Bacterial aetiology of gastroenteritis in children; experience from a paediatric unit in a tertiary hospital of Sri Lanka

NA

Essential Medicines at the National Level : The Global Asthma Network's Essential Asthma Medicines Survey 2014

Patients with asthma need uninterrupted supplies of affordable, quality-assured essential medicines. However, access in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. The World Health Organization (WHO) Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) Global Action Plan 2013-2020 sets an 80% target for essential NCD medicines' availability. Poor access is partly due to medicines not being included on the national Essential Medicines Lists (EML) and/or National Reimbursement Lists (NRL) which guide the provision of free/subsidised medicines. We aimed to determine how many countries have essential asthma medicines on their EML and NRL, which essential asthma medicines, and whether surveys might monitor progress. A cross-sectional survey in 2013-2015 of Global Asthma Network principal investigators generated 111/120 (93%) responses41 high-income countries and territories (HICs); 70 LMICs. Patients in HICs with NRL are best served (91% HICs included ICS (inhaled corticosteroids) and salbutamol). Patients in the 24 (34%) LMICs with no NRL and the 14 (30%) LMICs with an NRL, however no ICS are likely to have very poor access to affordable, quality-assured ICS. Many LMICs do not have essential asthma medicines on their EML or NRL. Technical guidance and advocacy for policy change is required. Improving access to these medicines will improve the health system's capacity to address NCDs.Peer reviewe

Clinical standards for the diagnosis and management of asthma in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to aid the diagnosis and management of asthma in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A panel of 52 experts in the field of asthma in LMICs participated in a two-stage Delphi process to establish and reach a consensus on the clinical standards. RESULTS: Eighteen clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, Every individual with symptoms and signs compatible with asthma should undergo a clinical assessment; Standard 2, In individuals (>6 years) with a clinical assessment supportive of a diagnosis of asthma, a hand-held spirometry measurement should be used to confirm variable expiratory airflow limitation by demonstrating an acute response to a bronchodilator; Standard 3, Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry should be performed in individuals (>6 years) to support diagnosis before treatment is commenced if there is diagnostic uncertainty; Standard 4, Individuals with an acute exacerbation of asthma and clinical signs of hypoxaemia or increased work of breathing should be given supplementary oxygen to maintain saturation at 94–98%; Standard 5, Inhaled short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABAs) should be used as an emergency reliever in individuals with asthma via an appropriate spacer device for metered-dose inhalers; Standard 6, Short-course oral corticosteroids should be administered in appropriate doses to individuals having moderate to severe acute asthma exacerbations (minimum 3–5 days); Standard 7, Individuals having a severe asthma exacerbation should receive emergency care, including oxygen therapy, systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators (e.g., salbutamol with or without ipratropium bromide) and a single dose of intravenous magnesium sulphate should be considered; Standard 8, All individuals with asthma should receive education about asthma and a personalised action plan; Standard 9, Inhaled medications (excluding dry-powder devices) should be administered via an appropriate spacer device in both adults and children. Children aged 0–3 years will require the spacer to be coupled to a face mask; Standard 10, Children aged <5 years with asthma should receive a SABA as-needed at step 1 and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to cover periods of wheezing due to respiratory viral infections, and SABA as-needed and daily ICS from step 2 upwards; Standard 11, Children aged 6–11 years with asthma should receive an ICS taken whenever an inhaled SABA is used; Standard 12, All adolescents aged 12–18 years and adults with asthma should receive a combination inhaler (ICS and rapid onset of action long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] such as budesonide-formoterol), where available, to be used either as-needed (for mild asthma) or as both maintenance and reliever therapy, for moderate to severe asthma; Standard 13, Inhaled SABA alone for the management of patients aged >12 years is not recommended as it is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. It should only be used where there is no access to ICS. The following standards (14–18) are for settings where there is no access to inhaled medicines. Standard 14, Patients without access to corticosteroids should be provided with a single short course of emergency oral prednisolone; Standard 15, Oral SABA for symptomatic relief should be used only if no inhaled SABA is available. Adjust to the individual’s lowest beneficial dose to minimise adverse effects; Standard 16, Oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) can be used as a preventive medication and is preferable to the use of long-term oral systemic corticosteroids; Standard 17, In exceptional circumstances, when there is a high risk of mortality from exacerbations, low-dose oral prednisolone daily or on alternate days may be considered on a case-by-case basis; Standard 18. Oral theophylline should be restricted for use in situations where it is the only bronchodilator treatment option available. CONCLUSION: These first consensus-based clinical standards for asthma management in LMICs are intended to help clinicians provide the most effective care for people in resource-limited settings

Severe reaction following a combined vaccine

(Key words: adverse reaction, DPT+HepB+Hib vaccine

'Practical management of suspected hypersensitivity reactions to anti-tuberculosis drugs.'

