Overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Objective: To identify and summarize the evidence about the extent of overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries, its drivers, consequences and potential solutions. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO® and Global Index Medicus using a combination of MeSH terms and free text words around overuse of medications and overtreatment. We included studies in any language published before 25 October 2021 that reported on the extent of overuse, its drivers, consequences and solutions. Findings: We screened 3489 unique records and included 367 studies reporting on over 5.1 million prescriptions across 80 low- and middle-income countries - with studies from 58.6% (17/29) of all low-, 62.0% (31/50) of all lower-middle- and 60.0% (33/55) of all upper-middle-income countries. Of the included studies, 307 (83.7%) reported on the extent of overuse of medications, with estimates ranging from 7.3% to 98.2% (interquartile range: 30.2-64.5). Commonly overused classes included antimicrobials, psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors and antihypertensive drugs. Drivers included limited knowledge of harms of overuse, polypharmacy, poor regulation and financial influences. Consequences were patient harm and cost. Only 11.4% (42/367) of studies evaluated solutions, which included regulatory reforms, educational, deprescribing and audit-feedback initiatives. Conclusion: Growing evidence suggests overuse of medications is widespread within low- and middle-income countries, across multiple drug classes, with few data of solutions from randomized trials. Opportunities exist to build collaborations to rigorously develop and evaluate potential solutions to reduce overuse of medications.

Routine laboratory testing to determine if a patient has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: On 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease. Blood count Eleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence). Liver function tests The summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence). Markers of inflammation The summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence). Other biomarkers The summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms.

Standard echocardiography versus handheld echocardiography for the detection of subclinical rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated. RESULTS: Six studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only. CONCLUSIONS: HAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051261.

Investigation of household contacts of pulmonary tuberculosis patients increases case detection in Mwanza City, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) contact tracing is a key strategy for containing TB and provides addition to the passive case finding approach. However, this practice has not been implemented in Tanzania, where there is unacceptably high treatment gap of 62.1% between cases estimated and cases detected. Therefore calls for more aggressive case finding for TB to close this gap. We aimed to determine the magnitude and predictors of bacteriologically-confirmed pulmonary TB among household contacts of bacteriologically-confirmed pulmonary TB index cases in the city of Mwanza, Tanzania. METHODS: This study was carried out from August to December 2016 in Mwanza city at the TB outpatient clinics of Tertiary Hospital of the Bugando Medical Centre, Sekou-Toure Regional Hospital, and Nyamagana District Hospital. Bacteriologically-confirmed TB index cases diagnosed between May and July 2016 were identified from the laboratory registers book. Contacts were traced by home visits by study TB nurses, and data were collected using a standardized TB screening questionnaire. To detect the bacterioriologically-confirmed pulmonary TB, two sputum samples per household contact were collected under supervision for all household contacts following standard operating procedures. Samples were transported to the Bugando Medical Centre TB laboratory for investigation for TB using fluorescent smear microscopy, GeneXpert MTB/RIF and Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) culture. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of bacteriologically-confirmed pulmonary TB among household contacts. RESULTS: During the study period, 456 household contacts from 93 TB index cases were identified. Among these 456 household contacts, 13 (2.9%) were GeneXpert MTB/RIF positive, 18 (3.9%) were MTB-culture positive and four (0.9%) were AFB-smear positive. Overall, 29 (6.4%) of contacts had bacteriologically-confirmed pulmonary TB. Predictors of bacteriologically-confirmed pulmonary TB among household contacts were7being married (Odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.0; p = 0.012) and consuming less than three meals a day (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.6-8.7; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in Mwanza, Tanzania, seven in 100 contacts living in the same house with a TB patient develop bacteriologically-confirmed pulmonary TB. These results therefore underscore the need to implement routine TB contact tracing to control tuberculosis in high TB burden countries such as Tanzania.