-
The Pan African Medical Journal 2024The World Health Organization (WHO) held the inaugural Traditional Medicine Global Summit in India in 2023 to promote the evidence-based integration of traditional...
The World Health Organization (WHO) held the inaugural Traditional Medicine Global Summit in India in 2023 to promote the evidence-based integration of traditional medicine (TM) into the global healthcare system. This summit offers many opportunities for Africa, where most people rely on TM for health care. TM is widely accepted and affordable in the region but faces many challenges that limit its potential. This article identifies some of the most pressing challenges to incorporating TM into standard healthcare in Africa. It also proffers useful recommendations on how these issues may be addressed while identifying key stakeholders whose contributions may hamper or enhance the realization of WHO´s goals for TM in the continent.
Topics: Humans; Medicine, African Traditional; Delivery of Health Care; World Health Organization; Africa
PubMed: 38933435
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2024.47.146.43011 -
The Pan African Medical Journal 2024Lymphatic filariasis is a neglected tropical disease that affects the lymphatic system of humans. The major etiologic agent is a nematode called Wuchereria bancrofti,... (Review)
Review Meta-Analysis
Lymphatic filariasis is a neglected tropical disease that affects the lymphatic system of humans. The major etiologic agent is a nematode called Wuchereria bancrofti, but Brugia malayi and Brugia timoriare sometimes encountered as causative agents. Mosquitoes are the vectors while humans the definitive hosts respectively. The burden of the disease is heavier in Nigeria than in other endemic countries in Africa. This occurs with increasing morbidity and mortality at different locations within the country, the World Health Organization recommended treatments for lymphatic filariasis include the use of Albendazole (400mg) twice per year in co-endemic areas with loa loa, Ivermectin (200mcg/kg) in combination with Albendazole (400mg) in areas that are co-endemic with onchocerciasis, ivermectin (200mcg/kg) with diethylcarbamazine citrate (DEC) (6mg/kg) and albendazole (400mg) in areas without onchocerciasis. This paper covered a systematic review, meta-analysis, and scoping review on lymphatic filariasis in the respective geopolitical zones within the country. The literature used was obtained through online search engines including PubMed and Google Scholar with the heading "lymphatic filariasis in the name of the state", Nigeria. This review revealed an overall prevalence of 11.18% with regional spread of Northwest (1.59%), North Central and North East, (4.52%), South West (1.26%), and South-South with South East (3.81%) prevalence. The disease has been successfully eliminated in Argungu local government areas (LGAs) of Kebbi State, Plateau, and Nasarawa States respectively. Most clinical manifestations (31.12%) include hydrocele, lymphedema, elephantiasis, hernia, and dermatitis. Night blood samples are appropriate for microfilaria investigation. Sustained MDAs, the right testing methods, early treatment of infected cases, and vector control are useful for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis for morbidity management and disability prevention in the country. Regional control strategies, improved quality monitoring of surveys and intervention programs with proper records of morbidity and disability requiring intervention are important approaches for the timely elimination of the disease in Nigeria.
