Search

South Africa shared with the world the warning of a new strain of SARS-CoV2, Omicron, in November 2021. As a result, many high-income countries (HICs) instituted complete travel bans on persons leaving South Africa and other neighbouring countries. These bans were unnecessary from a scientific standpoint, and they ran counter to the International Health Regulations. In short, South Africa was penalized for sharing data. Data sharing during pandemics is commonly justified by appeals to solidarity. In this paper, we argue that solidarity is, at best, an aspirational ideal to work toward but that it cannot ground an obligation to share data. Instead, low-and-middle income countries (LIMCs) should be guided by the principle of reciprocity, which states that we ought to return good for good received. Reciprocity is necessarily a conditional principle. LMICs, we argue, should only share data during future pandemics on the condition that HICs provide enforceable assurances that the benefits of data sharing will be equitably distributed and that LMICs won't be penalized for sharing information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The novel coronavirus pandemic has caused marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to alter how they provide clinical services. MFTs must determine how to deliver relationship-oriented services to underserved populations that are often forgotten during crises, including incarcerated individuals and their families. The primary purpose of this paper is to showcase how relational telemental health (TMH) services for incarcerated individuals and their families can increase access to services and improve relational health. Information is presented about corrections in the U.S., effects of incarceration on partners, children, and other family members, the behavioral health and relationship needs of incarcerated individuals, and current approaches to relational mental health and telehealth in corrections. Finally, suggestions are offered on how relational TMH could be used in corrections during the COVID-19 pandemic, including advocacy for collaborative healthcare, recommended implementation practices, and ethical considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although expanded access is an increasingly used pathway for patients to access investigational medicine, little is known on the magnitude and content of published scientific research collected via expanded access. Methods: We performed a review of all peer-reviewed expanded access publications between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2022. We analyzed the publications for drugs, diseases, disease area, patient numbers, time, geographical location, subject, and research methodology (single center/multicenter, international/national, prospective/retrospective). We additionally analyzed endpoints reported in all COVID-19-related expanded access publications. Results: We screened 3810 articles and included 1231, describing 523 drugs for 354 diseases for 507,481 patients. The number of publications significantly increased over time ( p < 0.001 ). Large geographical disparities existed as Europe and the Americas accounted for 87.4% of all publications, whereas Africa only accounted for 0.6%. Oncology and hematology accounted for 53% of all publications. Twenty-nine percent of all expanded access patients (N = 197,187) reported on in 2020 and 2021 were treated in the context of COVID-19. Conclusions: By summarizing characteristics of patients, diseases, and research methods described in all scientific literature published on expanded access, we provide a unique dataset for future research. We show that published scientific research on expanded access has surged over the past decades, partly due to COVID-19. However, international collaboration and equity in geographic access remain an issue of concern. Lastly, we stress the need for harmonization of research legislation and guidance on the value of expanded access data within real-world data frameworks to improve equity in patient access and streamline future expanded access research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this plain language podcast, highlights from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021 are discussed from the perspective of both a patient and a healthcare professional. The patient advocacy track at the congress was co-developed with patients, and was integrated into the overall programme. It included four sessions on the financial impact of cancer, treatments that use the body's immune system to fight cancer, technology, and rare cancers. This comes at a time when there is an increasing focus on the value of real-world data (data from a real-life setting, rather than in a clinical trial) and a more active role for patients and patient organisations as partners in research. Challenges and opportunities arising during the COVID-19 pandemic were also discussed, including logistical complexities in healthcare and consequent uncertainty for patients in accessing care, and opportunities including increased use of telemedicine and broader participation offered by virtual/on-site hybrid congress formats, as used in ESMO 2021. Data discussed on combination treatments for patients with bladder cancer suggest an improved chance of remission for patients intolerant or resistant to existing treatment. Some of the data from studies in kidney cancer also suggest that treatment breaks or longer periods between treatment can improve quality of life and reduce treatment costs, without reducing treatment effectiveness. Although data on bladder and kidney cancer studies were seen to be promising, the authors recognise the time it takes for such findings to reach clinical practice, and the importance of managing expectations in the patient community. The authors conclude their discussion by reflecting on key challenges and opportunities moving forward, including restoring and improving care and efficiency of cancer services, and working together with patient advocates and advocacy organisations as essential partners in achieving this. Er-ortu1YQmrre2dQLiQse ESMO Podcast video [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]