Tuberculosis (TB) is the commonest cause of death by a single infectious agent globally and ranks amongst the top ten causes of global mortality. The incidence of TB is highest in Low-Middle Income countries (LMICs). Prompt institution of, and compliance with, therapy are cornerstones for a favourable outcome in TB and to mitigate the risk of multiple drug resistant (MDR)-TB, which is challenging to treat. There is some evidence that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to anti-TB drugs occur in over 60% and 3-4% of patients respectively. Both ADRs and HSRs represent significant barriers to treatment adherence and are recognised risk factors for MDR-TB. HSRs to anti-TB drugs are usually cutaneous and benign, occur within few weeks after commencement of therapy and are likely to be T-cell mediated. Severe and systemic T-cell mediated HSRs and IgE mediated anaphylaxis to anti-TB drugs are relatively rare, but important to recognise and treat promptly. T-cell mediated HSRs are more frequent amongst patients with co-existing HIV infection. Some patients develop multiple sensitisation to anti-TB drugs. Whilst skin tests, patch tests and in vitro diagnostics have been used in the investigation of HSRs to anti-TB drugs, their predictive value is not established, they are onerous, require specialist input of an allergist and are resource-dependent. This is compounded by the global, unmet demand for allergy specialists, particularly in low income countries (LICs) / LMICs and now the challenging circumstances of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This narrative review provides a critical analysis of the limited published evidence on this topic and proposes a cautious and pragmatic approach to optimise and standardise the management of HSRs to anti-TB drugs. This includes clinical risk stratification and a dual strategy involving sequential re-challenge and rapid drug desensitisation. Furthermore, a concerted international effort is needed to generate real-time data on ADRs, HSRs, safety and clinical outcomes of these interventions

Global Asthma Network survey suggests more national asthma strategies could reduce burden of asthma

Background Several countries or regions within countries have an effective national asthma strategy resulting in a reduction of the large burden of asthma to individuals and society. There has been no systematic appraisal of the extent of national asthma strategies in the world. Methods The Global Asthma Network (GAN) undertook an email survey of 276 Principal Investigators of GAN centres in 120 countries, in 2013–2014. One of the questions was: “Has a national asthma strategy been developed in your country for the next five years? For children? For adults?”. Results Investigators in 112 (93.3%) countries answered this question. Of these, 26 (23.2%) reported having a national asthma strategy for children and 24 (21.4%) for adults; 22 (19.6%) countries had a strategy for both children and adults; 28 (25%) had a strategy for at least one age group. In countries with a high prevalence of current wheeze, strategies were significantly more common than in low prevalence countries (11/13 (85%) and 7/31 (22.6%) respectively, p < 0.001). Interpretation In 25% countries a national asthma strategy was reported. A large reduction in the global burden of asthma could be potentially achieved if more countries had an effective asthma strategy. © 2017 SEICA

Essential Medicines at the National Level: The Global Asthma Network's Essential Asthma Medicines Survey 2014

10.3390/ijerph16040605INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH16

Global Asthma Network survey suggests more national asthma strategies could reduce burden of asthma

Background Several countries or regions within countries have an effective national asthma strategy resulting in a reduction of the large burden of asthma to individuals and society. There has been no systematic appraisal of the extent of national asthma strategies in the world. Methods The Global Asthma Network (GAN) undertook an email survey of 276 Principal Investigators of GAN centres in 120 countries, in 2013–2014. One of the questions was: “Has a national asthma strategy been developed in your country for the next five years? For children? For adults?”. Results Investigators in 112 (93.3%) countries answered this question. Of these, 26 (23.2%) reported having a national asthma strategy for children and 24 (21.4%) for adults; 22 (19.6%) countries had a strategy for both children and adults; 28 (25%) had a strategy for at least one age group. In countries with a high prevalence of current wheeze, strategies were significantly more common than in low prevalence countries (11/13 (85%) and 7/31 (22.6%) respectively, p < 0.001). Interpretation In 25% countries a national asthma strategy was reported. A large reduction in the global burden of asthma could be potentially achieved if more countries had an effective asthma strategy. © 2017 SEICA