Ethambutol is used to treat tuberculosis (TB) in individuals living with HIV. Low concentrations of ethambutol have been reported in patients dosed with the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended first-line regimen. We analyzed the pharmacokinetics of ethambutol in 61 HIV-positive individuals diagnosed with drug-sensitive TB enrolled in the tuberculosis and highly active antiretroviral therapy (TB-HAART) study. Participants started on TB treatment and were randomized to early or later introduction of efavirenz-based antiretroviral treatment. We explored potential covariate effects and evaluated the current WHO dosing recommendations for ethambutol in drug-susceptible and multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB. A two-compartment model with first-order elimination allometrically scaled by fat-free mass and transit compartment absorption best described the pharmacokinetics of ethambutol. Clearance was estimated to be 40.3 L/h for a typical individual with a fat-free mass (FFM) of 42 kg. The Antib-4 formulation had 26% higher bioavailability and slower mean transit time by 37% compared with Rifafour. Simulations showed that individuals in the lower weight bands (<55 kg) who were administered ethambutol at WHO-recommended doses had relatively low drug exposures. These individuals would need doses of 825 mg if their body weight is <37.9 kg and 1,100 mg if it is between 38 and 54.9 kg to achieve the reference maximum concentrations of 2-6 mg/L and an area under the concentration-time curve (0-24) of 16-29 mgh/L. To achieve these targets in MDR-TB treatment, a dose increment of 400 mg (extra tablet) would be required for individuals in the lower weight band (<46 kg). Our dose adjustments are consistent with the literature and can be recommended for consideration by the WHO for first-line drug-susceptible and MDR-TB treatment.

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is currently developing guidelines on immunomodulation and nutrition. To inform these recommendations, a scoping review will be conducted to synthesize and map the available empirical evidence on how complementary feeding affects immune health in infants and toddlers to explore the association between complementary feeding during the first year of life and immune health outcomes in children up to 3 years of age. The scoping review will be conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis Scoping Review Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) guidelines. We have developed inclusion criteria using the PCC (Population, Concept and Context) format: the population will include healthy infants; the concept refers to specific factors related to introduction of complementary feeding; and the context will focus on studies conducted in settings representative of everyday nutrition and feeding practices for infants and toddlers. Evidence sources include systematic reviews. We will search in MEDLINE and Epistemonikos. Data will be extracted using a standardized form developed in REDCap, and the findings will be synthesized narratively. Only published literature will be included in this systematic review. Therefore, no ethical approval is required. The final review paper will be published in a peer‐reviewed journal. OSF registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/T5F8 .

Complementary feeding (CF) influences infants' long-term dietary preferences, growth, and food allergy (FA) risk. However, guidance given to families and the implementation of FA prevention guidelines by healthcare professionals (HCPs) remain unclear. This study explored HCPs' perspectives and practices regarding CF strategies in the context of FA prevention across different regions and professional backgrounds. An online survey conducted by an EAACI task force between December 2023 and May 2024 assessed CF timing, allergenic food introduction, nutrient supplementation, and FA preventive measures. 550 HCPs (pediatricians, allergists, dietitians), 68% from Europe, participated. HCPs recommended CF initiation at a median of six months for breastfed infants and five months for formula-fed and FA high-risk infants. Atopic dermatitis (94%) and family history of allergies (87%) were the most recognized FA risk factors. Vitamin D (49%), probiotics (28%), and omega-3 fatty acids (18%) were commonly recommended supplements. Regional, professional, and educational influences differences emerged, with Northern European HCPs favoring earlier CF and allergen introduction, often without structured guidance. Southern European HCPs preferred a structured sequence and later CF initiation. A flexible, evidence-based framework is needed to guide FA prevention while accommodating cultural and geographical differences.

