METHODS: The Director of each NICU was requested to complete the e-questionnaire between February 2019 and August 2021.
RESULTS: We received 848 responses, from all geographic regions and resource settings. Variations in most thermoregulation and golden hour practices were observed. Using a polyethylene plastic wrap, commencing humidity within 60 min of admission, and having local protocols were the most consistent practices (>75%). The odds for the following practices differed in NICUs resuscitating infants from 22 to 23 weeks GA compared to those resuscitating from 24 to 25 weeks: respiratory support during resuscitation and transport, use of polyethylene plastic wrap and servo-control mode, commencing ambient humidity >80% and presence of local protocols.
CONCLUSION: Evidence-based practices on thermoregulation and golden hour stabilisation differed based on the unit's region, country's income status and the lowest GA of infants resuscitated. Future efforts should address reducing variation in practice and aligning practices with international guidelines.
IMPACT: A wide variation in thermoregulation and golden hour practices exists depending on the income status, geographic region and lowest gestation age of infants resuscitated. Using a polyethylene plastic wrap, commencing humidity within 60 min of admission and having local protocols were the most consistent practices. This study provides a comprehensive description of thermoregulation and golden hour practices to allow a global comparison in the delivery of best evidence-based practice. The findings of this survey highlight a need for reducing variation in practice and aligning practices with international guidelines for a comparable health care delivery.
DESIGN: In this phase III, double-blind, multicentre study, patients with endoscopically confirmed EO were randomised 1:1 to receive vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg, once daily for up to 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was EO healing rate at 8 weeks. The secondary endpoints were EO healing rates at 2 and 4 weeks. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: In the vonoprazan (n=238) and lansoprazole (n=230) arms, 8-week EO healing rates were 92.4% and 91.3%, respectively (difference 1.1% (95% CI -3.822% to 6.087%)). The respective 2-week EO healing rates were 75.0% and 67.8% (difference 7.2% (95% CI -1.054% to 15.371%)), and the respective 4-week EO healing rates were 85.3% and 83.5% (difference 1.8% (95% CI -4.763% to 8.395%)). In patients with baseline Los Angeles classification grade C/D, 2-week, 4-week and 8-week EO healing rates were higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole (2 weeks: 62.2% vs 51.5%, difference 10.6% (95% CI -5.708% to 27.002%); 4 weeks: 73.3% vs 67.2%, difference 6.2% (95% CI -8.884 to 21.223); and 8 weeks: 84.0% vs 80.6%, difference 3.4% (95% CI -9.187% to 15.993%)). Overall, EO healing rates appeared higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole. TEAE rates were 38.1% and 36.6% in the vonoprazan and lansoprazole group, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the non-inferior efficacy of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in terms of EO healing rate at 8 weeks in this population. Safety outcomes were similar in the two treatment arms.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02388724.
METHODS: We systematically searched for publications in PubMed® and Scopus, manually searched the grey literature and consulted with national health and nutrition officials, with no restrictions on publication type or language. We included low- and middle-income countries in the World Health Organization South-East Asia Region, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China. We analysed the included programmes by adapting the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's public health surveillance evaluation framework.
FINDINGS: We identified 82 surveillance programmes in 18 countries that repeatedly collect, analyse and disseminate data on nutrition and/or related indicators. Seventeen countries implemented a national periodic survey that exclusively collects nutrition-outcome indicators, often alongside internationally linked survey programmes. Coverage of different subpopulations and monitoring frequency vary substantially across countries. We found limited integration of food environment and wider food system indicators in these programmes, and no programmes specifically monitor nutrition-sensitive data across the food system. There is also limited nutrition-related surveillance of people living in urban deprived areas. Most surveillance programmes are digitized, use measures to ensure high data quality and report evidence of flexibility; however, many are inconsistently implemented and rely on external agencies' financial support.
CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve the time efficiency, scope and stability of national nutrition surveillance, and integration with other sectoral data, should be encouraged and supported to allow systemic monitoring and evaluation of malnutrition interventions in these countries.