Publications

An epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) beginning in 2013 has claimed an estimated 11 310 lives in West Africa. As the EVD epidemic subsides, it is important for all who participated in the emergency Ebola response to reflect on strengths and weaknesses of the response. Such reflections should take into account perspectives not usually included in peer-reviewed publications and after-action reports, including those from the public sector, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), survivors of Ebola, and Ebola-affected households and communities. In this article, we first describe how the international NGO Partners In Health (PIH) partnered with the Government of Sierra Leone and Wellbody Alliance (a local NGO) to respond to the EVD epidemic in 4 of the country's most Ebola-affected districts. We then describe how, in the aftermath of the epidemic, PIH is partnering with the public sector to strengthen the health system and resume delivery of regular health services. PIH's experience in Sierra Leone is one of multiple partnerships with different stakeholders. It is also one of rapid deployment of expatriate clinicians and logistics personnel in health facilities largely deprived of health professionals, medical supplies, and physical infrastructure required to deliver health services effectively and safely. Lessons learned by PIH and its partners in Sierra Leone can contribute to the ongoing discussion within the international community on how to ensure emergency preparedness and build resilient health systems in settings without either.

BACKGROUND

Systematic screening is often proposed as a way to improve case finding for tuberculosis (TB), but the cost-effectiveness of specific strategies for systematic screening remains poorly studied.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov-based decision analytic model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of triage testing for TB in Uganda, compared against passive case detection with Xpert MTB/RIF. We assumed a triage algorithm whereby all adults presenting to healthcare centres would be screened for cough, and those with cough of at least 2 weeks would receive the triage test, with positive triage results confirmed by Xpert MTB/RIF. We adopted the perspective of the TB control sector, using a primary outcome of the cost per year of life gained (YLG) over a lifetime time horizon.

RESULTS

Systematic screening in a population with a 5% underlying prevalence of TB was estimated to cost US$610 per YLG (95% uncertainty range US$200-US$1859) with chest X-ray (CXR) (US$5 per test, specificity 0.67), or US$588 (US$221-US$1746) with C reactive protein (CRP) (US$3 per test, specificity 0.59). In addition to the cost and specificity of the triage test, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the underlying prevalence of TB, monthly risk of mortality in people with untreated TB and the proportion of patients with TB who would be treated in the absence of systematic screening.

CONCLUSIONS

To optimise the cost-effectiveness of facility-based systematic screening of TB with a triage test, it must be carried out in a high-risk population, or use triage tests that are cheaper or more specific than CXR or CRP.

PURPOSE

A capsule formulation of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor dovitinib (TKI258) was recently studied in a phase 3 renal cell carcinoma trial; however, tablets are the planned commercial formulation. Therefore, this randomized 2-way crossover study evaluated the bioequivalence of dovitinib tablet and capsule formulations in pretreated patients with advanced solid tumors, excluding breast cancer.

METHODS

In this 2-part study, eligible patients received dovitinib 500 mg once daily on a 5-days-on/2-days-off schedule. During the 2-period bioequivalence phase, patients received their initial formulation (capsule or tablet) for 3 weeks before being switched to the alternative formulation in the second period. Patients could continue to receive dovitinib capsules on the same dosing schedule during the post-bioequivalence phase.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients were enrolled into the bioequivalence phase of the study (capsule → tablet, n = 88; tablet → capsule, n = 85), and 69 patients had evaluable pharmacokinetics (PK) for both periods. PK analyses showed similar exposure and PK profiles for the dovitinib capsule and tablet formulations and supported bioequivalence [geometric mean ratios: AUC, 0.95 (90 % CI 0.88-1.01); C , 0.98 (90 % CI 0.91-1.05)]. The most common adverse events, suspected to be study drug related, included diarrhea (60 %), nausea (53 %), fatigue (45 %), and vomiting (43 %). Of 168 patients evaluable for response, 1 achieved a partial response, and stable disease was observed in 32 % of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Dovitinib capsules and tablets were bioequivalent, with a safety profile similar to that observed in other dovitinib studies of patients with heavily pretreated advanced solid tumors.