Experiences with thermal ablation for cervical precancer treatment after self-collection HPV-based screening in the ASPIRE Mayuge randomized trial.

Cervical cancer remains a significant public health burden in low-resourced countries. Thus, the WHO prioritized cervix screening, and recently recommended thermal ablation treatment for cervical precancer. However, there is limited information on side effects during treatment and recovery, and acceptability among those treated. The ASPIRE Mayuge trial recruited women to participate in self-collection cervix screening between 2019 and 2020 (N = 2019). Screen-positive women (N = 531, 26.3%) were referred for visual inspection with acetic acid and thermal ablation treatment, per Uganda Ministry of Health recommendations; 71.2% of those referred attended follow-up. Six months post-screening, a subset of trial participants were recontacted. Those who received thermal ablation completed a survey assessing side effects during and after the procedure, and willingness to recommend the treatment to others. We summarized the results to describe the side effects and acceptability of thermal ablation treatment. Of 2019 participants, 349 (17%) received thermal ablation. A subset of 135 completed the follow-up survey, where 90% reported pain during treatment; however, intensity and duration were low. Over a third of women reported problems with recovery for reasons including pain, discharge and bleeding. Regardless, 98% reported they would recommend the treatment to others. The use of thermal ablation to treat cervical precancer appears to be highly acceptable in this population. While many women reported side effects during the procedure and recovery, the majority said they would recommend the treatment to others. However, given the substantial proportion who reported problems with recovery, efforts should be made to provide additional resources to women after receiving thermal ablation treatment for cervical precancer.

Advancing detection and response capacities for emerging and re-emerging pathogens in Africa.

Recurrent disease outbreaks caused by a range of emerging and resurging pathogens over the past decade reveal major gaps in public health preparedness, detection, and response systems in Africa. Underlying causes of recurrent disease outbreaks include inadequacies in the detection of new infectious disease outbreaks in the community, in rapid pathogen identification, and in proactive surveillance systems. In sub-Saharan Africa, where 70% of zoonotic outbreaks occur, there remains the perennial risk of outbreaks of new or re-emerging pathogens for which no vaccines or treatments are available. As the Ebola virus disease, COVID-19, and mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) outbreaks highlight, a major paradigm shift is required to establish an effective infrastructure and common frameworks for preparedness and to prompt national and regional public health responses to mitigate the effects of future pandemics in Africa.

Toward a New Paradigm of North-South and South-South Partnerships for Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons Learned from COVID-19 and Other Outbreaks.

COVID-19 underscores the need to reimagine North-South partnerships and redefine best practices for building public health and research capacity to address emergent health threats and pandemic preparedness in low- and-middle income countries (LMICs). Historically, outbreak and emergency responses have failed to ensure that the Global South has the autonomy and capacity to respond to public health threats in a timely and equitable manner. The COVID-19 response, however, has demonstrated that innovations and solutions in the Global South can not only fill resource and capacity gaps in LMICs but can also provide solutions to challenges globally. These innovations offer valuable lessons about strengthening local manufacturing capacity to produce essential diagnostic, treatment, and prevention tools; implementing high-quality research studies; expanding laboratory and research capacity; and promoting effective cooperation and governance. We discuss specific examples of capacity-building from Rwanda, South Africa, and Senegal. To fulfill promises made to the Global South during the COVID-19 pandemic, restore and resume health service delivery, and effectively prevent and respond to the next health threat, we need to prioritize equitable access to local manufacturing of basic health tools while building health systems capacities in the Global South.

Interferon Treatments for SARS-CoV-2: Challenges and Opportunities.

Interferon (IFN) therapies are used to treat a variety of infections and diseases and could be used to treat SARS-CoV-2. However, optimal use and timing of IFN therapy to treat SARS-CoV-2 is not well documented. We aimed to synthesize available evidence to understand whether interferon therapy should be recommended for treatment compared to a placebo or standard of care in adult patients. We reviewed literature comparing outcomes of randomized control trials that used IFN therapy for adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 between 2019 and 2021. Data were extracted from 11 of 669 screened studies. Evidence of IFN effectiveness was mixed. Five studies reported that IFN was a better therapy than the control, four found no or minimal difference between IFN and the control, and two concluded that IFN led to worse patient outcomes than the control. Evidence was difficult to compare because of high variability in outcome measures, intervention types and administration, subtypes of IFNs used and timing of interventions. We recommend standardized indicators and reporting for IFN therapy for SARS-CoV-2 to improve evidence synthesis and generation. While IFN therapy has the potential to be a viable treatment for SARS-CoV-2, especially when combined with antivirals and early administration, the lack of comparable of study outcomes prevents evidence synthesis and uptake.

Resilient Clinical Trial Infrastructure in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from the TOGETHER Randomized Platform Clinical Trial.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical research groups across the world developed trial protocols to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. Despite this initial enthusiasm, only a small portion of these protocols were implemented. Of those implemented, a fraction successfully recruited their target sample size to analyze and disseminate findings. More than a year and a half into the COVID-19 pandemic, only a few clinical trials evaluating treatments for COVID-19 have generated new evidence. Productive randomized platform clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 treatments may attribute their success to intentional investments in developing resilient clinical trial infrastructures. Health system resiliency discourse provides a conceptual framework for characterizing attributes for withstanding shocks. This framework may also be useful for contextualizing the attributes of productive clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 therapies. We characterize the successful attributes and lessons learned in developing the TOGETHER Trial infrastructure using a health system resiliency framework. This framework may be considered by clinical trialists aiming to build resilient trial infrastructures capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to global health threats.