Dracunculiasis, also known as Guinea worm disease, is targeted to become the second human disease and first parasitic infection to be eradicated. The global Guinea Worm Eradication Program (GWEP), through community-based interventions, reduced the burden of disease from an estimated 3.5 million cases per year in 1986 to only 13 human cases in 2022. Despite progress, in 2012 Guinea worm disease was detected in domesticated dogs and later in domesticated cats and baboons. Without previous development of any Guinea worm therapeutics, diagnostic tests to detect pre-patent Guinea worm infection, or environmental surveillance tools, the emergence of Guinea worm disease in animal hosts-a threat to eradication-motivated an assessment of evidence gaps and research opportunities. This gap analysis informed the refinement of a robust research agenda intended to generate new evidence and identify additional tools for national GWEPs and to better align the global GWEP with a 2030 Guinea worm eradication certification target. This paper outlines the rationale for the development and expansion of the global GWEP Research Agenda and summarizes the results of the gap analysis that was conducted to identify Guinea worm-related research needs and opportunities. We describe five work streams informed by the research gap analysis that underpin the GWEP Research Agenda and address eradication endgame challenges through the employment of a systems-informed One Health approach. We also discuss the infrastructure in place to disseminate new evidence and monitor research results as well as plans for the continual review of evidence and research priorities.

In a recent article, Gebre1 suggests that endemic countries should lead in deciding on disease eradication initiatives and asserts that ‘elimination as a public health problem’ is the preferred option because eradication occurs at the expense of other health programs and weakens fragile health systems. The author's primary example is dracunculiasis (Guinea worm) eradication, but he fails to take into account that vertical disease elimination and eradication programs also strengthen health systems overall. Eradication means permanent reduction to an incidence of zero of a disease worldwide, while elimination as a public health problem means minimal disease incidence but control measures are still necessary.

Global health requires evidence-based approaches to improve health and decrease inequalities. In a roundtable discussion between health practitioners, funders, academics and policy-makers, we recognised key areas for improvement to deliver better-informed, sustainable and equitable global health practices. These focus on considering information-sharing mechanisms and developing evidence-based frameworks that take an adaptive function-based approach, grounded in the ability to perform and respond to prioritised needs. Increasing social engagement as well as sector and participant diversity in whole-of-society decision-making, and collaborating with and optimising on hyperlocal and global regional entities, will improve prioritisation of global health capabilities. Since the skills required to navigate drivers of pandemics, and the challenges in prioritising, capacity building and response do not sit squarely in the health sector, it is essential to integrate expertise from a broad range of fields to maximise on available knowledge during decision-making and system development. Here, we review the current assessment tools and provide seven discussion points for how improvements to implementation of evidence-based prioritisation can improve global health.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

This report summarizes the status of the global Dracunculiasis Eradication Program as of the end of 2021. Dracunculiasis (Guinea worm disease) has been eliminated from 17 of 21 countries where it was endemic in 1986, when an estimated 3.5 million cases occurred worldwide. Only Chad, Ethiopia, Mali, and South Sudan reported cases in humans in 2021. Chad, Ethiopia, and Mali also reported indigenous infections of animals, mostly domestic dogs, with Dracunculus medinensis. Insecurity and infections in animals are the main obstacles remaining to interrupting dracunculiasis transmission completely.

BACKGROUND: Field epidemiology training programs (FETPs) have trained field epidemiologists who strengthen global capacities for surveillance and response to public health threats. We describe how FETP residents and graduates have contributed to COVID-19 preparedness and response globally. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of FETPs between March 13 and April 15, 2020 to understand how FETP residents or graduates were contributing to COVID-19 response activities. The survey tool was structured around the eight Pillars of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan for COVID-19. We used descriptive statistics to summarize quantitative results and content analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: Among 88 invited programs, 65 (74%) responded and indicated that FETP residents and graduates have engaged in the COVID-19 response across all six WHO regions. Response efforts focused on country-level coordination (98%), surveillance, rapid response teams, case investigations (97%), activities at points of entry (92%), and risk communication and community engagement (82%). Descriptions of FETP contributions to COVID-19 preparedness and response are categorized into seven main themes: conducting epidemiological activities, managing logistics and coordination, leading risk communication efforts, providing guidance, supporting surveillance activities, training and developing the workforce, and holding leadership positions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the value of FETPs in responding to public health threats like COVID-19. This program provides critical assistance to countries' COVID-19 response efforts but also enhances epidemiologic workforce capacity, public health emergency infrastructure and helps ensure global health security as prescribed in the WHO's International Health Regulations.

