Scale-up of the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program (K-DPP) in Kerala, India: implementation evaluation findings.

The cluster-randomized controlled trial of the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program (K-DPP) demonstrated some significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors and other outcomes. We aimed to refine and improve K-DPP for wider implementation in the Kerala state of India. The specific objectives of the scale-up program were (a) to develop a scalable program delivery model and related capacity building in Kerala and (b) to achieve significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors in the target population. A total of 118 key trainers of a large women's organization trained 15,000 peer leaders in three districts of Kerala. Each of these peer leaders was required to deliver 12 monthly sessions to ~25 people, reaching an estimated total of 375,000 adults over 12 months. We evaluated the number of sessions conducted, the participation of men, and program reach. We also assessed the effectiveness of the program in a random sample of 1,200 adults before and after the intervention and performed a biochemical evaluation on a subsample of 321. Of the 15,222 peer leaders who were trained, 1,475 (9.7%) returned their evaluation forms, of which, 98% reported conducting at least 1 session, 88% ≥6 sessions, and 74% all 12 sessions. Tobacco use among men reduced from 30% to 25% (p = .02) and alcohol use from 40% to 32% (p = .001). Overall, mean waist circumference reduced from 89.5 to 87.5 cm (p < .001). Although there were some study shortcomings, the approach to scale-up and its implementation was quite effective in reaching a large population in Kerala and there were also some significant improvements in key cardiometabolic risk factors following the 1 year intervention.

In Low- And Middle-Income Countries, Is Delivery In High-Quality Obstetric Facilities Geographically Feasible?

Delivery in a health facility is a key strategy for reducing maternal and neonatal mortality, yet increasing use of facilities has not consistently translated into reduced mortality in low- and middle-income countries. In such countries, many deliveries occur at primary care facilities, where the quality of care is poor. We modeled the geographic feasibility of service delivery redesign that shifted deliveries from primary care clinics to hospitals in six countries: Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, and Tanzania. We estimated the proportion of women within two hours of the nearest delivery facility, both currently and under redesign. Today, 83-100 percent of pregnant women in the study countries have two-hour access to a delivery facility. A policy of redesign would reduce two-hour access by at most 10 percent, ranging from 0.6 percent in Malawi to 9.9 percent in Tanzania. Relocating delivery services to hospitals would not unduly impede geographic access to care in the study countries. This policy should be considered in low- and middle-income countries, as it may be an effective approach to reducing maternal and newborn deaths.

Multi-sectoral Approach to Non-Communicable Diseases Control: Easier Said than Done.

The burden of non-communicable diseases is growing and countries are committed to combat this and achieve the sustainable development goals and targets. Non-communicable diseases are complex conditions attributed by multiple behavioural risk factors and without understanding the whole ecosystem of such diseases, it is difficult to determine the global goals and targets for them and to take action to address them. Countries are trying to take the multi-sectoral approach in addressing the non-communicable diseases and often encounter challenges in operationalizing the approach. Therefore, it is essential to nuance the multi-sectoral approach to non-communicable diseases in order to better inform application to achieving the sustainable development goals for which multisectoral approach is imperative. Keywords: multi-sectoral; non-communicable diseases; risk factors; sustainable development goals.

Neonatal sepsis as a major cause of morbidity in a tertiary center in Kathmandu.

INTRODUCTION: Neonatal sepsis causes high morbidity and mortality of newborns. The study aims to study the predictors and clinical, haematological and bacteriological factors of neonatal sepsis. METHODS: A descriptive cross sectional study was conducted in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of Paropakar Maternity and Women's Hospital in Kathmandu between October and December 2011. Demographic, obstetrics, clinical and microbiological data were studied for 300 neonates. RESULTS: The NICU prevalence rate of sepsis was 37.12%. Early onset neonatal sepsis was common (91.39%) (P=0.000). Cesarean section (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.15-3.31), apgar score<4 at 1 min (P=0.00) and <7 at 5 min of birth (P=0.00) predicted sepsis. Neonates with sepsis were more likely to present with hypothermia (OR 1.180, 95% CI 0.080-17.214), pustules (OR 2.188, 95% CI 0.110-43.465), dehydration (OR 3.040, 95% CI 0.170-54.361), diminished movement (OR 3.082, 95% CI 0.433-21.950) and bulging fontanels (OR 16.464, 95% CI 0.007-41495.430). Coagulase negative Staphylococcus spp. (CoNS) (21, 41.17%) was most common pathogen of neonatal sepsis. Variable antibiotic resistance patterns of isolates with emergence of meropenem resistance in Pseudomonas spp. and methicillin resistance in CoNS and S. aurues were noted. Mortality due to sepsis was highest (15, 8.06%) among total mortalities (21, 11.29%). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery via cesarian section, apgar score<4 at 1 min, and <7 at 5 min predicted sepsis. Morbidity and mortality of neonatal sepsis was common in this setting and early maternal and neonatal interventions are required to address this issue.

A comparison of the change in clinical severity scale score and a retrospective physician assessment of neurological outcome in individuals with leprosy associated nerve function impairment after treatment with corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the measured change in score of a validated clinical severity scale reflected physician assessed improvement in individuals who had received corticosteroid therapy for leprosy associated nerve damage. DESIGN: Patients with nerve function impairment who participated in a randomised controlled trial of corticosteroids were classified into two groups using a retrospectively determined physician assessment of improvement. One group consisted of patients who had recovered or improved the other of patients who were unchanged or had deteriorated. The change in the clinical severity scale scores of these two groups was compared. RESULTS: The change in the clinical severity scale scores of the 34 eligible individuals in the two groups were significantly different (P = 0.003). Individuals in the group who recovered or improved had a greater change in severity score than those whose nerve function was unchanged or deteriorated. CONCLUSION: The scale for measuring the severity of leprosy Type 1 reactions (T1Rs) and/or nerve function impairment reflects the clinical improvement of individuals with leprosy associated nerve damage.

A phase two randomised controlled double blind trial of high dose intravenous methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone versus intravenous normal saline and oral prednisolone in individuals with leprosy type 1 reactions and/or nerve function impairment.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy Type 1 reactions are a major cause of nerve damage and the preventable disability that results. Type 1 reactions are treated with oral corticosteroids and there are few data to support the optimal dose and duration of treatment. Type 1 reactions have a Th1 immune profile: cells in cutaneous and neural lesions expressing interferon-γ and interleukin-12. Methylprednisolone has been used in other Th1 mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis in an attempt to switch off the immune response and so we investigated the efficacy of three days of high dose (1 g) intravenous methylprednisolone at the start of prednisolone therapy in leprosy Type 1 reactions and nerve function impairment. RESULTS: Forty-two individuals were randomised to receive methylprednisolone followed by oral prednisolone (n = 20) or oral prednisolone alone (n = 22). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events or clinical improvement at the completion of the study. However individuals treated with methylprednisolone were less likely than those treated with prednisolone alone to experience deterioration in sensory function between day 29 and day 113 of the study. The study also demonstrated that 50% of individuals with Type 1 reactions and/or nerve function impairment required additional prednisolone despite treatment with 16 weeks of corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: The study lends further support to the use of more prolonged courses of corticosteroid to treat Type 1 reactions and the investigation of risk factors for the recurrence of Type 1 reaction and nerve function impairment during and after a corticosteroid treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN31894035.