No abstract

D uring January 2020, persons in Thailand were tested for the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection if they had a combination of fever or respiratory illness and a history of travel to Wuhan, China. Persons determined to be close contacts of a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) case-patient also were tested during enrollment into contact tracing. Clinicians were able to request testing if they had a concern regarding persons who were exposed to travelers. During January 8-31, 2020, Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, the national infectious disease referral hospital in Bangkok, admitted 11 patients with laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19. We describe clinical features, clinical management, and results of serial reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA for these patients.

Mixed methods research has become increasingly popular in health systems. Qualitative approaches are often used to explain quantitative results and help to develop interventions or survey instruments. Mixed methods research is especially important in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, where understanding social, economic and cultural contexts are essential to assess health systems performance. To provide researchers and programme managers with a guide to mixed methods research in health systems, we review the best resources with a focus on LMICs. We selected 10 best resources (eight peer-reviewed articles and two textbooks) based on their importance and frequency of use (number of citations), comprehensiveness of content, usefulness to readers and relevance to health systems research in resource-limited contexts. We start with an overview on mixed methods research and discuss resources that are useful for a better understanding of the design and conduct of mixed methods research. To illustrate its practical applications, we provide examples from various countries (China, Vietnam, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and India) across different health topics (tuberculosis, malaria, HIV testing and healthcare costs). We conclude with some toolkits which suggest what to do when mixed methods findings conflict and provide guidelines for evaluating the quality of mixed methods research.

The outcomes of kidney transplantation (KT) from hepatitis B surface antigen-positive [HBsAg(þ)] donors to HBsAg(À) recipients remain inconclusive, possibly due to substantial differences in methodological and statistical models, number of patients, follow-up duration, hepatitis B virus (HBV) prophylactic regimens and hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) levels. The present retrospective, longitudinal study (clinicaltrial. gov NCT02044588) using propensity score matching technique was conducted to compare outcomes of KT between HBsAg(À) recipients with anti-HBs titer above 100 mIU/mL undergoing KT from HBsAg(þ) donors (n ¼ 43) and HBsAg(À) donors (n ¼ 86). During the median follow-up duration of 58.2 months (range 16.7-158.3 months), there were no significant differences in graft and patient survivals. No HBV-infective markers, including HBsAg, hepatitis B core antibody, hepatitis B extracellular antigen and HBV DNA quantitative test were detected in HBsAg(þ) donor group. Renal pathology outcomes revealed comparable incidences of kidney allograft rejection while there were no incidences of HBV-associated glomerulonephritis and viral antigen staining. Recipients undergoing KT from HBsAg(þ) donors with no HBV prophylaxis (n ¼ 20) provided comparable outcomes with those treated with lamivudine alone (n ¼ 21) or lamivudine in combination with HBV immunoglobulin (n ¼ 2). In conclusion, KT without HBV prophylaxis from HBsAg(þ) donors without hepatitis B viremia to HBsAg(À) recipients with anti-HBs titer above 100 mIU/mL provides excellent graft and patient survivals without evidence of HBV transmission.