Molecular changes in lymphocytes following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are incompletely understood. We hypothesized that studying the molecular (transcriptomic, epigenetic, and T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire) changes in CD4+ T cells following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could inform protective mechanisms and refinement of future vaccines. We tested this hypothesis by reporting alterations in CD4+ T cell subsets and molecular features of CD4+ naïve and CD4+ central memory (CM) subsets between the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups. Compared with the unvaccinated, the vaccinated had higher HLA-DR expression in CD4+ T subsets, a greater number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) that overlapped with key differentially accessible regions (DARs) along the chromatin linked to inflammasome activation, translation, regulation (of apoptosis, inflammation), and significant changes in clonal architecture beyond SARS-CoV-2 specificity. Several of these differences were more pronounced in the CD4+CM subset. Taken together, our observations imply that the COVID-19 vaccine exerts its protective effects via modulation of acute inflammation to SARS-CoV-2 challenge.

BACKGROUND:Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines are an expensive component of the routine immunization schedule. Fractional-dose regimens may be one option to increase the sustainability of the vaccine program. METHODS:We assessed whether the immunogenicity of fractional doses of the 10-valent and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV10 [GSK] and PCV13 [Pfizer], respectively) would be noninferior to that of the full doses and analyzed the prevalence of vaccine-serotype carriage. We randomly assigned healthy infants in Kenya to one of seven equal-sized trial groups. Participants in groups A through F were assigned to receive either a fractional or full dose of PCV10 or PCV13, administered as two primary doses plus one booster dose. In group A, participants received a full dose of PCV13; group B, a 40% dose of PCV13; group C, a 20% dose of PCV13; group D, a full dose of PCV10; group E, a 40% dose of PCV10; and group F, a 20% dose of PCV10. Participants in the seventh group (group G) received a full dose of PCV10 as three primary doses without a booster. Immunogenicity was assessed 4 weeks after the primary series of doses and 4 weeks after the booster dose. Noninferiority could be declared 4 weeks after the primary series if the difference in the percentage of participants with a threshold response was not more than 10% and 4 weeks after administration of the booster if the ratio of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) of IgG was more than 0.5. A vaccine dose was prespecified as noninferior if it met the noninferiority criterion for at least 8 of the 10 vaccine types in the PCV10 groups or at least 10 of the 13 vaccine types in the PCV13 groups. Carriage was assessed when participants were 9 months and 18 months of age. RESULTS:In the per-protocol analysis, 40% of a full dose of PCV13 met the noninferiority criterion for 12 of 13 serotypes after the primary series and for 13 of 13 serotypes after the booster. The immunogenicity of the 20% dose of PCV13 and of the 40% and 20% doses of PCV10 was not noninferior to that of the full doses. The prevalence of vaccine-serotype carriage was similar across the PCV13 groups at 9 months and 18 months of age. CONCLUSIONS:In a three-dose schedule (two primary doses and a booster), 40% doses of PCV13 were noninferior to full doses for all included serotypes. Lower doses of PCV13 and PCV10 did not meet the criteria for noninferiority. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03489018; Pan African Clinical Trial Registry number, PACTR202104717648755.).

Previously reported interim results from PEOPLE (PEPITES Open-Label Extension) demonstrated Viaskin Peanut 250 μg (VP250) led to continued treatment response and was well-tolerated out to 3 years. Here we report PEOPLE end-of-study safety results.

