Integrated community case management of childhood illness in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The leading causes of mortality globally in children younger than five years of age (under-fives), and particularly in the regions of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia, in 2018 were infectious diseases, including pneumonia (15%), diarrhoea (8%), malaria (5%) and newborn sepsis (7%) (UNICEF 2019). Nutrition-related factors contributed to 45% of under-five deaths (UNICEF 2019). World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), in collaboration with other development partners, have developed an approach - now known as integrated community case management (iCCM) - to bring treatment services for children 'closer to home'. The iCCM approach provides integrated case management services for two or more illnesses - including diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, severe acute malnutrition or neonatal sepsis - among under-fives at community level (i.e. outside of healthcare facilities) by lay health workers where there is limited access to health facility-based case management services (WHO/UNICEF 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the integrated community case management (iCCM) strategy on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL on 7 November 2019, Virtual Health Library on 8 November 2019, and Popline on 5 December 2018, three other databases on 22 March 2019 and two trial registers on 8 November 2019. We performed reference checking, and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) studies and repeated measures studies comparing generic WHO/UNICEF iCCM (or local adaptation thereof) for at least two iCCM diseases with usual facility services (facility treatment services) with or without single disease community case management (CCM). We included studies reporting on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for under-fives in low- and middle-income countries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened abstracts, screened full texts and extracted data using a standardised data collection form adapted from the EPOC Good Practice Data Collection Form. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third review author not involved in the original screening. We contacted study authors for clarification or additional details when necessary. We reported risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and hazard ratios (HR) for time to event outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for clustering, where possible. We used estimates of effect from the primary analysis reported by the investigators, where possible. We analysed the effects of randomized trials and other study types separately. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies, of which three were cluster RCTs and four were CBAs. Six of the seven studies were in SSA and one study was in Southern Asia. The iCCM components and inputs were fairly consistent across the seven studies with notable variation for the training and deployment component (e.g. on payment of iCCM providers) and the system component (e.g. on improving information systems). When compared to usual facility services, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 2 CBA studies, 5898 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM may have little to no effect on neonatal mortality (HR 1.01, 95% 0.73 to 1.28; 2 trials, 65,209 children; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on infant mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 2 trials, 60,480 children; very low-certainty evidence) and under-five mortality (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.37; 1 trial, 4729 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness by 68% (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.27; 2 trials, 9853 children; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, severity of illness or adverse events for this comparison. When compared to usual facility services plus CCM for malaria, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (very low-certainty evidence) and iCCM may have little or no effect on careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17; 1 trial, 811 children; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality or adverse events for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness. However, the evidence presented here underscores the importance of moving beyond training and deployment to valuing iCCM providers, strengthening health systems and engaging community systems.

A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation studies conducted on neonatal systemic infections in South Asia.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal systemic infections and their consequent impairments give rise to long-lasting health, economic and social effects on the neonate, the family and the nation. Considering the dearth of consolidated economic evidence in this important area, this systematic review aims to critically appraise and consolidate the evidence on economic evaluations of management of neonatal systemic infections in South Asia. METHODS: Full and partial economic evaluations, published in English, associated with the management of neonatal systemic infections in South Asia will be included. Any intervention related to management of neonatal systemic infections will be eligible for inclusion. Comparison can include a placebo or alternative standard of care. Interventions without any comparators will also be eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of this review will include measures related to resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness. Electronic searches will be conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Library (CRD) Database, Popline, IndMed, MedKnow, IMSEAR, the Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE). Conference proceedings and grey literature will be searched in addition to performing back referencing of bibliographies of included studies. Two authors will independently screen studies (in title, abstract and full-text stages), extract data and assess risk of bias. A narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies. DISCUSSION: Neonatal systemic infections can have significant economic repercussions on the families, health care providers and, cumulatively, the nation. Pediatric economic evaluations have focused on the under-five age group, and published consolidated economic evidence for neonates is missing in the developing world context. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review of economic evidence on neonatal systemic infections in the South Asian context. Further, this protocol provides an underst anding of the methods used to design and evaluate economic evidence for methodological quality, transparency and focus on health equity. This review will also highlight existing gaps in research and identify scope for further research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017047275.

Comparative Assessment of Cytokine Pattern in Early and Late Onset of Neonatal Sepsis.

Neonatal sepsis is a significant health issue associated with high mortality. Immune responses associated with neonatal sepsis, such as proinflammatory cytokine production, are believed to play a central role in the pathogenesis of this disease. In the present study, serum levels of the proinflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL1-ß, and IL-6 and the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-4 and IL-10 were evaluated for 25 subjects with neonatal sepsis. We observed that subjects with late onset of sepsis (LOS), as well as those with early onset of sepsis (EOS), had a substantial increase in serum TNF-α. In contrast to EOS, subjects with LOS demonstrated a significant increase in serum levels IL-6 and IL-10. Additionally, we observed a significant difference in cytokine profiles between acute and postacute cases of neonatal sepsis. For instance, the level of proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α and IL-6, was elevated in the acute phase, whereas the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-10, became substantially upregulated during the postacute phase. Additionally, no correlation was observed between cytokine levels and CRP levels or lymphocyte counts. Thus, in contrast to CRP levels and lymphocyte counts, examination of the cytokine profile can provide valuable information when determining the most effective therapy for treating neonatal sepsis. This information may be useful to physicians when determining if anti-inflammatory or immune stimulatory therapy is warranted.

Variation in Current Management of Term and Late-preterm Neonates at Risk for Early-onset Sepsis: An International Survey and Review of Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty about the presence of infection results in unnecessary and prolonged empiric antibiotic treatment of newborns at risk for early-onset sepsis (EOS). This study evaluates the impact of this uncertainty on the diversity in management. METHODS: A web-based survey with questions addressing management of infection risk-adjusted scenarios was performed in Europe, North America, and Australia. Published national guidelines (n = 5) were reviewed and compared with the results of the survey. RESULTS: 439 Clinicians (68% were neonatologists) from 16 countries completed the survey. In the low-risk scenario, 29% would start antibiotic therapy and 26% would not, both groups without laboratory investigations; 45% would start if laboratory markers were abnormal. In the high-risk scenario, 99% would start antibiotic therapy. In the low-risk scenario, 89% would discontinue antibiotic therapy before 72 hours. In the high-risk scenario, 35% would discontinue therapy before 72 hours, 56% would continue therapy for 5-7 days, and 9% for more than 7 days. Laboratory investigations were used in 31% of scenarios for the decision to start, and in 72% for the decision to discontinue antibiotic treatment. National guidelines differ considerably regarding the decision to start in low-risk and regarding the decision to continue therapy in higher risk situations. CONCLUSIONS: There is a broad diversity of clinical practice in management of EOS and a lack of agreement between current guidelines. The results of the survey reflect the diversity of national guidelines. Prospective studies regarding management of neonates at risk of EOS with safety endpoints are needed.