Topics: Elephantiasis, Filarial; Humans; Nigeria; Animals; Wuchereria bancrofti; Filaricides; Albendazole; Neglected Diseases; Ivermectin; Brugia malayi
PubMed: 38933431
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2024.47.142.39746 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024Despite important progress in modern medicine, widely regarded as an indispensable foundation of healthcare in all highly advanced nations and regions, not all patients... (Review)
Review
Despite important progress in modern medicine, widely regarded as an indispensable foundation of healthcare in all highly advanced nations and regions, not all patients respond well to available treatments in biomedicine alone. Additionally, there are concerns about side effects of many medications and interventions, the unsustainable cost of healthcare and the low resolution of chronic non-communicable diseases and mental disorders whose incidence has risen in the last decades. Besides, the chronic stress and burnout of many healthcare professionals impairs the therapeutic relationship. These circumstances call for a change in the current paradigm and practices of biomedicine healthcare. Most of the world population (80%) uses some form of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (T&CM), usually alongside biomedicine. Patients seem equally satisfied with biomedicine and T&CM, but in the field of T&CM there are also many challenges, such as unsupported claims for safety and/or efficacy, contamination of herbal medicines and problems with regulation and quality standards. As biomedicine and T&CM seem to have different strengths and weaknesses, integration of both approaches may be beneficial. Indeed, WHO has repeatedly called upon member states to work on the integration of T&CM into healthcare systems. Integrative medicine (IM) is an approach that offers a paradigm for doing so. It combines the best of both worlds (biomedicine and T&CM), based on evidence for efficacy and safety, adopting a holistic personalized approach, focused on health. In the last decades academic health centers are increasingly supportive of IM, as evidenced by the foundation of national academic consortia for integrative medicine in Brazil (2017), the Netherlands (2018), and Germany (2024) besides the pioneering American consortium (1998). However, the integration process is slow and sometimes met with criticism and even hostility. The WHO T&CM strategies (2002-2005 and 2014-2023) have provided incipient guidance on the integration process, but several challenges are yet to be addressed. This policy review proposes several possible solutions, including the establishment of a global matrix of academic consortia for IM, to update and extend the WHO T&CM strategy, that is currently under review.
PubMed: 38933107
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1395698 -
EClinicalMedicine Jul 2024Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common...
BACKGROUND
Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment.
METHODS
This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022-July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022-May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023-May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents.
FINDINGS
Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus).
INTERPRETATION
These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice.
FUNDING
No funding was received.
PubMed: 38933098
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102675 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024The end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been declared by the World Health Organization on May 5, 2023. Several vaccines were developed, and new...
The impact of comorbidity status in COVID-19 vaccines effectiveness before and after SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in northeastern Mexico: a retrospective multi-hospital study.
INTRODUCTION
The end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been declared by the World Health Organization on May 5, 2023. Several vaccines were developed, and new data is being published about their effectiveness. However, the clinical trials for the vaccines were performed before the Omicron variant appeared and there are population groups where vaccine effectiveness still needs to be tested. The overarching goal of the present study was to analyze the effects of COVID-19 vaccination before and after the Omicron variant in patients considering comorbidities in a population from Nuevo Leon, Mexico.
METHODS
Epidemiological COVID-19 data from the Mexican Social Security Institute were collected from 67 hospitals located in northeastern Mexico, from July 2020 to May 2023, and a total of 669,393 cases were compiled, 255,819 reported a SARS-CoV-2 positive reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test or a positive COVID-19 antigen rapid test.
RESULTS
Before Omicron (BO, 2020-2021), after 14 days of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines were effective against infection in non-comorbid and all comorbid subgroups, whereas after Omicron (AO, 2022- 2023) there was no significant effectiveness against infection with none of the vaccines. Regarding hospitalization BO, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, CoronaVac and mRNA-1273 significantly protected non-comorbid patients whereas BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, and mRNA-1273, protected all comorbid subgroups against hospitalization. AO, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, CoronaVac and mRNA-1273 were effective against hospitalization in non-comorbid patients whereas for most comorbid subgroups BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 and CoronaVac were effective against hospitalization. Non-comorbid patients were protected against death as an outcome of COVID-19 during the BO period with most vaccines whereas a reduction in effectiveness was observed AO with mRNA-1273 vaccines in patients with hypertension, and diabetes mellitus.
DISCUSSION
BO, COVID-19 vaccines were effective against infection, hospitalization, and death whereas AO, COVID-19 vaccines failed to protect the population from COVID-19 infection. A varying effectiveness against hospitalization and death is observed AO.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Mexico; COVID-19 Vaccines; Comorbidity; Middle Aged; Female; Male; Vaccine Efficacy; Retrospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Adult; Aged; Adolescent; Young Adult
PubMed: 38932780
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1402527 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024The degree of public trust in the government's competence is crucial in preventing the spread of misinformation and reducing psychological distress during a pandemic....
