Performance of the Genotype® MTBDRPlus assay in the diagnosis of tuberculosis and drug resistance in Samara, Russian Federation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Russia is a high tuberculosis (TB) burden country with a high prevalence of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDRTB). Molecular assays for detection of MDRTB on clinical specimens are not widely available in Russia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We performed an evaluation of the GenoType^®MTBDRplus assay (HAIN Lifescience GmbH, Germany) on a total of 168 sputum specimens from individual patients at a public health laboratory in Central Russia, as a model of a middle income site in a region with high levels of drug resistance. Phenotypic drug resistance tests (DST) were performed on cultures derived from the same sputum specimens using the BACTEC 960 liquid media system.</p> <p>Interpretable GenoType^®MTBDRplus results were obtained for 154(91.7%) specimens with readability rates significantly higher in sputum specimens graded 2+ and 3+ compared to 1+ (RR = 1.17 95%CI 1.04–1.32). The sensitivity and specificity of the assay for the detection of rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistance and MDR was 96.2%, 97.4%, 97.1% and 90.7%, 83.3%, 88.9% respectively. Mutations in codon 531 of the <it>rpoB </it>gene and codon 315 of the <it>katG </it>gene dominated in RIF and INH resistant strains respectively. Disagreements between phenotypical and molecular tests results (12 samples) could be explained by the presence of rare mutations in strains circulating in Russia and simultaneous presence of resistant and sensitive bacilli in sputum specimens (heteroresistance).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>High sensitivity, short turnaround times and the potential for screening large numbers of specimens rapidly, make the GenoType^®MTBDRplus assay suitable as a first-line screening assay for drug resistant TB.</p

Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children &lt;18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. Results All-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3-11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p&lt;0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p&lt;0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p&lt;0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality. Conclusions Children with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer

Partnerships for peace and development in fragile states: identifying missing links

Literature on partnerships has grown rapidly in the past decade across different disciplines. However, despite conceptual attention to the value of strategic multi-stakeholder collaboration to promote peace and reconciliation, challenges posed by (post-)conflict, fragile contexts have barely been considered in empirical studies. In this article we contribute by bringing together debates from different partnership literatures and providing an overview of existing, relatively limited research insights on partnerships for peace in fragile states. We present a typology of different levels (local, national, international) at which collaboration takes place and different types of partnerships (philanthropic, transactional, engagement, transformative). This is exemplified with specific attention to Africa, where most fragile states are found, and to partnerships with transformative potential. The analysis suggests that the lowest-level (local) partnerships tend to exclude the national government, while the most recent international, multilateral-driven collaboration has not included business; national cases are most transformative but incidental and not yet leveraged internationally. Despite the interconnected nature of conflict and fragility issues, linkages between partnerships and partners at different levels are largely missing, offering potential for further development by a broad spectrum of scholars and thought leaders. Insights from ‘extreme’ unconventional contexts thus have relevance for management research more generally

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with paediatric cancer in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric cancer is a leading cause of death for children. Children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were four times more likely to die than children in high-income countries (HICs). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the delivery of healthcare services worldwide, and exacerbated the disparity in paediatric cancer outcomes between LMICs and HICs. DESIGN: A multicentre, international, collaborative cohort study. SETTING: 91 hospitals and cancer centres in 39 countries providing cancer treatment to paediatric patients between March and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included if they were under the age of 18 years, and newly diagnosed with or undergoing active cancer treatment for Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms' tumour, sarcoma, retinoblastoma, gliomas, medulloblastomas or neuroblastomas, in keeping with the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality at 30 days and 90 days. RESULTS: 1660 patients were recruited. 219 children had changes to their treatment due to the pandemic. Patients in LMICs were primarily affected (n=182/219, 83.1%). Relative to patients with paediatric cancer in HICs, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 12.1 (95% CI 2.93 to 50.3) and 7.9 (95% CI 3.2 to 19.7) times the odds of death at 30 days and 90 days, respectively, after presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 15.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 65.8) times the odds of death at 30 days (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected paediatric oncology service provision. It has disproportionately affected patients in LMICs, highlighting and compounding existing disparities in healthcare systems globally that need addressing urgently. However, many patients with paediatric cancer continued to receive their normal standard of care. This speaks to the adaptability and resilience of healthcare systems and healthcare workers globally