Evaluating a multicomponent program to improve hypertension control in Guatemala: Study protocol for an effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial

Background: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite advances in hypertension prevention and treatment, the proportion of patients who are aware, treated and controlled is low, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We will evaluate an adapted version of a multilevel and multicomponent hypertension control program in Guatemala, previously proven effective and feasible in Argentina. The program components are: protocol-based hypertension treatment using a standardized algorithm; team-based collaborative care; health provider education; health coaching sessions; home blood pressure monitoring; blood pressure audit; and feedback.Methods: Using a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation design, we will evaluate clinical and implementation outcomes of the multicomponent program in Guatemala over an 18-month period. Through a cluster randomized trial, we will randomly assign 18 health districts to the intervention arm and 18 to enhanced usual care across five departments, enrolling 44 participants per health district and 1584 participants in total. The clinical outcomes are (1) the difference in the proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (< 130/80 mmHg) between the intervention and control groups at 18 months and (2) the net change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 18 months. The context-enhanced Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM)/Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework will guide the evaluation of the implementation at the level of the patient, provider, and health system. Using a mixed-methods approach, we will evaluate the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, adaptation, reach, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness.Discussion: We will disseminate the study findings, and promote scale up and scale out of the program, if proven effective. This study will generate urgently needed data on effective, adoptable, and sustainable interventions and implementation strategies to improve hypertension control in Guatemala and other LMICs.Fil: Paniagua Avila, Alejandra. Columbia University; Estados UnidosFil: Fort, Meredith P.. Institute Of Nutrition Of Central America And Panamá; GuatemalaFil: Glasgow, Russell E.. University of Colorado; Estados UnidosFil: Gulayin, Pablo Elías. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Hernández Galdamez, Diego. institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panamá; GuatemalaFil: Mansilla, Kristyne. institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panamá; GuatemalaFil: Palacios, Eduardo. Ministerio de Salud y Asistencia Social; GuatemalaFil: Peralta, Ana Lucia. Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panamá ; GuatemalaFil: Roche, Dina. Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panamá ; GuatemalaFil: Rubinstein, Adolfo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: He, Jiang. University Translational Science Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Ramirez Zea, Manuel. Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panamá ; GuatemalaFil: Irazola, Vilma. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Hypertension in Guatemala’s Public Primary Care System: A Needs Assessment Using the Health System Building Blocks Framework

Background: Uncontrolled hypertension represents a substantial and growing burden in Guatemala and other low and middle-income countries. As a part of the formative phase of an implementation research study, we conducted a needs assessment to define short- and long-term needs and opportunities for hypertension services within the public health system. Methods: We conducted a multi-method, multi-level assessment of needs related to hypertension within Guatemala’s public system using the World Health Organization’s health system building blocks framework. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at national (n = 17), departmental (n = 7), district (n = 25), and community (n = 30) levels and focus groups with patients (3) and frontline auxiliary nurses (3). We visited and captured data about infrastructure, accessibility, human resources, reporting, medications and supplies at 124 health posts and 53 health centers in five departments of Guatemala. We conducted a thematic analysis of transcribed interviews and focus group discussions supported by matrix analysis. We summarized quantitative data observed during visits to health posts and centers. Results: Major challenges for hypertension service delivery included: gaps in infrastructure, insufficient staffing and high turnover, limited training, inconsistent supply of medications, lack of reporting, low prioritization of hypertension, and a low level of funding in the public health system overall. Key opportunities included: prior experience caring for patients with chronic conditions, eagerness from providers to learn, and interest from patients to be involved in managing their health. The 5 departments differ in population served per health facility, accessibility, and staffing. All but 7 health posts had basic infrastructure in place. Enalapril was available in 74% of health posts whereas hydrochlorothiazide was available in only 1 of the 124 health posts. With the exception of one department, over 90% of health posts had a blood pressure monitor. Conclusions: This multi-level multi-method needs assessment using the building blocks framework highlights contextual factors in Guatemala’s public health system that have been important in informing the implementation of a hypertension control trial. Long-term needs that are not addressed within the scope of this study will be important to address to enable sustained implementation and scale-up of the hypertension control approach.Fil: Fort, Meredith P.. University of Colorado; Estados UnidosFil: Mundo, William. University of Colorado; Estados UnidosFil: Paniagua Avila, Alejandra. No especifíca;Fil: Cardona, Sayra. No especifíca;Fil: Figueroa, Juan Carlos. No especifíca;Fil: Hernández Galdamez, Diego. No especifíca;Fil: Mansilla, Kristyne. No especifíca;Fil: Peralta García, Ana. No especifíca;Fil: Roche, Dina. No especifíca;Fil: Palacios, Eduardo Alberto. No especifíca;Fil: Glasgow, Russell E.. University of Colorado; Estados UnidosFil: Gulayin, Pablo Elías. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Irazola, Vilma. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: He, Jiang. University of Tulane; Estados UnidosFil: Ramirez Zea, Manuel. No especifíca

