Baseline Report for the German-Myanmar Programme on Sustainable Economic Development

With the resumption of German-Myanmar bilateral cooperation in 2012, the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) saw this as a unique opportunity to pay special attention to the impact orientation of the new German-Myanmar Programme on Sustainable Economic Development from the early planning phase onwards, with the aim of addressing the issue of measuring impact at country-programme level. Accordingly, the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval) was asked to support and accompany this process and to create the prerequisites for impact evaluation on programme level

Results-Based Bilateral Development Cooperation: The triad of country strategy - (development cooperation) programme - module

In recent years, Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) has launched fundamental reforms. These are designed to enable bilateral official development cooperation to make a more targeted and effective contribution towards implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement. Reform processes such as 'BMZ 2030' and the joint procedural reform are important steps in this regard. In its report on the results orientation and evaluability of development cooperation programmes, DEval delivers initial findings on the application of the new procedures and requirements under the joint procedural reform, and their effects. This policy brief summarises the key findings of this evaluation

Country Portfolio Reviews: A tool for strategic portfolio analysis in German development cooperation

Background and objectives The 2030 Agenda is making new demands on international cooperation International development cooperation is frequently criticised for being of limited effectiveness, and therefore doing little to actually promote sustainable development. It is undisputed that shortcomings in policy and institutional frameworks in partner countries, and inefficient structures and processes in international cooperation, prevent development cooperation from being more effective. In particular, partner country institutions face the challenges created by the growing fragmentation of development cooperation. More and more stakeholders are getting involved in development cooperation and playing an active role in more and more projects. In some partner countries many donors operate in the same sectors instead of complementing each other, which makes the task of coordination more complex for partner governments. In many cases, donors' working structures also act as a constraint on more effective development cooperation. Existing projects and programmes are continued for political reasons or due to the self-interest of implementing organisations, rather than in response to changing contextual factors. This means that the decisions taken are not always evidence-based. These challenges often prevent development cooperation from responding coherently and effectively to current development needs in a partner country, and prevent governments in partner countries from assuming ownership of joint development projects. Since 2015 the 2030 Agenda has provided a guiding framework for action by international cooperation. Through it the international community has agreed on a new understanding of development as well as 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It emphasises the alignment of international cooperation with partner country priorities and needs. The Agenda aims to achieve a holistic perspective on development challenges, and to take greater account of the interactions between the social, economic and environmental dimensions of development than has so far been the case. Against this background, ensuring the relevance and ultimately also the effectiveness of bilateral development cooperation will require strategic steps to be taken on various levels. This will involve focusing bilateral development cooperation as a whole (macro level), ensuring strategic alignment and coherence at country level (meso-level), and enhancing planning and management at programme and project level (micro level). The BMZ has responded to these new demands on international development cooperation With this very much in mind, over the last few years the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) has launched processes of structural change for the strategic planning and management of its bilateral development cooperation. Alongside efforts made by the BMZ at the macro level to focus bilateral development cooperation, an increasing number of changes are being implemented at the meso-level. As also emphasised by the strategy paper Entwicklungspolitik 2030 ['Development Policy in 2030' – currently only available in German] published by the BMZ in 2018, rather than pursuing a compartmentalised focus on individual programmes and projects, it is envisaged that portfolio management will now focus on integrated and holistic country-level approaches. These changes at the meso-level reflect the understanding of development inherent in the 2030 Agenda. Be it the coherent design of country portfolios, focusing on macro-level development needs and trends in the partner country, responding to current reform momentum and government priorities, or including interactions between the social, environmental and economic dimensions of development – needed management decisions cannot be taken at the level of individual projects. They can only be made at the portfolio level. Accordingly, the BMZ has been seeking to strengthen the coherence of country portfolios through country strategies ever since 2012

Wirkungsorientierte bilaterale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit? Der Dreiklang aus Länderstrategie, EZ-Programm und Modul

Das Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) hat in den letzten Jahren grundlegende Reformen angestoßen, damit die staatliche bilaterale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZ) gezielter und wirksamer zur Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 und des Pariser Klimaabkommens beitragen kann. Dazu zählen Reformprozesse wie "BMZ 2030", die Gemeinsame Verfahrensreform und ein neues Steuerungsmodell - der Dreiklang - das ein Zielsystem auf drei Ebenen umfasst. In seinem Evaluierungsbericht zur Wirkungsorientierung und Evaluierbarkeit von EZ-Programmen stellt das DEval erste Erkenntnisse zur Anwendung und zu den Auswirkungen der neuen Verfahren und Vorgaben vor und analysiert deren Wirkungsorientierung. Dieser Policy Brief fasst die zentralen Ergebnisse aus dieser Evaluierung zusammen

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice : Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: M.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Novartis, and Takeda and grants from Janssen and Sanofi during the conduct of the study. E.T. has received grants from Janssen and personal fees from Janssen and Takeda during the conduct of the study, and grants from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Glaxo-Smith Kline outside the submitted work. M.V.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.C. reports honoraria from Janssen, outside the submitted work. M. B. reports grants from Janssen Cilag during the conduct of the study. M.D. has received honoraria for participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Novartis. H.S. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda outside the submitted work. V.P. reports personal fees from Janssen during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, and personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. W.W. has received personal fees and grants from Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen and nonfinancial support from Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the conduct of the study. V.L. reports funding from Janssen Global Services LLC during the conduct of the study and study support from Janssen-Cilag and Pharmion outside the submitted work. A.P. reports employment and shareholding of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) during the conduct of the study. C.C. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. C.F. reports employment at Janssen Research and Development during the conduct of the study. F.T.B. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. The remaining authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The AuthorsMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries