Ongoing mpox outbreak in Kamituga, South Kivu province, associated with monkeypox virus of a novel Clade I sub-lineage, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2024.

Since the beginning of 2023, the number of people with suspected monkeypox virus (MPXV) infection have sharply increased in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We report near-to-complete MPXV genome sequences derived from six cases from the South Kivu province. Phylogenetic analyses reveal that the MPXV affecting the cases belongs to a novel Clade I sub-lineage. The outbreak strain genome lacks the target sequence of the probe and primers of a commonly used Clade I-specific real-time PCR.

Investigating the Secondary Use of Clinical Research Data: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing emphasis to share patient data from clinical research has resulted in substantial investments in data repositories and infrastructure. However, it is unclear how shared data are used and whether anticipated benefits are being realized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to examine the current utilization of shared clinical research data sets and assess the effects on both scientific research and public health outcomes. Additionally, the study seeks to identify the factors that hinder or facilitate the ethical and efficient use of existing data based on the perspectives of data users. METHODS: The study will utilize a mixed methods design, incorporating a cross-sectional survey and in-depth interviews. The survey will involve at least 400 clinical researchers, while the in-depth interviews will include 20 to 40 participants who have utilized data from repositories or institutional data access committees. The survey will target a global sample, while the in-depth interviews will focus on individuals who have used data collected from low- and middle-income countries. Quantitative data will be summarized by using descriptive statistics, while multivariable analyses will be used to assess the relationships between variables. Qualitative data will be analyzed through thematic analysis, and the findings will be reported in accordance with the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) guidelines. The study received ethical approval from the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee in 2020 (reference number: 568-20). RESULTS: The results of the analysis, including both quantitative data and qualitative data, will be available in 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of our study will offer crucial understanding into the current status of data reuse in clinical research, serving as a basis for guiding future endeavors to enhance the utilization of shared data for the betterment of public health outcomes and for scientific progress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20210301006; https://tinyurl.com/2p9atzhr. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/44875.

Strengthening research ethics governance and regulatory oversight in Central America and the Dominican Republic in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Good governance and regulatory supervision are required to conduct research in an international public health emergency context and to ensure compliance with ethical standards. The "Strengthening research ethics governance and regulatory oversight in Central America and the Dominican Republic in response to the COVID-19 pandemic" study is a regional effort in which research ethics stakeholders participated in addressing research ethics governance and preparedness response challenges to the COVID-19 pandemic in Central America and the Dominican Republic. METHODS: A qualitative action research study was conducted following a participatory approach. Research ethics stakeholders in Central America and the Dominican Republic were mapped; a regional webinar and three virtual workshops were conducted discussing research ethics governance, ethics review and collaborative research practice during the pandemic. A roundtable session presented results and obtained feedback on a draft of a policy to strengthen regional research ethics governance. RESULTS: Countries across Central America and the Dominican Republic are at different stages in their development of research ethics systems. Countries with more established systems before COVID-19 were better organized and prepared to respond. This finding argues against improvisation and supports further work on strengthening governance of research ethics systems. Community engagement in research ethics public policy-making is practically absent in the region. Research and research ethics collaboration schemes are lacking amongst the countries; however, there are incipient initiatives in the region, such as the Central America and Caribbean Network of Research Ethics Committees. A policy brief with recommendations on how to advance towards strengthening the governance of research ethics systems was prepared and submitted to the Central American Integration System for analysis and possible approval. CONCLUSION: National research ethics systems in Central America and the Dominican Republic were unprepared to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to research oversight and effective collaboration. In most cases, national research ethics systems were found to be weak, and regional research collaboration was practically absent. To promote collaboration, a joint strategy needs to be developed with a regional vision towards sharing knowledge and best practices.

Enabling evidence to tackle everyday diseases to mitigate another pandemic.

