, VOC adds a material but unquantifiable risk. Traveller choices depend on many factors, including their risk tolerance, but the additional uncertainties posed by VOC may make the traveller reconsider their travel plans. For example, travellers need to be aware of the increased likelihood of infection and the implications this may have particularly concerning public health measures associated with illness abroad. For a vaccinated traveller, the concern that the predominant circulating virus strain at their destination may be less responsive to vaccine will need to be discussed. Equally, the destination’s approach to variants needs to be considered; since early 2020, short notice travel restrictions and strict quarantine measures have been commonplace. The recent identification of VOC in Denmark, UK, South Africa, and Brazil has similarly resulted in many countries introducing travel bans, enhanced surveillance, mandatory hotel quarantine, or a combination of measures to prevent importation of VOC [5]. COVID-19 has resulted in continually evolving challenges for those advising travellers, and mutation of SARS-CoV-2 is yet another consideration that adds to the complex and evolving situation. Where is travel medicine with regard to COVID vaccination? Several vaccines against COVID-19 are currently available worldwide which vary in efficacy and quantity available. Prioritisation of population targets also varies from country to country. Should travellers to or from areas with high incidence of COVID-19 also be prioritised for vaccinatination? For most currently available COVID-19 vaccines, a minimum of three weeks is recommended between two doses and the same vaccine should be used for the booster dose. In addition, it is recommended to avoid other vaccine injections in the weeks prior to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, which expands the period during which theoretically no other vaccine should be given to around six to seven weeks. All of these constraints make it challenging to integrate the COVID vaccination into the traditional ‘travel vaccination schedule’, especially if the destination is in a tropical area or if mandatory vaccinations are indicated. Moreover, the duration of protection of COVID vaccines is currently unknown. Mutations of the spike protein as the principal virus target complicate the situation further, and vaccine evolution will have to keep pace with virus evolution. Some rays of hope - the West African Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak (2013-2016) and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic provide proof-of-concept that accelerated vaccine development is possible under exceptional circumstances, markedly shortening the time lapse between outbreak onset, preclinical testing, clinical trials and vaccine registration [6, 7]. The path to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development is, to date, breathtakingly brief, with two mRNA vaccines (and a third one half-way through a pre-registration phase 2b/3 trial) being the first representatives of a novel platform originally envisaged for onco-vaccine development but now the front runner in the COVID-19 vaccine race in terms of efficacy. This technology could also be harnessed for travel medicine. Over the past couple of years, a range of mRNA vaccines successfully underwent preclinical (amongst others - malaria, Ebola) [8] and even early phases of clinical testing (amongst others - rabies, Zika, chikungunya) [8], thus encompassing a wide range of vaccines of potential interest for tropical medicine and travel medicine. It is to be expected that the safety profile and efficacy of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines will act as a strong booster, to further mRNA vaccine development. Can we adapt antigen sparing approaches to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations? Paucity of antigen amount available to protect large populations in resource-limited settings is a challenge, and techniques to reduce the necessary amount of antigen required to achieve long-lasting protection are for obvious reasons also of interest in the field of travel medicine [9]. There has been a considerable research into fractional dose antigen administration via the intradermal (ID) route as compared to the routine intramuscular or subcutaneous routes. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of ID administered vaccines at a statistically significant level for influenza, rabies and hepatitis B; with some other antigens administered via the ID route (e.g. Yellow Fever) yielding results trending towards non-inferiority but without reaching statistical significance due to a paucity of adequately powered clinical trials [10]. Another approach to antigen saving attracting research over the recent past years and ongoing are dose-sparing vaccination regimens, for example, against rabies (pre-exposure prophylaxis, PrEP [11] or post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) [12] as well as the skipping of a booster immunisation dose (as with yellow fever [13]). These are all scenarios that could be investigated for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in a travel medicine setting. Human challenge models as potential accelerators in travel medicine vaccine development SARS-CoV-2 vaccines could also be evaluated using human challenge models. In the field of (chemoprophylaxis and) vaccine development relevant for travel medicine, a limitation in trial design is very often that large numbers of travellers would be required to determine prophylactic efficacy, further complicated by difficult-to-determine individual exposure to the target organism given lack of highly sensitive biomarkers correlating with exposure. Human challenge studies have been vital in pushing research on a number of infections including typhoid and malaria [14]. Media reports now describe that a new UK study will use the “human challenge” approach to assess second generation COVID vaccinations and to evaluate whether current vaccines protect against variants (15). The Holy Grail of vaccination passports The introduction of ‘vaccination passports’ is now a topic of hot debate. Such passports could mean that those carrying proof of immunisation might be able to travel freely. This would facilitate the re-opening of air travel and assist in reviving national economies. The concept has obvious appeal. Vaccination passports differ from ’immunity passports’ which involve providing evidence of past infection. ‘Immunity passports’ are currently not recommended by either ECDC or the WHO as the parameters and duration of immunity post infection are undefined, antibody testing is costly, they may incentivise exposure to infection and there are issues regarding re-infection and susceptibility to new strains. ‘Vaccination passports’ are different in that they incentivise vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination schedules have documented correlates of protection. Some governments in Europe have already announced that international travellers who have proof of vaccination are exempt from official border restrictions and quarantine - Romania has become the first European country to abolish testing and quarantine requirements for incoming foreign visitors, provided they have been adequately vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Denmark is developing a digital vaccine passport that will facilitate travel, allow privileges and ease restrictions. Estonia has pledged to drop quarantine requirements for travellers with proof of vaccination. This situation