Health campaigns are time-bound, intermittent activities that address specific epidemiological challenges, expediently fill delivery gaps or provide surge coverage for health interventions. | They can be used to prevent or respond to disease outbreaks, control or eliminate targeted diseases as a public health problem, eradicate a disease altogether or achieve other health goals. | In 2020, more than 530 health campaigns were planned for 26 different interventions representing 13 diseases and 105 countries. | Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, by the end of last year, about half of planned campaigns were postponed, cancelled, or suspended leaving hundreds of millions of children and families at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases, tropical diseases and malnutrition. | So far in 2021, more than 280 campaigns have been cancelled or delayed. | As health campaigns restart and catch up on the delivery of missed drugs, vaccines and nutritional supplements, and countries roll out COVID-19 vaccines, there is an opportunity to rethink the way we plan and implement campaigns to improve their effectiveness and impact. |

The Viewpoint by David Molyneux and colleagues,1 members of the International Commission for the Certification of Dracunculiasis Eradication, notes the special challenges they face in preparing to certify that there are no Guinea worms remaining in humans or animals in the final seven countries that have not yet been certified as free of transmission, since eradication programmes detected the sustained transmission of Dracunculus medinensis among domestic dogs in Chad, Ethiopia, and Mali. We believe a comprehensive approach to evidence for certification might include a range of actions.

The World Health Organization monitoring and evaluation framework for the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) describes the targets for the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) indicators. For workforce development, the JEE defines the optimal target for attaining and complying with the IHR (2005) as 1 trained field epidemiologist (or equivalent) per 200,000 population. We explain the derivation and use of the current field epidemiology workforce development target and identify the limitations and lessons learned in applying it to various countries' public health systems. This article also proposes a way forward for improvements and implementation of this workforce development target.

BACKGROUND: Globally, hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a major cause of acute viral hepatitis. Epidemiology and clinical presentation of hepatitis E vary greatly by location and are affected by the HEV genotype. Nucleic acid amplification technique (NAT)-based assays are important for the detection of acute HEV infection as well for monitoring chronic cases of hepatitis E. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate a panel of samples containing different genotypes of HEV for use in nucleic NAT-based assays. STUDY DESIGN: The panel of samples comprises eleven different members including HEV genotype 1a (2 strains), 1e, 2a, 3b, 3c, 3e, 3f, 4c, 4g as well as a human isolate related to rabbit HEV. Each laboratory assayed the panel members directly against the 1(st) World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) for HEV RNA (6329/10) which is based upon a genotype 3 a strain. RESULTS: The samples for evaluation were distributed to 24 laboratories from 14 different countries and assayed on three separate days. Of these, 23 participating laboratories returned a total of 32 sets of data; 17 from quantitative assays and 15 from qualitative assays. The assays used consisted of a mixture of in-house developed and commercially available assays. The results showed that all samples were detected consistently by the majority of participants, although in some cases, some samples were detected less efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the collaborative study the panel (code number 8578/13) was established as the "1st International Reference Panel (IRP) for all HEV genotypes for NAT-based assays" by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. This IRP will be important for assay validation and ensuring adequate detection of different genotypes and clinically important sub-genotypes of HEV.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Worldwide, infectious diseases continue to emerge at an alarming pace, due to numerous factors including microbial adaptation, increasing human population migration, urbanization, conflict and instability, intensified animal-human interface, and habitat perturbation [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The litmus test for an effective national public health program is its ability to be ready to initiate an effective response for an unknown emerging or re-emerging infectious disease or public health event. The most impactful global health programs are built with the understanding that they must be able to help countries strengthen core public health capacity so that new threats can be detected and contained before they become international crises that increase morbidity and mortality, adversely impact the health and livelihoods of individuals and populations, disrupt travel, interfere with global trade and economies, or even lead to political destabilization [6, 7].