The next emergent novel pathogen is likely to occur where the ability to undertake health research and collect life-saving data is lacking. Without embedded and ongoing research activities in place spotting and stopping a new threat is not possible, thereby enabling undetected infection and unchecked transmission within a community. Without local existing capabilities to collect such data delay is catastrophic. Fundamental goals in pandemic preparedness should be to stop an outbreak before it becomes a pandemic. This requires immediate action from teams already in place with the right skills, this could be readily achieved if we shift our thinking and enable research capabilities to be present in every healthcare setting. Addressing fundamental gaps in health research capacity and equity could tackle this and then we would be better prepared, globally.

The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) Knowledge Hub: developing an open platform for facilitating high-quality clinical research.

There is stark global inequity in health research in terms of where studies happen, who leads the research and the ultimate beneficiaries of the results generated. Despite significant efforts made, limited research ideas are conceptualised and implemented in low-resource settings to tackle diseases of poverty, and this is especially true in sub-Saharan Africa. There is strong evidence to show that the barriers to locally led research do not vary largely between disease, study type and location and can be largely solved by addressing these common gaps. The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) was established in 2003 as a European response to the global health crisis caused by the three main poverty-related diseases HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. EDCTP has established a model of long-term sustainable capacity development integrated into clinical trials which addresses this lack of locally led research in sub-Saharan Africa, supporting the development of individual and institutional capacity and research outputs that change the management, prevention and treatment of poverty-related and neglected infectious diseases across Africa. In recognition of emergent data on what the barriers and enablers are to long-term, sustainable capabilities to run studies, EDCTP formed a new collaboration with The Global Health Network (TGHN) in September 2017, with the aim to make a set of cross-cutting tools and resources to support the planning, writing and delivery of high-quality clinical trials available to research staff wherever they are in the world, especially those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) via TGHN platform. These new resources developed on the 'EDCTP Knowledge Hub' are those identified in the mixed method study described in this commentary as being key to addressing the gaps that the research community report as the most limiting elements in their ability to design and implement studies. The Knowledge Hub aims to make these tools freely available to any potential health research team in need of support and guidance in designing and running their own studies, particularly in low-resource settings. The purpose is to provide open access to the specific guidance, information and tools these teams cannot otherwise access freely. Ultimately, this will enable them to design and lead their own high-quality studies addressing local priorities with global alignment, generating new data that can change health outcomes in their communities.

Creating equity in health research to drive more and better evidence.

Health research is rapidly changing with evidence being gathered through new agile methods. This evolution is critical but must be globally equitable so the poorest nations do not lose out. We must harness this change to better tackle the daily burden of diseases that affect the most impoverished populations and bring research capabilities to every corner of the world so that rapid and fair responses to new pathogen are possible; anywhere they appear. We must seize this opportunity to make research easier, better and more equitable. Currently too many nations are unable to generate the evidence or translate it to directly change health outcomes in their own communities. It is essential to act and harness this emerging change in how research data can be generated and shared, so that all nations sustainably gain from this development. There are positive examples to draw on from COVID-19, but we now need to act. Here we present an initiative to develop a new framework that can guide researchers in the design and execution of their studies. This highly agile system will work by adapting to risk and complexity in any given study, whilst generating quality, safe and ethical data.

Engaging local health research communities to enhance long-term capacity building in Brazil.

The '2019 Research Capacity Network (REDe) workshop series' was an initiative led by Brazil-based REDe coordinators and The Global Health Network (TGHN) in partnership with Brazilian researchers interested in arboviruses. This workshop initiative has provided crucial training to the local research community offering transferable skills to effectively respond to health emergencies, with an impact beyond arboviral diseases, as evidenced by further activities undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic. The success of this approach resulted from several factors, especially the workshops' local leadership and the combination of in-person training with online sharing of the resources generated in the local language. Analytics data from REDe online platform evidenced the wider reach of the shared resources to a larger audience than the workshop attendees. Importantly, the impact of this approach extends beyond the workshop series per se, with workshop participants afforded access to wider training, career development and collaborative opportunities through REDe and TGHN platforms. In addition, this initiative design resulted in the development of new collaborations between the workshop leaders and other local researchers, who have been jointly writing research projects and applying for grants. As a result, REDe has become a highly dynamic community of practice for health researchers in the region, strengthening the research culture and improving connectivity. Here, we describe the design and implementation of this initiative and demonstrate the value of integrating local expertise, and a practical workshop series format with digital dissemination of research resources and training materials to generate a vibrant and robust community of practice.

