Synergistic state governance of labour standards in global value chains: Forced labour in the Malaysia-Nepal-UK medical gloves supply chain

Drawing on research into medical gloves global value chains (GVCs), this article examines the interacting roles that states differently positioned in GVCs have played in preventing and eliminating forced labour. Our case study, based on a worker survey and semi-structured interviews across GVC actors, focuses on forced labour in the Malaysian medical gloves sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, linking production in Malaysia, end markets in the UK (primarily through procurement for the National Health Service), and migrant-sending countries, especially Nepal. We analyze the intermeshing effects of the different roles of states, operating at either the horizontal or vertical level of GVC governance, in terms of contributing to issues of forced labour. We identify three state roles in the Malaysia-UK medical gloves chain: producer state (Malaysia), migrant-sending state (Nepal) and regulator-buyer state (UK). We also identify some of the most persistent barriers to resolving forced labour in the value chain. Our research illustrates that Malaysia’s complex regulatory, political and institutional dynamics most directly influence forced labour in gloves production, but Nepal’s migration policies and the UK’s healthcare procurement practices also create forced labour risk in Malaysia. Advancing Gereffi and Lee’s (2016: 25) notion of “synergistc governance” and Jessop’s (2016) strategic-relational approach (SRA) to the state, we thus argue that the creation of sustained and positive regulatory synergies among states differently positioned in GVCs is necessary for the prevention and elimination of forced labour

Comparative performance of prediction model, non-expert and telediagnosis of common external and middle ear disease using a patient cohort from Cambodia that included one hundred and thirty-eight ears

Efforts to combat the large global burden of ear and hearing disorders are hampered by poor availability of expert diagnosis We report the first study to directly compare prediction model, non-expert and tele-diagnosis of middle and external ear disorders. A prediction model based upon a novel automated otological symptom questionnaire performed poorly, but absence of otorrhoea was found to reliably exclude a diagnosis of chronic suppurative otitis media. Both on-site non-expert and expert tele-diagnosis had high diagnostic specificity, but low sensitivity. Future work could explore how the validity of these diagnostic methods may be improved

Aural toilet (ear cleaning) for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Aural toileting is a term describing a number of processes for manually cleaning the ear. Techniques used may include dry mopping (with cotton wool or tissue paper), suction clearance (typically under a microscope) or irrigation (using manual or automated syringing). Dry mopping may be effective in removing mucopurulent discharge. Compared to irrigation or microsuction it is less effective in removing epithelial debris or thick pus. Aural toileting can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or topical antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of aural toilet procedures for people with CSOM. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving people (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. We included any aural toileting method as the intervention, at any frequency and for any duration. The comparisons were aural toileting compared with a) placebo or no intervention, and b) any other aural toileting method. We analysed trials in which background treatments were used in both arms (e.g. topical antiseptics or topical antibiotics) separately. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes were hearing, serious complications, and the adverse events of ear bleeding and dizziness/vertigo/balance problems. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 431 participants (465 ears), reporting on two comparisons. Two studies included only children with CSOM in the community (351 participants) and the other study (80 participants) included children and adults with chronic ear discharge for at least six weeks. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of health-related quality of life, ear pain or the adverse event of ear bleeding. Daily aural toileting (dry mopping) versus no treatment Two studies (351 children; 370 ears) compared daily dry mopping with no treatment. Neither study presented results for resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks or between two to four weeks. For resolution of ear discharge after four weeks, one study reported the results per person. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference at 16 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.72; 1 study; 217 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. No results were reported for the adverse events of dizziness, vertigo or balance problems. Only one study reported serious complications, but it was not clear which group these patients were from, or whether the complications occurred pre- or post-treatment. One study reported hearing, but the results were presented by treatment outcome rather than by treatment group so it is not possible to determine whether there is a difference between the two groups. Daily aural toileting versus single aural toileting on top of topical ciprofloxacin One study (80 participants; 95 ears) compared daily aural toileting (suction) with administration of topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) ear drops in a clinic, to a single aural toileting (suction) episode followed by daily self-administered topical antibiotic drops, in participants of all ages. We are unsure whether there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 1 study; 80 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge at between two to four weeks. The results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were presented by ear, not person, and could not be adjusted to by person. One patient in the group with single aural toileting and self administration of topical antibiotic ear drops reported the adverse event of dizziness, which the authors attributed to the use of cold topical ciprofloxacin. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.95; 1 study; 80 participants, very low-certainty). No results were reported for the other adverse events of vertigo or balance problems, or for serious complications. The authors only reported qualitatively that there was no difference between the two groups in hearing results (very low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether or not treatment with aural toileting is effective in resolving ear discharge in people with CSOM, due to a lack of data and the poor quality of the available evidence. We also remain uncertain about other outcomes, including adverse events, as these were not well reported. Similarly, we are very uncertain whether daily suction clearance, followed by antibiotic ear drops administered at a clinic, is better than a single episode of suction clearance followed by self-administration of topical antibiotic ear drops

Topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of topical antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media

Topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media

Background Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antiseptics, one of the possible treatments for CSOM, inhibit the micro‐organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antiseptics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antiseptics or their application can cause irritation of the skin of the outer ear, manifesting as discomfort, pain or itching. Some antiseptics (such as alcohol) may have the potential to be toxic to the inner ear (ototoxicity), with a possible increased risk of causing sensorineural hearing loss, dizziness or tinnitus. Objectives To assess the effects of topical antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media. Search methods The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one‐week follow‐up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. Two main comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) placebo or no intervention; and b) another topical antiseptic (e.g. topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of patients had received topical antiseptics a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of antibiotic treatment. Data collection and analysis We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health‐related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways. Main results Five studies were included. It was not possible to calculate the total number of participants as two studies only provided the number of ears included in the study. A. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus placebo or no treatment (all patients had aural toileting) Three studies compared topical antiseptics with no treatment, with one study reporting results we could use (254 children; cluster‐RCT). This compared the instillation of boric acid in alcohol drops versus no ear drops for one month (both arms used daily dry mopping). We made adjustments to the data to account for the intra‐cluster correlation. The very low certainty of the evidence means it is uncertain whether or not treatment with an antiseptic leads to an increase in resolution of ear discharge at both four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.16; 174 participants) and at three to four months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47; 180 participants). This study narratively described no differences in suspected ototoxicity or hearing outcomes between the arms (very low‐certainty evidence). None of the studies reported results for health‐related quality of life, adverse effects or serious complications. B. Topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B Two studies compared different antiseptics but only one (93 participants), comparing a single instillation of boric acid powder with daily acetic acid ear drops, provided any information for this comparison. The very low certainty of the evidence means that it is uncertain whether more patients had resolution of ear discharge with boric acid powder compared to acetic acid at four weeks (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.53; 93 participants), or whether there was a difference between the arms with respect to ear discomfort due to the low number of reported events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.81; 93 participants). Narratively, the study reported no difference in hearing outcomes between the groups. None of the included studies reported any of the other primary or secondary outcomes. Authors' conclusions Due to paucity of the evidence and the very low certainty of that which is available the effectiveness and safety profile of antiseptics in the treatment of CSOM is uncertain

Panel 7: Otitis media: treatment and complications

Objective. We aimed to summarize key articles published between 2011 and 2015 on the treatment of (recurrent) acute otitis media, otitis media with effusion, tympanostomy tube otorrhea, chronic suppurative otitis media and complications of otitis media, and their implications for clinical practice.Data Sources. PubMed, Ovid Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Clinical Evidence (BMJ Publishing).Review Methods. All types of articles related to otitis media treatment and complications between June 2011 and March 2015 were identified. A total of 1122 potential related articles were reviewed by the panel members; 118 relevant articles were ultimately included in this summary.Conclusions. Recent literature and guidelines emphasize accurate diagnosis of acute otitis media and optimal management of ear pain. Watchful waiting is optional in mild to moderate acute otitis media; antibiotics do shorten symptoms and duration of middle ear effusion. The additive benefit of adenoidectomy to tympanostomy tubes in recurrent acute otitis media and otitis media with effusion is controversial and age dependent. Topical antibiotic is the treatment of choice in acute tube otorrhea. Symptomatic hearing loss due to persistent otitis media with effusion is best treated with tympanostomy tubes. Novel molecular and biomaterial treatments as adjuvants to surgical closure of eardrum perforations seem promising. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of complementary and alternative treatments.Implications for Practice. Emphasis on accurate diagnosis of otitis media, in its various forms, is important to reduce over-diagnosis, overtreatment, and antibiotic resistance. Children at risk for otitis media and its complications deserve special attention.</p

Eustachian tube dysfunction: consensus statement on definition, types, clinical presentation and diagnosis

Item does not contain fulltex

Heterogeneity of Multifunctional IL-17A Producing S. Typhi-Specific CD8+ T Cells in Volunteers following Ty21a Typhoid Immunization

Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi), the causative agent of typhoid fever, continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality world-wide. CD8+ T cells are an important component of the cell mediated immune (CMI) response against S. Typhi. Recently, interleukin (IL)-17A has been shown to contribute to mucosal immunity and protection against intracellular pathogens. To investigate multifunctional IL-17A responses against S. Typhi antigens in T memory subsets, we developed multiparametric flow cytometry methods to detect up to 6 cytokines/chemokines (IL-10, IL-17A, IL-2, interferon-γ (IFN-γ), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1β (MIP-1β)) simultaneously. Five volunteers were immunized with a 4 dose regimen of live-attenuated S. Typhi vaccine (Ty21a), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were isolated before and at 11 time points after immunization, and CMI responses were evaluated. Of the 5 immunized volunteers studied, 3 produced detectable CD8+ T cell responses following stimulation with S. Typhi-infected autologous B lymphoblastoid cell lines (B-LCL). Additionally, 2 volunteers had detectable levels of intracellular cytokines in response to stimulation with S. Typhi-infected HLA-E restricted cells. Although the kinetics of the responses differed among volunteers, all of the responses were bi- or tri-phasic and included multifunctional CD8+ T cells. Virtually all of the IL-17A detected was derived from multifunctional CD8+ T cells. The presence of these multifunctional IL-17A+ CD8+ T cells was confirmed using an unsupervised analysis program, flow cytometry clustering without K (FLOCK). This is the first report of IL-17A production in response to S. Typhi in humans, indicating the presence of a Tc17 response which may be important in protection. The presence of IL-17A in multifunctional cells co-producing Tc1 cytokines (IL-2, IFN-γ and TNF-α) may also indicate that the distinction between Tc17 and Tc1 responses in humans is not as clearly delineated as suggested by in vitro experiments and animal models