METHODS: Rotavirus infection in Children in Southeast Asia countries was assessed using data from Pubmed and Google Scholars. Most countries in Southeast Asia have not yet introduced national RV vaccination programs. We exclude Brunei Darussalam, and Timor Leste because there were no eligible studies identified during that time.
RESULTS: According to the 2008-2018 RV surveillance data for Southeast Asia, 40.78% of all diarrheal disease in children were caused by RV infection, which is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children under 5 years old in Southeast Asia. Mortality was inversely related to socioeconomic status. The most predominant genotype distribution of RV changed from G1P[8] and G2P[4] into the rare and unusual genotypes G3P[8], G8P[8], and G9P[8]. Although the predominat strain has changed, but the seasonality of RV infection remains unchanged. One of the best strategies for decreasing the global burden of the disease is the development and implementation of effective vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: The most predominant genotype distribution of RV was changed time by time. Rotavirus vaccine is highly cost effective in Southeast Asian countries because the ratio between cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is less than one. These data are important for healthcare practitioners and officials to make appropriate policies and recommendations about RV vaccination.
METHODS: A series of qualitative interviews were conducted with policy makers and healthcare providers in four vivax-endemic countries. Routine G6PD testing is not part of current policy in Bangladesh, Cambodia or China, but it is in Malaysia. The interviews were analysed with regard to respondents perceptions of vivax malaria, -primaquine based treatment for malaria and the complexities of G6PD deficiency.
RESULTS: Three barriers to the roll-out of routine G6PD testing were identified in all sites: (a) a perceived low risk of drug-induced haemolysis; (b) the perception that vivax malaria was benign and accordingly treatment with primaquine was not regarded as a priority; and, (c) the additional costs of introducing routine testing. In Malaysia, respondents considered the current test and treat algorithm suitable and the need for an alternative approach was only considered relevant in highly mobile and hard to reach populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to increase awareness of the benefits of the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax and this should be supported by economic analyses exploring the cost effectiveness of routine G6PD testing.
METHODS: CLHIV aged <18 years, who were on first-line cART for ≥12 months, and had virological suppression (two consecutive plasma viral load [pVL] <50 copies/mL) were included. Those who started treatment with mono/dual antiretroviral therapy, had a history of treatment interruption >14 days, or received treatment and care at sites with a pVL lower limit of detection >50 copies/mL were excluded. LLV was defined as a pVL 50 to 1000 copies/mL, and VF as a single pVL >1000 copies/mL. Baseline was the time of the second pVL Cambodia), having family members other than biological parents/grandparents as a primary caregiver, and baseline CD4