Exploring the Singapore general population's trust in COVID-19 information from different sources and its association with perceived risk of infection during the pandemic.
BACKGROUND
The degree of public trust in the government's competence is crucial in preventing the spread of misinformation and reducing psychological distress during a pandemic. The study aimed to (i) explore the trust in COVID-19 information from different sources and trust in the ability of the World Health Organization (WHO), government departments and related institutions in handling the epidemic in Singapore and (ii) its association with perceived risk of infection among Singapore residents.
METHODS
A total of 1,129 participants (aged 21 and above) were recruited from a cross-sectional study examining the well-being and resilience of Singapore's population between May 2020 to June 2021. Trust in COVID-19 information from different sources was measured on a 10-point scale and an ordinal 7-point scale was used for perceived risk of infection. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression model were conducted.
RESULTS
85.5% reported high trust in COVID-19 information from the government and their ability in handling the pandemic. Participants also reported high trust in COVID-19 information from local public health or infectious disease experts (84.4%) and traditional media (77.2%). Low trust in the ability of government departments and related institutions was associated with higher future (1 month) perceived risk of infection (OR: 5.7, 95% CI 1.02-32.45) and low trust in social media was associated with higher current perceived risk of infection (OR: 2.4, 95% CI 1.09-5.24).
DISCUSSION
The present study provided insight on the level of trust on COVID-19 information from different sources and its associated perceived risks of infection. Future qualitative studies are recommended to facilitate better understanding of public trust and identify strategies for how it can be effectively addressed to support future public health responses.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Trust; Singapore; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Male; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Surveys and Questionnaires; Young Adult; Pandemics
PubMed: 38932777
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1323543 -
Vaccines Jun 2024No vaccine has been more effective in reducing disease burden, especially in preventing child deaths, than measles-containing vaccine. The return on investment makes...
No vaccine has been more effective in reducing disease burden, especially in preventing child deaths, than measles-containing vaccine. The return on investment makes measles-containing vaccine one of the most cost-effective public health measures available. Exhaustive reviews of biological, technical, economic and programmatic evidence have concluded that measles can and should be eradicated, and by including rubella antigen in measles-containing vaccine, congenital rubella syndrome will also be eradicated. All World Health Organisation Regions have pledged to achieve measles elimination. Unfortunately, not all countries and global partners have demonstrated an appropriate commitment to these laudable public health goals, and the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on coverage rates has been profound. Unsurprisingly, large disruptive outbreaks are already occurring in many countries with a global epidemic curve ominously similar to that of 2018/2019 emerging. The Immunization Agenda 2030 will fail dismally unless measles and rubella eradication efforts are accelerated. Over half of all member states have been verified to have eliminated rubella and endemic rubella transmission has not been re-established in any country to date. In 2023, 84 countries and areas were verified to have sustained elimination of measles. However, without a global target, this success will be difficult to sustain. Now is the time for a global eradication goal and commitment by the World Health Assembly. Having a galvanising goal, with a shared call for action, will demand adequate resourcing from every country government and global partners. Greater coordination across countries and regions will be necessary. Measles, rubella and congenital rubella syndrome eradication should not remain just a technically feasible possibility but rather be completed to ensure that future generations of children do not live under the shadow of preventable childhood death and lifelong disability.
PubMed: 38932428
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12060699 -
Vaccines Jun 2024Mongolia experienced a nationwide measles outbreak during 1 March 2015-31 December 2016, with 49,077 cases reported to the WHO; many were among vaccinated young adults,...
