Search

Introduction Long-acting insulin analogues are the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in high-income countries but remain largely inaccessible and understudied in low-resource settings. In settings where glycaemic control is typically poor and food insecurity is common, long-acting insulin analogues may offer tangible clinical benefits for people with T1D. To determine whether insulin glargine, a long-acting insulin analogue, reduces the risk of serious hypoglycaemia and/or improves glycaemic time-in-range (TIR) versus human insulin regimens in this population, we are conducting the Human vs Analogue Insulin for Youth with Type 1 Diabetes in Low-Resource Settings randomised controlled trial.Methods and analysis This is a 1:1 randomised, parallel-group clinical trial comparing biosimilar insulin glargine with human insulin (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) or premixed 70/30 insulin) in 400 youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) recruiting in Dhaka, Bangladesh (n=250) and Mwanza, Tanzania (n=150). Blinded continuous glucose monitors will be used to assess glycaemic control in both study arms over 14-day periods at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The co-primary outcomes are the per cent time in serious hypoglycaemia (

Summary: Several XBB subvariants such as XBB.1.5, XBB.1.9, XBB.1.16 and XBB.2.3 co-circulate in Singapore. Despite the different viral properties of XBB.1.16 as compared to other XBB subvariants, comparison on their severity is limited. In this study, we investigate the outcomes of hospitalisation and severe COVID-19 infection in individuals infected with different XBB subvariants, adjusted for potential confounders such as age and vaccination history. Overall, our preliminary analysis showed that the risk of severe outcomes when infected with XBB.1.16 is higher than that of XBB.1.5 or XBB.1.9 but there is no difference in the risk of hospitalisation across different XBB subvariants.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2 and other disease pathogens, which take a disproportionate toll on HCWs, with substantial cost to health systems. Improved infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes can protect HCWs, especially in resource-limited settings where the health workforce is scarcest, and ensure patient safety and continuity of essential health services. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we collaborated with ministries of health and development partners to implement an emergency initiative for HCWs at the primary health facility level in 22 African countries. Between April 2020 and January 2021, the initiative trained 42 058 front-line HCWs from 8444 health facilities, supported longitudinal supervision and monitoring visits guided by a standardised monitoring tool, and provided resources including personal protective equipment (PPE). We documented significant short-term improvements in IPC performance, but gaps remain. Suspected HCW infections peaked at 41.5% among HCWs screened at monitored facilities in July 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic in Africa. Disease-specific emergency responses are not the optimal approach. Comprehensive, sustainable IPC programmes are needed. IPC needs to be incorporated into all HCW training programmes and combined with supportive supervision and mentorship. Strengthened data systems on IPC are needed to guide improvements at the health facility level and to inform policy development at the national level, along with investments in infrastructure and sustainable supplies of PPE. Multimodal strategies to improve IPC are critical to make health facilities safer and to protect HCWs and the communities they serve.

What role do students have in global health activities? On one hand, students have much to offer, including innovative ideas, fresh knowledge and perspective, and inspiring energy. At the same time, students lack technical credentials and may drain resources from host communities. Here, we examine the dynamic, contemporary roles of students in global health activities, including health delivery. We focus on 3 themes that guide engagement: (1) fostering an enabling policy environment (eg, toward greater health equity); (2) understanding and working within the local context and governments' needs; and (3) leading bidirectional partnerships. We next study the implications of short-term exposure and long-term engagement programs. We conclude with 4 recommendations on how to better equip students to engage in the next frontier of global health education and future action. © 2011 Mount Sinai School of Medicine [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]