Search

BackgroundWith the exponential increase in mobile phone users in India, a large number of public health initiatives are leveraging information technology and mobile devices for health care delivery. Given the considerable financial and human resources being invested in these initiatives, it is important to ascertain their role in strengthening health care systems. ObjectiveWe undertook this review to identify the published mobile health (mHealth) or telemedicine initiatives in India in terms of their current role in health systems strengthening. The review classifies these initiatives based on the disease areas, geographical distribution, and target users and assesses the quality of the available literature. MethodsA search of the literature was done to identify mHealth or telemedicine articles published between January 1997 and June 2017 from India. The electronic bibliographic databases and registries searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, and Clinical Trial Registry of India. The World Health Organization health system building block framework was used to categorize the published initiatives as per their role in the health system. Quality assessment of the selected articles was done using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and National Institutes of Health, US tools. ResultsThe combined search strategies yielded 2150 citations out of which 318 articles were included (primary research articles=125; reviews and system architectural, case studies, and opinion articles=193). A sharp increase was seen after 2012, driven primarily by noncommunicable disease–focused articles. Majority of the primary studies had their sites in the south Indian states, with no published articles from Jammu and Kashmir and north-eastern parts of India. Service delivery was the primary focus of 57.6% (72/125) of the selected articles. A majority of these articles had their focus on 1 (36.0%, 45/125) or 2 (45.6%, 57/125) domains of health system, most frequently service delivery and health workforce. Initiatives commonly used client education as a tool for improving the health system. More than 91.2% (114/125) of the studies, which lacked a sample size justification, had used convenience sampling. Methodological rigor of the selected trials (n=11) was assessed to be poor as majority of the studies had a high risk for bias in at least 2 categories. ConclusionsIn conclusion, mHealth initiatives are being increasingly tested to improve health care delivery in India. Our review highlights the poor quality of the current evidence base and an urgent need for focused research aimed at generating high-quality evidence on the efficacy, user acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions aimed toward health systems strengthening. A pragmatic approach would be to include an implementation research component into the existing and proposed digital health initiatives to support the generation of evidence for health systems strengthening on strategically important outcomes.

Background & objectives: The potential benefits of mobile health (mHealth) initiatives to manage the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been explored. The Government of India, State governments, and healthcare organizations have developed various mobile apps for the containment of COVID-19. This study was aimed to systematically review COVID-19 related mobile apps and highlight gaps to inform the development of future mHealth initiatives. Methods: Google Play and the Apple app stores were searched using the terms ’COVID-19‘, ʽcoronavirus‘, ʽpandemic‘ and ʽepidemic‘ in the first week of April 2020. A list of COVID-19-specific functions was compiled based on the review of the selected apps, the literature on epidemic surveillance, and national and international media reports. The World Health Organization guideline on Digital Health Interventions was used to classify the app functions under the categories of the general public, health workers, health system managers, and data services. Results: The search yielded 346 potential COVID-19 apps, of which 50 met the inclusion criteria. Dissemination of untargeted COVID-19-related information on preventative strategies and monitoring the movements of quarantined individuals was the function of 27 (54%) and 19 (32%) apps, respectively. Eight (16%) apps had a contact tracing and hotspot identification function. Interpretation & conclusions: Our study highlights the current emphasis on the development of self-testing, quarantine monitoring, and contact tracing apps. India‘s response to COVID-19 can be strengthened by developing comprehensive mHealth solutions for frontline healthcare workers, rapid response teams and public health authorities. Among this unprecedented global health emergency, the Governments must ensure the necessary but least intrusive measures for disease surveillance [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and standard personal protective equipment (PPE) compared to the use of standard personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers(HCWs) in India TRIAL DESIGN: HOPE is an investigator initiated multi-centre open-label parallel group randomized controlled trial.Participants: All HCWs currently working in an environment with direct exposure to patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection are eligible to participate in the trial. The trial aims to be conducted across 20-30 centres (public and private hospitals) in India. HCWs who decline consent, who have a confirmed COVID-19 infection, those who are already on chloroquine/HCQ for any indication, or if pregnant or breast-feeding, or have known QT prolongation or are on medications that when taken with HCQ can prolong the QTc will be excluded.Intervention and Comparator: The interventions to be compared in this trial are standard practice (use of recommended PPE) and HCQ plus standard practice. In the standard practice arm, HCWs will use recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. They will be discouraged from taking HCQ to prevent contamination and contacted every week for the duration of the study to ascertain if they have taken any HCQ. Any such use will be reported as a protocol violation. In the intervention arm, HCWs will be administered 800mg of HCQ as a loading dose on the day of randomization (as two 400mg doses 12hrs apart) and subsequently continued on 400mg once a week for 12 weeks. This will be in addition to the use of recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. HCWs will collect the drug once every week from designated research and pharmacy staff at site. A weekly phone reminder will be provided to participants in this arm to ensure compliance. An ECG will be performed between 4-6 weeks in this arm and if the QTc is prolonged (greater than 450milliseconds), the drug will be stopped. Follow-up will however continue. Participants in both arms will receive a weekly phone call for evaluation of the primary outcome, to monitor protocol compliance and development of any adverse events (in the HCQ group).Main Outcomes: Participants will be followed on a weekly basis. The primary outcome is the proportion of HCWs developing laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection within 6 months of randomization. We will also evaluate a number of secondary outcomes, including hospitalization related to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, intensive care unit or high-dependency unit admission due to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, all-cause mortality, need for organ support ( non-invasive or invasive ventilation, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy), ICU and hospital length of stay, readmission, days off work and treatment-related adverse events.Randomisation: Randomisation will be conducted through a password-protected, secure website using a central, computer-based randomisation program. Randomisation will be stratified by participating institutions and by the role of HCW - nursing, medical and other. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either standard practice only or HCQ plus standard practice. Allocation concealment is maintained by central web-based randomisation BLINDING (MASKING): This is an unblinded study: study assigned treatment will be known to the research team and participant. Bias will be mitigated through an objective end point (laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection).Numbers To Be Randomised (sample Size): A total of 6,950 HCWs will be enrolled (3475 to the intervention) and (3475 to the standard practice group) to detect a 25% relative reduction, or 2.5% absolute reduction, in the infection rate from an estimated baseline infection rate of 10%, with 80% statistical power using a two-sided test at 5% level of significance. Available data from China and Italy indicate that the rate of infection among frontline healthcare workers varies between 4% to 12%. We therefore assumed a baseline infection rate of 10% among HCWs. This sample size allows for a potential loss to follow-up rate of 10% and a potential non-compliance rate of 10% in both the treatment and control arms.Trial Status: HOPE protocol version 3.0 dated June 3rd 2020. Recruitment started on 29th June 2020 and currently 56 participants have been enrolled. Planned completion of enrolment is January 31st 2021.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2020/05/025067 (prospectively registered) Date of registration: 6th May 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expedited dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the global tobacco control movement in 2013. He argues on the best practices, such as sale restriction on tobacco products and manufacturing ban, to achieve the target of the World Health Assembly to reduce the tobacco use by 30 percent in 2025 and Non Communicable Diseases (NDCs) death rates by 2 percent per year. He also offers information on the first international conference on tobacco control to be held in New Delhi, India from September 10-12.