Mongolia experienced a nationwide measles outbreak during 1 March 2015-31 December 2016, with 49,077 cases reported to the WHO; many were among vaccinated young adults, suggesting a possible role of vaccine failure. Advanced laboratory methods, coupled with detailed epidemiological investigations, can help classify cases as vaccine failure, failure to vaccinate, or both. In this report, we conducted a study of cases to identify risk factors for breakthrough infection for a subset of laboratory-confirmed measles cases. Of the 193 cases analyzed, only 19 (9.8%) reported measles vaccination history, and 170 (88%) were uncertain. Measles-specific IgG avidity testing classified 120 (62%) cases as low IgG avidity, indicating no prior exposure to measles. Ten of these cases with low IgG avidity had a history of measles vaccination, indicating primary vaccine failure. Overall, sixty cases (31%) had high IgG avidity, indicating breakthrough infection after prior exposure to measles antigen through vaccination or natural infection, but the IgG avidity results were highly age-dependent. This study found that among young children aged 9 months-5 years, breakthrough infection was rare (4/82, 5%); however, among young adults aged 15-25 years, breakthrough infection due to secondary vaccine failure (SVF) occurred on a large scale during this outbreak, accounting for the majority of cases (42/69 cases, 61%). The study found that large-scale secondary vaccine failure occurred in Mongolia, which highlights the potential for sustained outbreaks in post-elimination settings due to "hidden" cohorts of young adults who may have experienced waning immunity. This phenomenon may have implications for the sustainability of measles elimination in countries that remain vulnerable to the importation of the virus from areas where it is still endemic. Until global measles elimination is achieved, enhanced surveillance and preparedness for future outbreaks in post- or peri-elimination countries may be required.
PubMed: 38932425
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12060695 -
Vaccines Jun 2024The elimination of both measles and rubella remains a priority for all 53 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region. To provide an update on...
The elimination of both measles and rubella remains a priority for all 53 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region. To provide an update on the epidemiological status of measles and rubella in the Region, we reviewed surveillance data on both diseases for 2023 submitted monthly by national surveillance institutions. We analyzed the cases of measles and rubella for 2023 by age group, case classification, vaccination, hospitalization, and importation status and report on measles-related deaths. In 2023, 60,860 measles cases, including 13 fatal cases, were reported in 41 countries. Most cases (95%; n = 57,584) were reported by six countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, the Russian Federation, and Türkiye. Of the 60,848 cases with data on age, 19,137 (31%) were 1-4 years old and 12,838 (21%) were 5-9 years old. A total of 10,412 (17%) were 20 years and older. The genotypes identified in the Region were largely dominated by D8 variants (n = 1357) and the remainder were B3 variants (n = 221). In 2023, 345 rubella cases were reported by 17 countries, mostly from Poland, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Türkiye, and Ukraine. A total of 262 cases (76%) were classified as clinically compatible and 79 (23%) were laboratory-confirmed. To achieve the elimination of measles and rubella in the Region, political commitment needs to be revived to enable urgent efforts to increase vaccination coverage, improve surveillance and outbreak preparedness, and respond immediately to outbreaks.
PubMed: 38932424
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12060696 -
Vaccines Jun 2024This article describes the arc of global measles and rubella elimination since 2000 from the perspective of the founding partners of the Measles Initiative. The Measles...
This article describes the arc of global measles and rubella elimination since 2000 from the perspective of the founding partners of the Measles Initiative. The Measles Initiative was formed in 2001 as a partnership among the American Red Cross, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, UNICEF, the United Nations Foundation, and the World Health Organization with the aim to reduce measles deaths in low-income countries. Recognizing rubella as the leading infectious disease cause of congenital abnormalities globally and achievement of measles and rubella elimination in the region of the Americas, the partnership was renamed the Measles and Rubella Initiative (MRI) in 2012. The goals of the MRI were at least a 95% reduction in global measles mortality and elimination of measles and rubella in at least five of the six WHO regions. In January 2023, the membership of the partnership was expanded to include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, and its name changed to the IA2030 Measles and Rubella Partnership. We describe the role the partnership has had in measles partner effectiveness and its impact on measles and rubella disease burden, including how the partnership has strategically adapted to the evolving immunization landscape. We conclude with lessons learned regarding the role global partnerships can play in furthering the impact of disease control programs within the current global immunization environment.
PubMed: 38932422
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12060693