After the globally coordinated cessation of any serotype of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), some risks remain from undetected, existing homotypic OPV‐related transmission and/or restarting transmission due to several possible reintroduction risks. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) coordinated global cessation of serotype 2‐containing OPV (OPV2) in 2016. Following OPV2 cessation, the GPEI and countries implemented activities to withdraw all the remaining trivalent OPV, which contains all three poliovirus serotypes (i.e., 1, 2, and 3), from the supply chain and replace it with bivalent OPV (containing only serotypes 1 and 3). However, as of early 2020, monovalent OPV2 use for outbreak response continues in many countries. In addition, outbreaks observed in 2019 demonstrated evidence of different types of risks than previously modeled. We briefly review the 2019 epidemiological experience with serotype 2 live poliovirus outbreaks and propose a new risk for unexpected OPV introduction for inclusion in global modeling of OPV cessation. Using an updated model of global poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution with and without consideration of this new risk, we explore the implications of the current global situation with respect to the likely need to restart preventive use of OPV2 in OPV‐using countries. Simulation results without this new risk suggest OPV2 restart will likely need to occur (81% of 100 iterations) to manage the polio endgame based on the GPEI performance to date with existing vaccine tools, and with the new risk of unexpected OPV introduction the expected OPV2 restart probability increases to 89%. Contingency planning requires new OPV2 bulk production, including genetically stabilized OPV2 strains.
Falsified and substandard drugs are a global health problem, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) that have weak pharmacovigilance and drug regulatory systems. Poor quality medicines have important health consequences, including the potential for treatment failure, development of antimicrobial resistance, and serious adverse drug reactions, increasing healthcare costs and undermining the public's confidence in healthcare systems. This article presents a review of the methods employed for the analysis of pharmaceutical formulations. Technologies for detecting substandard and falsified drugs were identified primarily through literature reviews. Key-informant interviews with experts augmented our methods when warranted. In order to aid comparisons, technologies were assigned a suitability score for use in LMIC ranging from 0–8. Scores measured the need for electricity, need for sample preparation, need for reagents, portability, level of training required, and speed of analysis. Technologies with higher scores were deemed the most feasible in LMICs. We categorized technologies that cost $10,000 USD or less as low cost, $10,000–100,000 USD as medium cost and those greater than $100,000 USD as high cost technologies (all prices are 2013 USD). This search strategy yielded information on 42 unique technologies. Five technologies were deemed both low cost and had feasibility scores between 6–8, and an additional four technologies had medium cost and high feasibility. Twelve technologies were deemed portable and therefore could be used in the field. Many technologies can aid in the detection of substandard and falsified drugs that vary from the simplest of checklists for packaging to the most complex mass spectrometry analyses. Although there is no single technology that can serve all the requirements of detecting falsified and substandard drugs, there is an opportunity to bifurcate the technologies into specific niches to address specific sections within the workflow process of detecting products.
SummaryBackgroundIntermittent preventive treatment (IPT) for malaria is used in infants, children, adults, and pregnant women. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) is an effective, well tolerated artemisinin-based combination therapy. The long half-life of piperaquine makes it attractive for IPT. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the efficacy and safety of repeated treatment with DP.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched multiple databases on Sept 1, 2016, with the terms: “human” AND “dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine” OR “DHA-PPQ”. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies involving repeat exposures to standard 3-day courses of DP for either seasonal malaria chemoprevention, mass drug administration, or treatment of clinical malaria, conducted at any time and in any geographic location. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled incidence rate ratios and relative risks, or risk differences.Findings11 studies were included: two repeat treatment studies (one in children younger than 5 years and one in pregnant women), and nine IPT trials (five in children younger than 5 years, one in schoolchildren, one in adults, two in pregnant women). Comparator interventions included placebo, artemether-lumefantrine, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP), SP+amodiaquine, SP+piperaquine, SP+chloroquine, and co-trimoxazole. Of 14 628 participants, 3935 received multiple DP courses (2–18). Monthly IPT-DP was associated with an 84% reduction in the incidence of malaria parasitaemia measured by microscopy compared with placebo. Monthly IPT-DP was associated with fewer serious adverse events than placebo, daily co-trimoxazole, or monthly SP. Among 56 IPT-DP recipients (26 children, 30 pregnant women) with cardiac parameters, all QTc intervals were within normal limits, with no significant increase in QTc prolongation with increasing courses of DP.InterpretationMonthly DP appears well tolerated and effective for IPT. Additional data are needed in pregnancy and to further explore the cardiac safety with monthly dosing.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation and NIH.
BackgroundPneumonia and diarrhea are leading causes of death for children under five (U5). It is challenging to estimate the total number of deaths and cause-specific mortality fractions. Two major efforts, one led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and the other led by the World Health Organization (WHO)/Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG) created estimates for the burden of disease due to these two syndromes, yet their estimates differed greatly for 2010.MethodsThis paper discusses three main drivers of the differences: data sources, data processing, and covariates used for modelling. The paper discusses differences in the model assumptions for etiology-specific estimates and presents recommendations for improving future models.ResultsIHME’s Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 study estimated 6.8 million U5 deaths compared to 7.6 million U5 deaths from CHERG. The proportional differences between the pneumonia and diarrhea burden estimates from the two groups are much larger; GBD 2010 estimated 0.847 million and CHERG estimated 1.396 million due to pneumonia. Compared to CHERG, GBD 2010 used broader inclusion criteria for verbal autopsy and vital registration data. GBD 2010 and CHERG used different data processing procedures and therefore attributed the causes of neonatal death differently. The major difference in pneumonia etiologies modeling approach was the inclusion of observational study data; GBD 2010 included observational studies. CHERG relied on vaccine efficacy studies.DiscussionGreater transparency in modeling methods and more timely access to data sources are needed. In October 2013, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) hosted an expert meeting to examine possible approaches for better estimation. The group recommended examining the impact of data by systematically excluding sources in their models. GBD 2.0 will use a counterfactual approach for estimating mortality from pathogens due to specific etiologies to overcome bias of the methods used in GBD 2010 going forward.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0728-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.