METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences.
RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.
METHODS: Based on existing frameworks for the EMTCT for each individual infection, an integrated framework that combines infection prevention procedures with routine antenatal care was constructed. Using decision tree analyses, population impacts, cost-effectiveness and the potential reduction in required resources of the integrated approach as a result of resource pooling and improvements in service coverage and coordination, were evaluated. The tool was assessed using simulated epidemiological data from Cambodia.
RESULTS: The current prevention programme for 370,000 Cambodian pregnant women was estimated at USD$2.3 ($2.0-$2.5) million per year, including the duration of pregnancy and up to 18 months after delivery. A model estimate of current MTCT rates in Cambodia was 6.6% (6.2-7.1%) for HIV, 14.1% (13.1-15.2%) for HBV and 9.4% (9.0-9.8%) for syphilis. Integrating HIV and syphilis prevention into the existing antenatal care framework will reduce the total time required to provide this integrated care by 19% for health care workers and by 32% for pregnant women, resulting in a net saving of $380,000 per year for the EMTCT programme. This integrated approach reduces HIV and HBV MTCT to 6.1% (5.7-6.5%) and 13.0% (12.1-14.0%), respectively, and substantially reduces syphilis MCTC to 4.6% (4.3-5.0%). Further introduction of either antiviral treatment for pregnant women with high viral load of HBV, or hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) to exposed newborns, will increase the total cost of EMTCT to $4.4 ($3.6-$5.2) million and $3.3 ($2.7-$4.0) million per year, respectively, but substantially reduce HBV MTCT to 3.5% (3.2-3.8%) and 5.0% (4.6-5.5%), respectively. Combining both antiviral and HBIG treatments will further reduce HBV MTCT to 3.4% (3.1-3.7%) at an increased total cost of EMTCT of $4.5 ($3.7-$5.4) million per year. All these HBV intervention scenarios are highly cost-effective ($64-$114 per disability-adjusted life years averted) when the life benefits of these prevention measures are considered.
CONCLUSIONS: The integrated approach, using antenatal, perinatal and postnatal care as a platform in Cambodia for triple EMTCT of HIV, HBV and syphilis, is highly cost-effective and efficient.
METHODS: Five graph models were fit using data from 1574 people who inject drugs in Hartford, CT, USA. We used a degree-corrected stochastic block model, based on goodness-of-fit, to model networks of injection drug users. We simulated transmission of HCV and HIV through this network with varying levels of HCV treatment coverage (0%, 3%, 6%, 12%, or 24%) and varying baseline HCV prevalence in people who inject drugs (30%, 60%, 75%, or 85%). We compared the effectiveness of seven treatment-as-prevention strategies on reducing HCV prevalence over 10 years and 20 years versus no treatment. The strategies consisted of treatment assigned to either a randomly chosen individual who injects drugs or to an individual with the highest number of injection partners. Additional strategies explored the effects of treating either none, half, or all of the injection partners of the selected individual, as well as a strategy based on respondent-driven recruitment into treatment.
FINDINGS: Our model estimates show that at the highest baseline HCV prevalence in people who inject drugs (85%), expansion of treatment coverage does not substantially reduce HCV prevalence for any treatment-as-prevention strategy. However, when baseline HCV prevalence is 60% or lower, treating more than 120 (12%) individuals per 1000 people who inject drugs per year would probably eliminate HCV within 10 years. On average, assigning treatment randomly to individuals who inject drugs is better than targeting individuals with the most injection partners. Treatment-as-prevention strategies that treat additional network members are among the best performing strategies and can enhance less effective strategies that target the degree (ie, the highest number of injection partners) within the network.
INTERPRETATION: Successful HCV treatment as prevention should incorporate the baseline HCV prevalence and will achieve the greatest benefit when coverage is sufficiently expanded.
FUNDING: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
METHODS: Data were derived from a respondent-driven survey sample (RDS) collected during 2010 of 460 PWID in greater Kuala Lumpur. Analysis focused on socio-demographic, clinical, behavioural, and network information. Spatial probit models were developed based on a distinction between the influence of peers (individuals nominated through a recruitment network) and neighbours (residing a close distance to the individual). The models were expanded to account for the potential influence of the network formation.
RESULTS: Recruitment patterns of HIV-infected PWID clustered both spatially and across the recruitment networks. In addition, HIV-infected PWID were more likely to have peers and neighbours who inject with clean needles were HIV-infected and lived nearby (<5km), more likely to have been previously incarcerated, less likely to use clean needles (26.8% vs 53.0% of the reported injections, p<0.01), and have fewer recent injection partners (2.4 vs 5.4, p<0.01). The association between the HIV status of peers and neighbours remained significantly correlated even after controlling for unobserved variation related to network formation and sero-sorting.
CONCLUSION: The relationship between HIV status across networks and space in Kuala Lumpur underscores the importance of these factors for surveillance and prevention strategies, and this needs to be more closely integrated. RDS can be applied to identify injection network structures, and this provides an important mechanism for improving public health surveillance, accessing high-risk populations, and implementing risk-reduction interventions to slow HIV transmission.