In order to assess progress toward achieving compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005), member states may voluntarily request a Joint External Evaluation (JEE). Pakistan was the first country in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region to volunteer for and complete a JEE to establish the baseline of the country's public health capacity across multiple sectors covering 19 technical areas. It subsequently developed a post-JEE costed National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS). The process for developing the costed NAPHS was based on objectives and activities related to the 3 to 5 priority actions for each of the 19 JEE technical areas. Four key lessons were learned during the process of developing the NAPHS. First, multisectoral coordination at both federal and provincial levels is important in a devolved health system, where provinces are autonomous from a public health sector standpoint. Second, the development of a costed NAPHS requires engagement and investment of the country's own resources for sustainability as well as donor coordination among national and international donors and partners. Engagement from the ministries of Finance, Planning and Development, and Foreign Affairs and from WHO was also important. Third, development of predefined goals, targets, and indicators aligned with the JEE as part of the NAPHS process proved to be critical, as they can be used to monitor progress toward implementation of the NAPHS and provide data for repeat JEEs. Lastly, several challenges were identified related to the NAPHS process and costing tool, which need to be addressed by WHO and partners to help countries develop their plans.

By 2014, only 33% of countries had self-reported compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005), including 8 countries from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). During the Ebola epidemic, the discovery of a gap between objective assessment and self-reports for certain IHR capacities prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to review and update the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework to include a voluntary objective review process, called Joint External Evaluation (JEE), that did not exist before. The regional committee for the EMR approved the JEE and encouraged its 21 member states to volunteer for reviews. Standardized processes and procedures were developed for conducting JEEs. Of the 52 JEEs completed to date globally, 14 (27%) are from the EMR. Three (21%) of 14 member states completing the JEE in the EMR have also worked on a post-JEE national action plan for health security (NAPHS). A survey conducted about the JEE experience from focal points in EMR member states underlined the strengths of the JEE process: its multisectoral and open discussion approach; standardization of the JEE process; WHO's critical role in supporting JEE preparation and conduct; and the need for guidance development for a costed NAPHS. The success of JEEs depends not only on proper preparations and completion of the JEE but also on the development of a country-led, owned, and costed NAPHS and its implementation, including financial commitments along with donor and partners' engagement and coordination.

Background: Joint External Evaluation (JEE) was developed as a new model of peer-to-peer expert external evaluations of IHR capacities using standardized approaches. Aims: This study aimed to consolidate findings of these assessments in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and assess their significance. Methods: Analysis of the data were conducted for 14 countries completing JEE in the Region. Mean JEE score for each of the 19 technical areas and for the overall technical areas were calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were done to assess correlations with key health, socio-economic and health system indicators. Results: Mean JEE scores varied substantially across technical areas. The cumulative mean JEE (mean of indicator scores related to that technical area) was 3 (range: 1-4). Antimicrobial resistance, Biosecurity and Biosafety indicators obtained the lowest scores. Medical countermeasures, personnel deployment and linking public health with security capacities had the highest cumulative mean score of 4 (range: 2-5). JEE scores correlated with most of the key indicators examined. Countries with better health financing system, health service coverage and health status generally had higher JEE scores. Adolescent fertility rate, neonatal mortality ratio and net primary school enrollment ratio were primary factors within a country's overall JEE score. Conclusions: An integrated multisectoral approach, including well-planned cross-cutting health financing system and coverage, are critical to address the key gaps identified by JEEs in order to ensure regional and global health security.

