Global Health in the Age of COVID-19: Responsive Health Systems Through a Right to Health Fund.

We propose that a Right to Health Capacity Fund (R2HCF) be created as a central institution of a reimagined global health architecture developed in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a fund would help ensure the strong health systems required to prevent disease outbreaks from becoming devastating global pandemics, while ensuring genuinely universal health coverage that would encompass even the most marginalized populations. The R2HCF's mission would be to promote inclusive participation, equality, and accountability for advancing the right to health. The fund would focus its resources on civil society organizations, supporting their advocacy and strengthening mechanisms for accountability and participation. We propose an initial annual target of US$500 million for the fund, adjusted based on needs assessments. Such a financing level would be both achievable and transformative, given the limited right to health funding presently and the demonstrated potential of right to health initiatives to strengthen health systems and meet the health needs of marginalized populations-and enable these populations to be treated with dignity. We call for a civil society-led multi-stakeholder process to further conceptualize, and then launch, an R2HCF, helping create a world where, whether during a health emergency or in ordinary times, no one is left behind.

Reprint - Bipolar vs. monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction: A Cochrane review.

INTRODUCTION: There remains uncertainty regarding the differences in patient outcomes between monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (MTURP) and bipolar TURP (BTURP) in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out up to March 19, 2019. Methods in the Cochrane Handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 59 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 8924 participants were included. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months (mean difference -0.24, 95% confidence internal [CI] -0.39--0.09; participants=2531; RCTs=16; moderate CoE) or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 12 months (mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.25-0.02; participants=2004, RCTs=11; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome (relative risk [RR] 0.17, 95% CI 0.09-0.30; participants= 6,745, RCTs=44; moderate CoE) and blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.59; participants=5727, RCTs=38; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP may carry similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-4.06; participants=751; RCTs=4; low CoE), re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44-2.40; participants=652, RCTs=6, I2=0%; low CoE) and erectile dysfunction (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]) at 12 months (mean difference 0.88, 95% CI -0.56-2.32; RCTs=3; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. CONCLUSIONS: BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome and blood transfusion slightly postoperatively. The moderate certainty of evidence available for primary outcomes suggests no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.

Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a well-established surgical method for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This has traditionally been provided as monopolar TURP (MTURP), but morbidity associated with MTURP has led to the introduction of other surgical techniques. In bipolar TURP (BTURP), energy is confined between electrodes at the site of the resectoscope, allowing the use of physiological irrigation medium. There remains uncertainty regarding differences between these surgical methods in terms of patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of bipolar and monopolar TURP. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive systematic electronic literature search was carried out up to 19 March 2019 via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. Handsearching of abstract proceedings of major urological conferences and of reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports was undertaken to identify other potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared monopolar and bipolar TURP in men (> 18 years) for management of LUTS secondary to BPO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed eligible RCTs for risk of bias. Statistical analyses were undertaken according to the statistical guidelines presented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The quality of evidence (QoE) was rated according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 59 RCTs with 8924 participants were included. The mean age of included participants ranged from 59.0 to 74.1 years. Mean prostate volume ranged from 39 mL to 82.6 mL. Primary outcomes BTURP probably results in little to no difference in urological symptoms, as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 35, with higher scores reflecting worse symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.09; participants = 2531; RCTs = 16; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence (CoE), downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in bother, as measured by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores reflecting greater bother (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02; participants = 2004; RCTs = 11; I² = 53%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome events slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30; participants = 6745; RCTs = 44; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 20 fewer TUR syndrome events per 1000 participants (95% CI 22 fewer to 17 fewer). Secondary outcomes BTURP may carry a similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; participants = 751; RCTs = 4; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to four fewer events of urinary incontinence per 1000 participants (95% CI five fewer to 16 more). BTURP probably slightly reduces blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59; participants = 5727; RCTs = 38; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 28 fewer events of blood transfusion per 1000 participants (95% CI 34 fewer to 20 fewer). BTURP may result in similar rates of re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.40; participants = 652; RCTs = 6; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). This corresponds to one more re-TURP per 1000 participants (95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more). Erectile function as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function score (IIEF-5) at 12 months on a scale from 5 to 25, with higher scores reflecting better erectile function, appears to be similar (MD 0.88, 95% CI -0.56 to 2.32; RCTs = 3; I² = 68%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations) for the two approaches. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms, both to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces both TUR syndrome and postoperative blood transfusion slightly compared to MTURP. The impact of both procedures on erectile function is probably similar. The moderate certainty of evidence available for the primary outcomes of this review suggests that there is no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.