ELISA versus PCR for diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most current guidelines recommend two serological tests to diagnose chronic Chagas disease. When serological tests are persistently inconclusive, some guidelines recommend molecular tests. The aim of this investigation was to review chronic Chagas disease diagnosis literature and to summarize results of ELISA and PCR performance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review was conducted searching remote databases (MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, SCOPUS and ISIWeb) and full texts bibliography for relevant abstracts. In addition, manufacturers of commercial tests were contacted. Original investigations were eligible if they estimated sensitivity and specificity, or reliability -or if their calculation was possible - of ELISA or PCR tests, for chronic Chagas disease.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Heterogeneity was high within each test (ELISA and PCR) and threshold effect was detected only in a particular subgroup. Reference standard blinding partially explained heterogeneity in ELISA studies, and pooled sensitivity and specificity were 97.7% [96.7%-98.5%] and 96.3% [94.6%-97.6%] respectively. Commercial ELISA with recombinant antigens studied in phase three investigations partially explained heterogeneity, and pooled sensitivity and specificity were 99.3% [97.9%-99.9%] and 97.5% [88.5%-99.5%] respectively. ELISA's reliability was seldom studied but was considered acceptable. PCR heterogeneity was not explained, but a threshold effect was detected in three groups created by using guanidine and boiling the sample before DNA extraction. PCR sensitivity is likely to be between 50% and 90%, while its specificity is close to 100%. PCR reliability was never studied.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Both conventional and recombinant based ELISA give useful information, however there are commercial tests without technical reports and therefore were not included in this review. Physicians need to have access to technical reports to understand if these serological tests are similar to those included in this review and therefore correctly order and interpret test results. Currently, PCR should not be used in clinical practice for chronic Chagas disease diagnosis and there is no PCR test commercially available for this purpose. Tests limitations and directions for future research are discussed.</p

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Measurement of prompt hadron production ratios in pppp collisions at s=\sqrt{s} = 0.9 and 7 TeV

The charged-particle production ratios $\bar{p}/p$, $K^-/K^+$, $\pi^-/\pi^+$, $(p + \bar{p})/(\pi^+ + \pi^-)$, $(K^+ + K^-)/(\pi^+ + \pi^-)$ and $(p + \bar{p})/(K^+ + K^-)$ are measured with the LHCb detector using $0.3 {\rm nb^{-1}}$ of $pp$ collisions delivered by the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 0.9$ TeV and $1.8 {\rm nb^{-1}}$ at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV. The measurements are performed as a function of transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$ and pseudorapidity $\eta$. The production ratios are compared to the predictions of several Monte Carlo generator settings, none of which are able to describe adequately all observables. The ratio $\bar{p}/p$ is also considered as a function of rapidity loss, $\Delta y \equiv y_{\rm beam} - y$, and is used to constrain models of baryon transport.Comment: Incorrect entries in Table 2 corrected. No consequences for rest of pape

CIBERER : Spanish national network for research on rare diseases: A highly productive collaborative initiative

Altres ajuts: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII); Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.CIBER (Center for Biomedical Network Research; Centro de Investigación Biomédica En Red) is a public national consortium created in 2006 under the umbrella of the Spanish National Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII). This innovative research structure comprises 11 different specific areas dedicated to the main public health priorities in the National Health System. CIBERER, the thematic area of CIBER focused on rare diseases (RDs) currently consists of 75 research groups belonging to universities, research centers, and hospitals of the entire country. CIBERER's mission is to be a center prioritizing and favoring collaboration and cooperation between biomedical and clinical research groups, with special emphasis on the aspects of genetic, molecular, biochemical, and cellular research of RDs. This research is the basis for providing new tools for the diagnosis and therapy of low-prevalence diseases, in line with the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) objectives, thus favoring translational research between the scientific environment of the laboratory and the clinical setting of health centers. In this article, we intend to review CIBERER's 15-year journey and summarize the main results obtained in terms of internationalization, scientific production, contributions toward the discovery of new therapies and novel genes associated to diseases, cooperation with patients' associations and many other topics related to RD research

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Background: Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. // Methods: We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung's disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. // Findings: We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung's disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middle-income countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in low-income countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. // Interpretation: Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

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

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