To achieve compliance with the revised World Health Organization International Health Regulations (IHR 2005), countries must be able to rapidly prevent, detect, and respond to public health threats. Most nations, however, remain unprepared to manage and control complex health emergencies, whether due to natural disasters, emerging infectious disease outbreaks, or the inadvertent or intentional release of highly pathogenic organisms. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works with countries and partners to build and strengthen global health security preparedness so they can quickly respond to public health crises. This report highlights selected CDC global health protection platform accomplishments that help mitigate global health threats and build core, cross-cutting capacity to identify and contain disease outbreaks at their source. CDC contributions support country efforts to achieve IHR 2005 compliance, contribute to the international framework for countering infectious disease crises, and enhance health security for Americans and populations around the world.

The Joint External Evaluation (JEE), a consolidation of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and the Global Health Security Agenda country assessment tool, is an objective, voluntary, independent peer-to-peer multisectoral assessment of a country's health security preparedness and response capacity across 19 IHR technical areas. WHO approved the standardized JEE tool in February 2016. The JEE process is wholly transparent; countries request a JEE and are encouraged to make its findings public. Donors (e.g., member states, public and private partners, and other public health institutions) can support countries in addressing identified JEE gaps, and implementing country-led national action plans for health security. Through July 2017, 52 JEEs were completed, and 25 more countries were scheduled across WHO's 6 regions. JEEs facilitate progress toward IHR 2005 implementation, thereby building trust and mutual accountability among countries to detect and respond to public health threats.

The International Health Regulations (2005; IHR) is a legally binding instrument with a purpose of “preventing, protecting against, controlling and providing a public health response to the international spread of diseases in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks.1 The IHR Review Committee on Second Extension recommended to transition from self-evaluations to approaches that combine self-evaluation, peer review, and voluntary external evaluation, thus the IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was developed, with the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) being one of its components.2, 3, 4 A key aspect of this approach is the recognition that effective management of IHR (2005) capacities for health security requires the involvement of several key sectors, including human, animal, and environmental health, wildlife, security, law enforcement, finance, and others.4 The aim of JEE is to support countries' capacities to prevent public health events, detect signals of unusual health events early, rapidly mount an effective multisectoral response, and, when appropriate, request international mobilisation.4 It begins with an internal, whole-of-government self-evaluation using other relevant assessments (such as the animal health Performance of Veterinary Services [PVS]) with the involvement of multisectoral stakeholders. During the JEE mission phase, a multisectoral group of internationally recognised experts works “peer to peer” with the multisectoral group of host country experts to jointly evaluate the host country's capacities.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Since mid-March 2014, the frequency with which cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection have been reported has increased, with the majority of recent cases reported from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). In addition, the frequency with which travel-associated MERS cases have been reported and the number of countries that have reported them to the World Health Organization (WHO) have also increased. The first case of MERS in the United States, identified in a traveler recently returned from Saudi Arabia, was reported to CDC by the Indiana State Department of Health on May 1, 2014, and confirmed by CDC on May 2. A second imported case of MERS in the United States, identified in a traveler from Saudi Arabia having no connection with the first case, was reported to CDC by the Florida Department of Health on May 11, 2014. The purpose of this report is to alert clinicians, health officials, and others to increase awareness of the need to consider MERS-CoV infection in persons who have recently traveled from countries in or near the Arabian Peninsula. This report summarizes recent epidemiologic information, provides preliminary descriptions of the cases reported from Indiana and Florida, and updates CDC guidance about patient evaluation, home care and isolation, specimen collection, and travel as of May 13, 2014.

Disease outbreaks of international public health importance continue to occur regularly; detecting and tracking significant new public health threats in countries that cannot or might not report such events to the global health community is a challenge. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Global Disease Detection (GDD) Operations Center, established in early 2007, monitors infectious and non-infectious public health events to identify new or unexplained global public health threats and better position CDC to respond, if public health assistance is requested or required. At any one time, the GDD Operations Center actively monitors approximately 30-40 such public health threats; here we provide our perspective on five of the top global infectious disease threats that we were watching in 2012: 1 avian influenza A (H5N1), 2 cholera, 3 wild poliovirus, 4 enterovirus-71, and 5 extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.