Policies for replacing long-term indwelling urinary catheters in adults.

BACKGROUND: Long-term indwelling catheters are used commonly in people with lower urinary tract problems in home, hospital and specialised health-care settings. There are many potential complications and adverse effects associated with long-term catheter use. The effect of health-care policies related to the replacement of long-term urinary catheters on patient outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different policies for replacing long-term indwelling urinary catheters in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 19 May 2016), and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials investigating policies for replacing long-term indwelling urinary catheters in adults were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias of all the included trials. Quality of evidence was assessed by adopting the GRADE approach. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the review authors or an independent arbitrator. We contacted the authors of included trials to seek clarification where required. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 107 participants in three different health-care settings: A USA veterans administration nursing home; a geriatric centre in Israel; and a community nursing service in Hong Kong. Data were available for three of the pre-stated comparisons. Priefer and colleagues evaluated different time intervals between catheter replacement (n = 17); Firestein and colleagues evaluated the use of antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of replacement (n = 70); and Cheung and colleagues compared two different types of cleaning solutions (n = 20).All the included trials were small and under-powered. The reporting of the trials was inadequate and as a result, risk of bias assessment was judged to be unclear for the majority of the domains in two out of the three trials. There was insufficient evidence to indicate that (i) there was a lower incidence of symptomatic UTI in people whose catheter was changed both monthly and when clinically indicated (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.95; very low quality evidence) compared to only when clinically indicated, (ii) there was not enough evidence to assess the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on reducing: positive urine cultures at 7 days (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04); infection (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.65); or death (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.20 to 22.30; very low quality evidence), (iii) there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of asymptomatic bacteruria at 7 days (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52) between people receiving water or chlorhexidine solution for periurethral cleansing at the time of catheter replacement. However, none of the 16 participants developed a symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) at day 14.The following outcomes were considered critical for decision-making and were also selected for the 'Summary of findings' table: (i) participant satisfaction, (ii) condition-specific quality of life, (iii) urinary tract trauma, and (iv) formal economic analysis. However, none of the trials reported these outcomes.None of the trials compared the following comparisons: (i) replacing catheter versus other policy e.g. washouts, (ii) replacing in the home environment versus clinical environment, (iii) clean versus aseptic technique for replacing catheter, (iv) lubricant A versus lubricant B or no lubricant, and (v) catheter user versus carer versus health professional performing the catheter replacement procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to assess the value of different policies for replacing long-term urinary catheters on patient outcomes. In particular, there are a number of policies for which there are currently no trial data; and a number of important outcomes which have not been assessed, including patient satisfaction, quality of life, urinary tract trauma, and economic outcomes. There is an immediate need for rigorous, adequately powered randomised controlled trials which assess important clinical outcomes and abide by the principles and recommendations of the CONSORT statement.

Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults.

BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence (leakage of bowel motions or stool) is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduces quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of drug therapy for the treatment of faecal incontinence. In particular, to assess the effects of individual drugs relative to placebo or other drugs, and to compare drug therapy with other treatment modalities. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of Trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 21 June 2012) and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials were identified, including 558 participants. Eleven trials were of cross-over design. Eleven trials included only people with faecal incontinence related to liquid stool (either chronic diarrhoea, following ileoanal pouch or rectal surgery, or due to use of a weight-reducing drug). Two trials were amongst people with weak anal sphincters, one in participants with faecal impaction and bypass leakage, and one in geriatric patients. In one trial there was no specific cause for faecal incontinence.Seven trials tested anti-diarrhoeal drugs to reduce faecal incontinence and other bowel symptoms (loperamide, diphenoxylate plus atropine, and codeine). Six trials tested drugs that enhance anal sphincter function (phenylepinephrine gel and sodium valproate). Two trials evaluated osmotic laxatives (lactulose) for the treatment of faecal incontinence associated with constipation in geriatric patients. One trial assessed the use of zinc-aluminium ointment for faecal incontinence. No studies comparing drugs with other treatment modalities were identified.There was limited evidence that antidiarrhoeal drugs and drugs that enhance anal sphincter tone may reduce faecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. Loperamide was associated with more adverse effects (such as constipation, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, headache and nausea) than placebo. However, the dose may be titrated to the patient's symptoms to minimise side effects while achieving continence. The drugs acting on the sphincter sometimes resulted in local dermatitis, abdominal pain or nausea. Laxative use in geriatric patients reduced faecal soiling and the need for help from nurses.Zinc-aluminium ointment was associated with improved quality of life, with no reported adverse effects. However, the observed improvement in quality of life was seen in the placebo group as well as the treatment group.It should be noted that all the included trials in this review had small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. 'Risk of bias' assessment was unclear for most of the domains as there was insufficient information. There were no data suitable for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small number of trials identified for this review assessed several different drugs in a variety of patient populations. The focus of most of the included trials was on the treatment of diarrhoea, rather than faecal incontinence. There is little evidence to guide clinicians in the selection of drug therapies for faecal incontinence. Larger, well-designed controlled trials, which use the recommendations and principles set out in the CONSORT statement, and include clinically important outcome measures, are required.

Ten reasons to oppose the criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission.

Recent years have seen a push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission, often driven by the wish to respond to concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries. Particularly in Africa, some groups have begun to advocate for criminalization in response to the serious phenomenon of women being infected with HIV through sexual violence or by partners who do not reveal their HIV diagnoses to them. While these issues must be urgently addressed, a closer analysis of the complex issues raised by criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission reveals that criminalization is unlikely to prevent new infections or reduce women's vulnerability to HIV. In fact, it may harm women rather than assist them, and have a negative impact on public health and human rights. This paper is a slightly revised version of a document originally released in December 2008 by a coalition of HIV, women's and human rights organizations. It provides ten reasons why criminalizing HIV exposure or transmission is generally an unjust and ineffective public policy. The obvious exception involves cases where individuals purposely or maliciously transmit HIV with the intent to harm others. In these rare cases, existing criminal laws - rather than new, HIV-specific laws - can and should be used.

Criminalization of HIV transmission: poor public health policy.

Criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure is an ineffective tool for combating AIDS and a costly distraction from programs that we know work--programs such as effective prevention, protection against discrimination, reducing stigma, empowering women and providing access to testing and treatment. In this article, which is based on a public lecture he gave at "From Evidence and Principle to Policy and Action," the 1st Annual Symposium on HIV, Law and Human Rights, held on 12-13 June 2009 in Toronto, Canada, Justice Edwin Cameron analyzes the surge in criminal prosecutions, discusses the role that stigma plays in these prosecutions and makes the case against criminalization.

HIV is a virus, not a crime: ten reasons against criminal statutes and criminal prosecutions.

The widespread phenomenon of enacting HIV-specific laws to criminally punish transmission of, exposure to, or non-disclosure of HIV, is counter-active to good public health conceptions and repugnant to elementary human rights principles. The authors provide ten reasons why criminal laws and criminal prosecutions are bad strategy in the epidemic.

HIV is a virus, not a crime.

Criminalization of HIV transmission is an ineffective tool for combating AIDS and a costly distraction from programmes that we know work--programmes such as effective prevention, protection against discrimination, reducing stigma, empowering women and providing access to testing and treatment. In this article, which is based on a plenary presentation by Edwin Cameron, the authors advance ten reasons why criminalization is poor public health policy.

Global access to treatment: achievements and challenges.

As mentioned in the previous issue, this section of the Review addresses issues related to improving access to adequate and affordable care, treatment, and support everywhere. It replaces the section previously called "Patents and Prices." In this issue, we feature a review of achievements and challenges in recent years in opening global access to HIV/AIDS treatments. The article - one of a series commissioned to mark the tenth anniversary of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, discussing past developments and future directions in areas of policy and law related to HIV/AIDS - describes the developments that recast the debate about access to treatment from one focused on patent entitlements to one focused on the right to health and treatment. It analyzes the role of national and international activism, strategically constructed alliances, and principled leadership in achieving this change. And it discusses continuing obstacles to equitable access to HIV/AIDS treatments for the world's population.