Findings from a cluster randomised trial of unconditional cash transfers in Niger.

Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) are used as a humanitarian intervention to prevent acute malnutrition, despite a lack of evidence about their effectiveness. In Niger, UCT and supplementary feeding are given during the June-September "lean season," although admissions of malnourished children to feeding programmes may rise from March/April. We hypothesised that earlier initiation of the UCT would reduce the prevalence of global acute malnutrition (GAM) in children 6-59 months old in beneficiary households and at population level. We conducted a 2-armed cluster-randomised controlled trial in which the poorest households received either the standard UCT (4 transfers between June and September) or a modified UCT (6 transfers from April); both providing 130,000 FCFA/£144 in total. Eligible individuals (pregnant and lactating women and children 6- 0.05), despite improved food security (p < 0.05), possibly driven by increased fever/malaria in children (p < 0.001). Nonfood related drivers of malnutrition, such as disease, may limit the effectiveness of UCTs plus supplementary feeding to prevent malnutrition in this context. Caution is required in applying the findings of this study to periods of severe food insecurity

Assessing the use of an essential health package in a sector wide approach in Malawi

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The sector wide approach (SWAp) used in many developing countries is difficult to assess. One way is to consider the essential health package (EHP) which is commonly the vehicle for a SWAp's policies and plans. It is not possible to measure the impact of an EHP by measuring health outcomes in countries such as Malawi. But it is possible to assess the choice of interventions and their delivery in terms of coverage. This paper describes an attempt to assess the Malawi SWAp through its EHP using these available measures of technical efficiency.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A burden of disease model was used to identify the priority diseases and their estimated incidence. Data from the health management information system (HMIS) were used to measure the coverage of these interventions. A review of the cost-effectiveness of the chosen and potential interventions was undertaken to assess the appropriateness of each intervention used in the EHP. Expenditure data were used to assess the level of funding of the EHP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>33 of the 55 EHP interventions were found to be potentially cost-effective (<$150/DALY), 12 were not so cost-effective (>$150/DALY) and cost-effective estimates were not available for ten. 15 potential interventions, which were cost-effective and tackling one of the top 20 ranked diseases, were identified.</p> <p>Provision had increased in nearly all EHP services over the period of the SWAp. The rates of out patient attendances and inpatient days per 1000 population had both increased from 929 attendances in 2002/3 to 1135 in 2007/08 and from 124 inpatient days in 2002/03 to 179 in 2007/08.</p> <p>However, by 2007/08 the mean gap between what was required and what was provided was 0.68 of the estimated need. Two services involving the treatment of malaria were overprovided, but the majority were underprovided, with some such as maternity care providing less than half of what was required.</p> <p>The EHP was under-funded throughout the period covering on average 57% of necessary costs. By 2007/08 the funding paid by SWAp partners including the government of Malawi to fund the EHP was at US$13.5 per capita per annum, which was almost half of the revised EHP estimated required expenditure per capita per annum.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The SWAp had invested in some very cost-effective health interventions. In terms of numbers of patients treated, the EHP had delivered two thirds of the services required. This was despite serious under-funding of the EHP, an increase in the population and shortage of staff.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The identification of interventions of proven effectiveness and good value for money and earmarked funding through a SWAp process can produce measurable improvement in health service delivery at extremely low cost.</p

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Background The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology. Objectives To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 cases. Search methods The COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre (EPPI‐Centre) ‘COVID‐19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID‐19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT‐PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS‐CoV‐2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre‐pandemic samples). Data collection and analysis We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta‐analysis, we fitted univariate random‐effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. Main results We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre‐prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre‐pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two‐thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy‐nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre‐pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent‐phase infection) and specific (pre‐pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike‐protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent‐phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low‐prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID‐19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post‐symptom onset or post‐positive PCR) of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Authors' conclusions Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular‐ or antigen‐based tests have failed to detect the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero‐epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination‐induced antibodies is uncertain

Evidence for perinatal and child health care guidelines in crisis settings: can Cochrane help?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is important that healthcare provided in crisis settings is based on the best available research evidence. We reviewed guidelines for child and perinatal health care in crisis situations to determine whether they were based on research evidence, whether Cochrane systematic reviews were available in the clinical areas addressed by these guidelines and whether summaries of these reviews were provided in Evidence Aid.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Broad internet searches were undertaken to identify relevant guidelines. Guidelines were appraised using AGREE and the clinical areas that were relevant to perinatal or child health were extracted. We searched The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify potentially relevant reviews. For each review we determined how many trials were included, and how many were conducted in resource-limited settings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Six guidelines met selection criteria. None of the included guidelines were clearly based on research evidence. 198 Cochrane reviews were potentially relevant to the guidelines. These reviews predominantly addressed nutrient supplementation, breastfeeding, malaria, maternal hypertension, premature labour and prevention of HIV transmission. Most reviews included studies from developing settings. However for large portions of the guidelines, particularly health services delivery, there were no relevant reviews. Only 18 (9.1%) reviews have summaries in Evidence Aid.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We did not identify any evidence-based guidelines for perinatal and child health care in disaster settings. We found many Cochrane reviews that could contribute to the evidence-base supporting future guidelines. However there are important issues to be addressed in terms of the relevance of the available reviews and increasing the number of reviews addressing health care delivery.</p