Measuring research capacity development in healthcare workers: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: A key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers' individual capacities to conduct research. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: 11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the 'Research Spider' tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research. CONCLUSIONS: Capacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122310.

Setting up a pragmatic clinical trial in a low-resource setting: A qualitative assessment of GoLBeT, a trial of podoconiosis management in Northern Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are often perceived as being expensive, difficult and beyond the capacity of healthcare workers in low-resource settings. However, in order to improve healthcare coverage, the World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Report 2013 stated that all countries need to become generators as well as recipients of data. This study is a methodological examination of the steps and processes involved in setting up the Gojjam Lymphoedema Best Practice Trial (GoLBeT; ISRCTN67805210), a highly pragmatic clinical trial conducted in northern Ethiopia. Challenges to the trial and strategies used to deal with them were explored, together with the reasons for delays. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Qualitative research methods were used to analyse emails and reports from the period between trial inception and recruitment. This analysis was complemented by interviews with key informants from the trial operational team. The Global Health Research Process Map was used as a framework against which to compare the steps involved in setting up the trial. A mini-group discussion was conducted with the trial operational team after study completion for reflection and further recommendations. This study showed that the key areas of difficulty in setting up and planning this trial were: the study design, that is, deciding on the study endpoint, where and how best to measure it, and assuring statistical power; recruitment and appropriate training of staff; planning for data quality; and gaining regulatory approvals. Collaboration, for example with statisticians, the trial steering committee, the study monitors, and members of the local community was essential to successfully setting up the trial. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Lessons learnt from this trial might guide others planning pragmatic trials in settings where research is not common, allowing them to anticipate possible challenges and address them through trial design, planning and operational delivery. We also hope that this example might encourage similar pragmatic studies to be undertaken. Such studies are rarely undertaken or locally led, but are an accessible and efficient way to drive improved outcomes in public health.

The legacy of ZikaPLAN: a transnational research consortium addressing Zika.

Global health research partnerships with institutions from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries are one of the European Commission's flagship programmes. Here, we report on the ZikaPLAN research consortium funded by the European Commission with the primary goal of addressing the urgent knowledge gaps related to the Zika epidemic and the secondary goal of building up research capacity and establishing a Latin American-European research network for emerging vector-borne diseases. Five years of collaborative research effort have led to a better understanding of the full clinical spectrum of congenital Zika syndrome in children and the neurological complications of Zika virus infections in adults and helped explore the origins and trajectory of Zika virus transmission. Individual-level data from ZikaPLAN`s cohort studies were shared for joint analyses as part of the Zika Brazilian Cohorts Consortium, the European Commission-funded Zika Cohorts Vertical Transmission Study Group, and the World Health Organization-led Zika Virus Individual Participant Data Consortium. Furthermore, the legacy of ZikaPLAN includes new tools for birth defect surveillance and a Latin American birth defect surveillance network, an enhanced Guillain-Barre Syndrome research collaboration, a de-centralized evaluation platform for diagnostic assays, a global vector control hub, and the REDe network with freely available training resources to enhance global research capacity in vector-borne diseases.

COVID-19 en América Latina y Caribe: determinación de prioridadesen investigación y llamado a la acción / COVID-19 in Latin America and Caribbean: a determination of research priorities and call to action

