Causes and age of neonatal death and associations with maternal and newborn care characteristics in Nepal: a verbal autopsy study.

BACKGROUND: In Nepal, neonatal mortality fell substantially between 2000 and 2018, decreasing 50% from 40 to 20 deaths per 1,000 live births. Nepal's success has been attributed to a decreasing total fertility rate, improvements in female education, increases in coverage of skilled care at birth, and community-based child survival interventions. METHODS: A verbal autopsy study, led by the Integrated Rural Health Development Training Centre (IRHDTC), conducted interviews for 338 neonatal deaths across six districts in Nepal between April 2012 and April 2013. We conducted a secondary analysis of verbal autopsy data to understand how cause and age of neonatal death are related to health behaviors, care seeking practices, and coverage of essential services in Nepal. RESULTS: Sepsis was the leading cause of neonatal death (n=159/338, 47.0%), followed by birth asphyxia (n=56/338, 16.6%), preterm birth (n=45/338, 13.3%), and low birth weight (n=17/338, 5.0%). Neonatal deaths occurred primarily on the first day of life (27.2%) and between days 1 and 6 (64.8%) of life. Risk of death due birth asphyxia relative to sepsis was higher among mothers who were nulligravida, had <4 antenatal care visits, and had a multiple birth; risk of death due to prematurity relative to sepsis was lower for women who made ≥1 delivery preparation and higher for women with a multiple birth. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest cause and age of death distributions typically associated with high mortality settings. Increased coverage of preventive antenatal care interventions and counseling are critically needed. Delays in care seeking for newborn illness and quality of care around the time of delivery and for sick newborns are important points of intervention with potential to reduce deaths, particularly for birth asphyxia and sepsis, which remain common in this population.

Enhancing resources for healthcare professionals caring for people on intensive insulin therapy: Summary from a national workshop.

In June 2019, the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and JDRF International (JDRF) co-sponsored the Healthcare Professional Resource Workshop in San Francisco, California. The workshop convened stakeholders in the diabetes field in order to: [1] review information and resources created for healthcare professionals (HCPs) caring for people with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy; [2] share knowledge to scale and decentralize diabetes care; [3] identify synergies across the leading diabetes information resources; and [4] determine the areas of unmet need for HCPs caring for people with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy. Here, we summarize the conclusions and recommendations from the workshop.

A Systematic Review of Dextrose Prolotherapy for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review dextrose (d-glucose) prolotherapy efficacy in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases PubMed, Healthline, OmniMedicalSearch, Medscape, and EMBASE were searched from 1990 to January 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Prospectively designed studies that used dextrose as the sole active prolotherapy constituent were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers rated studies for quality of evidence using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database assessment scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Downs and Black evaluation tool for non-RCTs, for level of evidence using a modified Sackett scale, and for clinically relevant pain score difference using minimal clinically important change criteria. Study population, methods, and results data were extracted and tabulated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen RCTs, 1 case-control study, and 18 case series studies met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Pain conditions were clustered into tendinopathies, osteoarthritis (OA), spinal/pelvic, and myofascial pain. The RCTs were high-quality Level 1 evidence (Physiotherapy Evidence Database ≥8) and found dextrose injection superior to controls in Osgood-Schlatter disease, lateral epicondylitis of the elbow, traumatic rotator cuff injury, knee OA, finger OA, and myofascial pain; in biomechanical but not subjective measures in temporal mandibular joint; and comparable in a short-term RCT but superior in a long-term RCT in low back pain. Many observational studies were of high quality and reported consistent positive evidence in multiple studies of tendinopathies, knee OA, sacroiliac pain, and iliac crest pain that received RCT confirmation in separate studies. Eighteen studies combined patient self-rating (subjective) with psychometric, imaging, and/or biomechanical (objective) outcome measurement and found both positive subjective and objective outcomes in 16 studies and positive objective but not subjective outcomes in two studies. All 15 studies solely using subjective or psychometric measures reported positive findings. CONCLUSION: Use of dextrose prolotherapy is supported for treatment of tendinopathies, knee and finger joint OA, and spinal/pelvic pain due to ligament dysfunction. Efficacy in acute pain, as first-line therapy, and in myofascial pain cannot be determined from the literature.