Objective: To determine whether a chemokine receptor type 2 antagonist, DMX-200 (repagermanium), in combination with an angiotensin receptor blocker, candesartan, improves clinical outcomes in people with COVID-19., Design: Prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial., Setting: Ten acute care hospitals in India., Participants: Adults <65 years old intended for hospital admission with moderate/severe COVID-19 disease (respiratory rate ≥24 breaths per minute or oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air)., Intervention: DMX-200 120 mg two times per day, or placebo, on background of titratable candesartan commencing at 4 mg two times per day, for 28 days., Main Outcome Measures: The primary endpoint was COVID-19 disease severity on a modified WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO scale) on day 14. Secondary outcomes included the WHO scale at days 28, 60, 90 and 180; intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respiratory failure or death within 28 days; length of hospitalisation; and requirement for ventilatory support or dialysis., Results: Between December 2021 and August 2022, 518 people were screened, with 49 randomised to DMX-200 or placebo on a background of candesartan. The study was terminated early due to recruitment barriers, including an external requirement to restrict enrolment to adults <65 years old, contributing to a 91% screen failure rate. The median WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO scale) score at day 14 for both groups was 1 (IQR 1-1), indicating most participants were discharged with no limitations on activities by this time. Formal comparison was not performed due to the small sample size. One participant receiving DMX-200 died of COVID-19 disease progression. No participants required ICU admission, ventilation or dialysis. Median length of hospitalisation in both groups was 6 days (IQR 6-7 days). WHO scale scores were similar at 28, 60, 90 and 180 days., Conclusion: Due to recruitment barriers, the study was unable to determine whether DMX-200 improves clinical outcomes in people with COVID-19., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05122182., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This work was an investigator-initiated study that received financial support from Dimerix Bioscience Pty Ltd who manufacture DMX-200., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease., Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days)., Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Background: Dialysate sodium (DNa) prescription policy differs between haemodialysis (HD) units, and the optimal DNa remains uncertain. We sought to summarize the evidence on the agreement between prescribed and delivered DNa, and whether the relationship varied according to prescribed DNa., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and PubMed from inception to 26 February 2020 for studies reporting measured and prescribed DNa. We analysed results reported in aggregate with random-effects meta-analysis. We analysed results reported by individual sample, using mixed-effects Bland-Altman analysis and linear regression. Pre-specified subgroup analyses included method of sodium measurement, dialysis machine manufacturer and proportioning method., Results: Seven studies, representing 908 dialysate samples from 10 HD facilities (range 16-133 samples), were identified. All but one were single-centre studies. Studies were of low to moderate quality. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between measured and prescribed DNa {mean difference = 0.73 mmol/L [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to 2.58; P = 0.44]} but variability across studies was substantial (I2 = 99.3%). Among individually reported samples (n = 295), measured DNa was higher than prescribed DNa by 1.96 mmol/L (95% CI 0.23-3.69) and the 95% limits of agreement ranged from -3.97 to 7.88 mmol/L. Regression analysis confirmed a strong relationship between prescribed and measured DNa, with a slope close to 1:1 (β = 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27; P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: A limited number of studies suggest that, on average, prescribed and measured DNa are similar. However, between- and within-study differences were large. Further consideration of the precision of delivered DNa is required to inform rational prescribing., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.)

Developing a synergistic relationship between the government machinery and civil society is crucial for advancing the tobacco control movement in India. With diverse patterns of tobacco use and far reach of the tobacco industry, stringent enforcement mechanisms along with innovative and culturally appropriate advocacy efforts are imperative. In this paper, we evaluate multi- level tobacco control interventions undertaken in the Indian state of Bihar and the subsequent success achieved in strengthening government-non-government partnerships and commitment towards tobacco control in the state. Our experience shows that sustained advocacy at the policy and grassroots levels, along with willingness of the administrative machinery, can present result- oriented tobacco control initiatives at the state and grassroots levels., (Copyright 2013, NMJI.)