Antecedentes: La Red de Salud Global estableció, en enero 2020, una comunidad de práctica para abordar la investigación en COVID-19 en países de ingresos bajos/medios. Objetivo: Identificar prioridades en investigación sobre COVID-19 que requieren atención urgente en América Latina y el Caribe (LAC) y establecer una comunidad de práctica abierta local para apoyar su implementación. Métodos: Estudio exploratorio mixto. Se analizaron los resultados específicos para LAC de una encuesta en línea (enfoque cuantitativo) que evaluó si la agenda prioritaria de investigación para COVID-19 de la OMS sigue siendo pertinente solicitando a los participantes que clasificaran sus tres principales prioridades a corto y largo plazo. Asimismo, se organizó un taller virtual abierto (enfoque cualitativo) el cual fue grabado. Se realizó un análisis temático pragmático a partir de las presentaciones de los panelistas y de las preguntas y comentarios de la audiencia. Se generó un marco de codificación mediante enfoques inductivo y luego deductivo siguiendo la agenda OMS. Resultados: Se contó con 223 participantes de 22 países. Se identificó un consenso sobre los temas de investigación e innovación prioritarios para LAC, dentro y fuera del marco de la agenda OMS, siendo una gran prioridad la necesidad de estudios de ciencias sociales para ayudar a los científicos biomédicos. Discusión: Dado que los casos siguen aumentando en LAC, consideramos que nuestros hallazgos son útiles para orientar tanto a las redes de investigación en la planificación de estudios como a los financiadores en sus decisiones para la asignación de recursos para investigación e innovación...(AU)

Excess mortality among people with podoconiosis: secondary analysis of two Ethiopian cohorts.

BACKGROUND: While morbidity attributable to podoconiosis is relatively well studied, its pattern of mortality has not been established. METHODS: We compared the age-standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) of two datasets from northern Ethiopia: podoconiosis patients enrolled in a 1-y trial and a Health and Demographic Surveillance System cohort. RESULTS: The annual crude mortality rate per 1000 population for podoconiosis patients was 28.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3 to 44.8; n=663) while that of the general population was 2.8 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.4; n=44 095). The overall SMR for the study period was 6.0 (95% CI 3.6 to 9.4). CONCLUSIONS: Podoconiosis patients experience elevated mortality compared with the general population and further research is required to understand the reasons.

The remaining unknowns: a mixed methods study of the current and global health research priorities for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the WHO released a Global Research Roadmap in an effort to coordinate and accelerate the global research response to combat COVID-19 based on deliberations of 400 experts across the world. Three months on, the disease and our understanding have both evolved significantly. As we now tackle a pandemic in very different contexts and with increased knowledge, we sought to build on the work of the WHO to gain a more current and global perspective on these initial priorities. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods study seeking the views of the global research community to (1) assess which of the early WHO roadmap priorities are still most pressing; (2) understand whether they are still valid in different settings, regions or countries; and (3) identify any new emerging priorities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the significant body of combined data shows the WHO roadmap is globally relevant; however, new important priorities have emerged, in particular, pertinent to low and lower middle-income countries (less resourced countries), where health systems are under significant competing pressures. We also found a shift from prioritising vaccine and therapeutic development towards a focus on assessing the effectiveness, risks, benefits and trust in the variety of public health interventions and measures. Our findings also provide insight into temporal nature of these research priorities, highlighting the urgency of research that can only be undertaken within the period of virus transmission, as well as other important research questions but which can be answered outside the transmission period. Both types of studies are key to help combat this pandemic but also importantly to ensure we are better prepared for the future. CONCLUSION: We hope these findings will help guide decision-making across the broad research system including the multilateral partners, research funders, public health practitioners, clinicians and civil society.

Patients' preferences of cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment outcomes: Findings from an international qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a disease that often affects exposed skin areas and may heal leaving lifelong scars. Patients' expectations from treatment are rarely considered in drug development for CL. An initiative aiming to address shortcomings in clinical trial design and conduct for CL treatments involving the researchers' community is on-going. This manuscript presents patient-preferred outcomes for CL and an assessment on how to consider these in the conduct of future trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We report preferred treatment outcomes by 74 patients with confirmed CL in endemic regions of Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Iran, Morocco, Peru and Tunisia during individual in-depth interviews. Beyond outcomes customarily considered in trials (such as lesion appearance and adverse events), patients talked about a large number of outcomes related to quality of life, such as pain, scar formation, and others affecting their work and daily activities. They also reported fears around getting rid of the parasite, disease recurrence, and possible sequelae. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The study results provide a rich insight into important outcomes for CL treatments, as well as related topics, from the perspective of a diverse patient population. Among the outcomes identified, we argue that those related to quality of life as well as recurrence should be included to a greater extent for assessment in clinical trials, and discuss the suitability of measurement instruments such as the Dermatology Quality of Life Index (DLQI). Interviews also point out the potential need to address concerns related to parasitological cure or scar formation, such as social stigmatization and disability. In addition, patients should be given information in order to clarify reported misconceptions. This study therefore suggests a methodology for consulting CL patients on outcomes as elements of clinical trial design, and how to incorporate these outcomes in trials. It also discusses how reported outcomes could be addressed in clinical care.

