Search

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is a major cause of infant mortality and morbidity and accounts for 7-8% of births in the UK. It is more common in women from socially deprived areas and from minority ethnic groups, but the reasons for this disparity are poorly understood. To inform interventions to improve child survival and their quality of life, this study examined the socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in preterm births (< 37 weeks of gestation at birth) within Health Trusts in England. METHODS: This study investigated socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in preterm birth rates across the National Health Service (NHS) in England. The NHS in England can be split into different units known as Trusts. We visualised between-Trust differences in preterm birth rates. Health Trusts were classified into five groups based on their standard deviation (SD) variation from the average national preterm birth rate. We used modified Poisson regression to compute risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) with generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: The preterm birth rate ranged from 6.8/100 births for women living in the least deprived areas to 8.8/100 births for those living in the most deprived areas. Similarly, the preterm birth rate ranged from 7.8/100 births for white women, up to 8.6/100 births for black women. Some Health Trusts had lower than average preterm birth rates in white women whilst concurrently having higher than average preterm birth rates in black and Asian women. The risk of preterm birth was higher for women living in the most deprived areas and ethnicity (Asian). CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence of variation in rates of preterm birth by ethnic group, with some Trusts reporting below average rates in white ethnic groups whilst concurrently reporting well above average rates for women from Asian or black ethnic groups. The risk of preterm birth varied substantially at the intersectionality of maternal ethnicity and the level of socioeconomic depr

The Sudan virus disease outbreak in Uganda in 2022 showed our vulnerability to viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHFs). Although there are regular outbreaks of VHFs with high morbidity and mortality, which disproportionally affect low-income settings, our understanding of how to treat them remains inadequate. In this systematic review, we aim to explore the availability, scope, standardisation, and quality of clinical management guidelines for VHFs. We identified 32 guidelines, 25 (78%) of which were low quality and did not have supporting evidence and eight (25%) of which had been produced or updated in the past 3 years. Guidance on supportive care and therapeutics had little detail and was sometimes contradictory. Guidelines based on uncertain evidence are a risk to patients, an ethical challenge for clinicians, and a challenge to implementing trials due to heterogeneous standards of care. We recommend a standard living guideline framework to improve the quality, scope, and applicability of guidelines. Furthermore, investments into trials should aim to identify optimal treatment strategies for VHFs and prioritise affordable and scalable interventions to improve outcomes globally.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox (MPX) is an important human Orthopoxvirus infection. There has been an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic regions in recent decades. We appraised the availability, scope, quality and inclusivity of clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched six databases from inception until 14 October 2021, augmented by a grey literature search until 17 May 2022. MPX guidelines providing treatment and supportive care recommendations were included, with no exclusions for language. Two reviewers assessed the guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: Of 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines were included. Overall, most guidelines were of low-quality with a median score of 2 out of 7 (range: 1-7), lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Most guidelines focused on adults, five (36%) provided some advice for children, three (21%) for pregnant women and three (21%) for people living with HIV. Treatment guidance was mostly limited to advice on antivirals; seven guidelines advised cidofovir (four specified for severe MPX only); 29% (4/14) tecovirimat, and 7% (1/14) brincidofovir. Only one guideline provided recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications. All guidelines recommended vaccination as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Three guidelines advised on vaccinia immune globulin as PEP for severe cases in people with immunosuppression. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight a lack of evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. There is a clear and urgent need for research into treatment and prophylaxis including for different risk populations. The current outbreak provides an opportunity to accelerate this research through coordinated high-quality studies. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient and epidemic outcomes. A '