The global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome highlighted the need to detect and control disease outbreaks at their source, as envisioned by the 2005 revised International Health Regulations (IHR). June 2012 marked the initial deadline by which all 194 World Health Organization (WHO) member states agreed to have IHR core capacities fully implemented for limiting the spread of public health emergencies of international concern. Many countries fell short of these implementation goals and requested a 2-year extension. The degree to which achieving IHR compliance will result in global health security is not clear, but what is clear is that progress against the threat of epidemic disease requires a focused approach that can be monitored and measured efficiently. We developed concrete goals and metrics for 4 of the 8 core capacities with other US government partners in consultation with WHO and national collaborators worldwide. The intent is to offer an example of an approach to implementing and monitoring IHR for consideration or adaptation by countries that complements other frameworks and goals of IHR. Without concrete metrics, IHR may waste its considerable promise as an instrument for global health security against public health emergencies.

To understand circumstances of tuberculosis transmission that strain public health resources, we systematically reviewed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) staff reports of US outbreaks in which CDC participated during 2002-2008 that involved ≥3 culture-confirmed tuberculosis cases linked by genotype and epidemiology. Twenty-seven outbreaks, representing 398 patients, were reviewed. Twenty-four of the 27 outbreaks involved primarily US-born patients; substance abuse was another predominant feature of outbreaks. Prolonged infectiousness because of provider- and patient-related factors was common. In 17 outbreaks, a drug house was a notable contributing factor. The most frequently documented intervention to control the outbreak was prioritizing contacts according to risk for infection and disease progression to ensure that the highest risk contacts were completely evaluated. US-born persons with reported substance abuse most strongly characterized the tuberculosis outbreaks in this review. Substance abuse remains one of the greatest challenges to controlling tuberculosis transmission in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated a cluster of tuberculosis (TB) cases among persons using methamphetamines in Snohomish County, Washington, to determine the extent of the outbreak, examine whether methamphetamine use contributed to TB transmission, and implement strategies to prevent further infections. METHODS: We screened contacts to find and treat persons with TB disease or infection. We then formed a multidisciplinary team to engage substance abuse services partners and implement outreach strategies including novel methods for finding contacts and a system of incentives and enablers to promote finding, screening, and treating patients with TB and their infected contacts. RESULTS: We diagnosed and completed treatment with 10 persons with TB disease. Eight of 9 adult patients and 67% of their adult contacts reported using methamphetamines. Of the 372 contacts, 319 (85.8%) were screened, 80 (25.1%) were infected, 71 (88.8%) started treatment for latent infection, and 57 (80.3%) completed treatment for latent infection. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative approaches integrating TB control, outreach, incentives, and enablers resulted in high rates of treatment adherence and completion among patients and infected contacts. TB control programs should collaborate with substance abuse programs to address addiction, overcome substance abuse-related barriers to treatment, treat TB, and prevent ongoing transmission.

Persons named by a patient with tuberculosis (TB) are the focus of traditional TB contact investigations. However, patients who use illicit drugs are often reluctant to name contacts. Between January 2004 and May 2005, 18 isoniazid-resistant TB cases with matching Mycobacterium tuberculosis genotypes (spoligotypes) were reported in Miami; most patients frequented crack houses and did not name potentially infected contacts. We reviewed medical records and re-interviewed patients about contacts and locations frequented to describe transmission patterns and make recommendations to control TB in this population. Observed contacts were not named but were encountered at the same crack houses as the patients. Contacts were evaluated for latent TB infection with a tuberculosis skin test (TST). All 18 patients had pulmonary TB. Twelve (67%) reported crack use and 14 (78%) any illicit drug use. Of the 187 contacts evaluated, 91 (49%) were named, 16 (8%) attended a church reported by a patient, 61 (33%) used a dialysis center reported by a patient, and 19 (10%) were observed contacts at local crack houses. Compared to named contacts, observed contacts were eight times as likely to have positive TST results (relative risk = 7.8; 95% confidence interval = 3.8-16.1). Dialysis center and church contacts had no elevated risk of a positive TST result. Testing observed contacts may provide a higher yield than traditional name-based contact investigations for tuberculosis patients who use illicit drugs or frequent venues characterized by illicit drug use.