has fuelled intense debate in the European Union. Vaccination certificates are not new. In travel medicine, we are familiar with the need for proof of yellow fever vaccination for specified destinations and proof of meningococcal immunisation for those travelling to the Hajj or proof of polio vaccination in certain circumstances. The revised International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005 expanded the scope of internationally important diseases from three (cholera, plague and yellow fever) to include all “events which may constitute public health emergencies of international concern” [16]. The former ‘International Certificate of Vaccination or Revaccination Against Yellow Fever’ was revised to the ‘International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis’ and includes documentation not just on yellow fever but on any vaccination or prophylaxis. So, is a framework already in place for COVID vaccination documentation? No, this is a quagmire: There are the issues of the wide palette of COVID vaccines and the correct documentation of vaccination. Yellow fever vaccination is a single shot, using WHO pre-approved vaccine, and is administered in regulated centres with defined conditions for vaccine administration and documentation. Currently the mass COVID vaccine roll-out, the need in many cases for two doses, the variety of vaccines, and the absence of guidelines for homogenous documentation constitute a very different landscape. Then there is the question of the efficacy. It is not known if any of the currently available vaccines will prevent those who have been vaccinated from transmitting the virus. This may differ according to the specific vaccine administered as well as according to circulating strains in each country. Are all vaccines equal? Would documentation of a receipt of a vaccine not licensed in the country being visited be adequate? If not, equity issues could be compounded. The duration of immunity provided by vaccines and the appropriate validity of a passport following vaccination is another unanswered question – the idea of 6 months is being touted, but this may encourage ‘richer’ nations to offer boosters before poorer more vulnerable populations have had the chance to receive even a first round of vaccines. There is also a side issue of fake COVID vaccine currently receiving media attention. Vaccination passports are associated with equity issues given current restrictions to vaccine access, resulting in potential exacerbation of discrimination. Since there is not yet universal access to the vaccine, limiting individual freedom on the basis of vaccine access would disadvantage poorer nations and minority groups where vaccine rollout is likely to be slower. If these passports are introduced, it could also be interpreted as making the vaccine compulsory, since those who will not be vaccinated will be deprived of their freedom to travel. The ethical counter-argument [17] relates to the restriction of free movement for individuals, potentially including those vaccinated who may be at low risk of transmitting COVID-19 and therefore pose little or no public health risk. The 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a legal tool that defends individual rights and freedoms in all signatory countries, stating that everyone has a right to freedom of movement that cannot be restricted but ‘for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases’. Another key question: should the vaccination passport be digital or paper-based? Should it be an updated version of the International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis, potentially as a digital record? Issues of concern are falsified or counterfeit vaccine certificates. Privacy plagues the digital approach, and digital solutions combining health data and identification could exclude those who do not own a smartphone or access to stable internet connections. Personal health data in newly devised digital systems may also become gatekeepers to workplaces, schools, and other spaces and this opens vast bioethical debate. What does seem clear is that a country-by-country approach will not work as a global solution. The World Health Organization (WHO), currently does not endorse proof of vaccination or immunity for international travel as a condition of entry. WHO is however working on Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specifications and standards to support harmonised processes for inclusion of the COVID-19 vaccine into in an updated version of the International Health Regulations. This will include language that should an IHR requirement of proof of COVID-19 vaccination for international travellers be introduced in the future, such vaccines must be approved, or prequalified, by the WHO [18]. Regardless of any possible future digital technology, COVID-19 vaccination status should be recorded in parallel on the existing paper International Certificate for Vaccination and Prophylaxis. The yellow book or card is still key for international travellers for some time to come. Any future digital vaccination certificate will additionally have to support the needs of national immunization programmes; while ensuring that digital technologies do not engender or perpetuate inequities. Furthermore, vaccination passports will not allow the lifting of recommendations for mask wearing and social distancing on flights. And while it seems inevitable that vaccination passports, in some form, will evolve, the road to this outcome needs careful navigation. What is certain is that travel medicine has changed utterly and that practitioners will need to stay updated on the challenges and chances of this evolving situation. Uncited References 15.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Braz J Infect Dis
                Braz J Infect Dis
                The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
                Elsevier
                1413-8670
                1678-4391
                16 March 2021
                Mar-Apr 2021
                16 March 2021
                : 25
                : 2
                : 101571
                Affiliations
                [a ]Institute of Infectious Diseases Emilio Ribas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
                [b ]Brazilian Society for Infectious Diseases, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
                [c ]Latin American Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019-COVID-19 Research (LANCOVID-19), Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia
                [d ]Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Avenida Professor Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 255, 50. andar, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 21941-913, Brazil
                [e ]Universidade Federal do Parana, Rua General Carneiro, 181, Curitiba, PR, CEP 80060-900, Brazil
                [f ]Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina, Faculty of Medicine, Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia
                [g ]Colombian Association of Infectious Diseases, Bogota, DC, Colombia
                Author notes
                Article
                S1413-8670(21)00040-4 101571
                10.1016/j.bjid.2021.101571
                9392129
                33741322
                2e451464-e7af-41a8-97cd-7bf6229e8bee
                © 2021 Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 15 March 2021
                Categories
                Editorial

                Comments

                Comment on this article