ZikaPLAN: addressing the knowledge gaps and working towards a research preparedness network in the Americas.

Zika Preparedness Latin American Network (ZikaPLAN) is a research consortium funded by the European Commission to address the research gaps in combating Zika and to establish a sustainable network with research capacity building in the Americas. Here we present a report on ZikaPLAN`s mid-term achievements since its initiation in October 2016 to June 2019, illustrating the research objectives of the 15 work packages ranging from virology, diagnostics, entomology and vector control, modelling to clinical cohort studies in pregnant women and neonates, as well as studies on the neurological complications of Zika infections in adolescents and adults. For example, the Neuroviruses Emerging in the Americas Study (NEAS) has set up more than 10 clinical sites in Colombia. Through the Butantan Phase 3 dengue vaccine trial, we have access to samples of 17,000 subjects in 14 different geographic locations in Brazil. To address the lack of access to clinical samples for diagnostic evaluation, ZikaPLAN set up a network of quality sites with access to well-characterized clinical specimens and capacity for independent evaluations. The International Committee for Congenital Anomaly Surveillance Tools was formed with global representation from regional networks conducting birth defects surveillance. We have collated a comprehensive inventory of resources and tools for birth defects surveillance, and developed an App for low resource regions facilitating the coding and description of all major externally visible congenital anomalies including congenital Zika syndrome. Research Capacity Network (REDe) is a shared and open resource centre where researchers and health workers can access tools, resources and support, enabling better and more research in the region. Addressing the gap in research capacity in LMICs is pivotal in ensuring broad-based systems to be prepared for the next outbreak. Our shared and open research space through REDe will be used to maximize the transfer of research into practice by summarizing the research output and by hosting the tools, resources, guidance and recommendations generated by these studies. Leveraging on the research from this consortium, we are working towards a research preparedness network.

Cost-effectiveness and social outcomes of a community-based treatment for podoconiosis lymphoedema in the East Gojjam zone, Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Podoconiosis is a disease of the lymphatic vessels of the lower extremities that is caused by chronic exposure to irritant soils. It results in leg swelling, commonly complicated by acute dermatolymphangioadenitis (ADLA), characterised by severe pain, fever and disability. METHODS: We conducted cost-effectiveness and social outcome analyses of a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of a hygiene and foot-care intervention for people with podoconiosis in the East Gojjam zone of northern Ethiopia. Participants were allocated to the immediate intervention group or the delayed intervention group (control). The 12-month intervention included training in foot hygiene, skin care, bandaging, exercises, and use of socks and shoes, and was supported by lay community assistants. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the cost of productivity loss due to acute dermatolymphangioadenitis. Household costs were not included. Health outcomes in the cost-effectiveness analysis were: the incidence of ADLA episodes, health-related quality of life captured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and disability scores measured using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). RESULTS: The cost of the foot hygiene and lymphoedema management supplies was 529 ETB (69 I$, international dollars) per person per year. The cost of delivery of the intervention as part of the trial, including transportation, storage, training of lay community assistants and administering the intervention was 1,890 ETB (246 I$) per person. The intervention was effective in reducing the incidence of acute dermatolymphangioadenitis episodes and improving DLQI scores, while there were no significant improvements in the disability scores measured using WHODAS 2.0. In 75% of estimations, the intervention was less costly than the control. This was due to improved work productivity. Subgroup analyses based on income group showed that the intervention was cost-effective (both less costly and more effective) in reducing the number of acute dermatolymphangioadenitis episodes and improving health-related quality of life in families with monthly income <1,000 ETB (130 I$). For the subgroup with family income ≥1,000 ETB, the intervention was more effective but more costly than the control. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there is evident benefit of the intervention for all, the economic impact would be greatest for the poorest.