In 2021, nearly half of the world's population lived at risk from malaria, with over 600 000 deaths annually, of which over 95% occur in the WHO African region and 80% of these in children younger than 5 years. 1 WHOWorld malaria report 2022. https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2022Date: 2022 Date accessed: October 31, 2023 Google Scholar WHO recommends several preventive and curative interventions that, when used together, can greatly reduce malaria illness and death, including effective vector control, chemoprevention, and prompt diagnosis and treatment, and since October, 2021 malaria vaccines, the first of which is RTS,S/AS01. 2 WHOFull evidence report on the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/immunization/mvip/full-evidence-report-on-the-rtss-as01-malaria-vaccine-for-sage-mpag-(sept2021).pdfDate: 2021 Date accessed: October 31, 2023 Google Scholar Malaria, specifically Plasmodium falciparum, is the first human parasite for which vaccination has proved possible. Over 40 years of vaccine development took place since the identification of the circumsporozoite antigen as a functionally important antigen. A key finding in 2021 was the successful demonstration of programmatic feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of RTS,S/AS01 in very large pilot implementations in three African countries. 2 WHOFull evidence report on the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/immunization/mvip/full-evidence-report-on-the-rtss-as01-malaria-vaccine-for-sage-mpag-(sept2021).pdfDate: 2021 Date accessed: October 31, 2023 Google Scholar Demand for malaria vaccines is unprecedented, with 18 countries already approved for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance support for vaccine introduction in 2024. However, supply of RTS,S/AS01 is severely constrained, with only 18 million doses available between 2023 and 2025, and the annual demand is anticipated to be around 80–100 million doses. 3 Gavi, the Vaccine AllianceMalaria vaccine market shaping roadmap. https://www.gavi.org/news-resources/knowledge-products/malaria-vaccine-market-shaping-roadmapDate: 2023 Date accessed: January 8, 2024 Google Scholar Inventors at the University of Oxford (Oxford, UK), in partnership with the Serum Institute of India (Pune, India), have now developed a second, circumsporozoite-based vaccine similar in construct to RTS,S/AS01, known as R21/Matrix-M. The Serum Institute of India has a track record of supplying other WHO-recommended vaccines at very large scale, at relatively low cost, and of meeting WHO's prequalification standards on vaccine quality, safety, and efficacy. Like RTS,S/AS01, the R21/Matrix-M vaccine targets the circumsporozoite antigen. R21/Matrix-M is formulated with a saponin-based adjuvant, Matrix-M, which is distinct from the AS01 adjuvant of RTS,S. Safety and efficacy of malaria vaccine candidate R21/Matrix-M in African children: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trialR21/Matrix-M was well tolerated and offered high efficacy against clinical malaria in African children. This low-cost, high-efficacy vaccine is already licensed by several African countries, and recently received a WHO policy recommendation and prequalification, offering large-scale supply to help reduce the great burden of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Full-Text PDF Open Access

BACKGROUND:In sub-Saharan Africa, health-care provision for chronic conditions is fragmented. The aim of this study was to determine whether integrated management of HIV, diabetes, and hypertension led to improved rates of retention in care for people with diabetes or hypertension without adversely affecting rates of HIV viral suppression among people with HIV when compared to standard vertical care in medium and large health facilities in Uganda and Tanzania. METHODS:In INTE-AFRICA, a pragmatic cluster-randomised, controlled trial, we randomly allocated primary health-care facilities in Uganda and Tanzania to provide either integrated care or standard care for HIV, diabetes, and hypertension. Random allocation (1:1) was stratified by location, infrastructure level, and by country, with a permuted block randomisation method. In the integrated care group, participants with HIV, diabetes, or hypertension were managed by the same health-care workers, used the same pharmacy, had similarly designed medical records, shared the same registration and waiting areas, and had an integrated laboratory service. In the standard care group, these services were delivered vertically for each condition. Patients were eligible to join the trial if they were living with confirmed HIV, diabetes, or hypertension, were aged 18 years or older, were living within the catchment population area of the health facility, and were likely to remain in the catchment population for 6 months. The coprimary outcomes, retention in care (attending a clinic within the last 6 months of study follow-up) for participants with either diabetes or hypertension (tested for superiority) and plasma viral load suppression for those with HIV (>1000 copies per mL; tested for non-inferiority, 10% margin), were analysed using generalised estimating equations in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISCRTN 43896688. FINDINGS:Between June 30, 2020, and April 1, 2021 we randomly allocated 32 health facilities (17 in Uganda and 15 in Tanzania) with 7028 eligible participants to the integrated care or the standard care groups. Among participants with diabetes, hypertension, or both, 2298 (75·8%) of 3032 were female and 734 (24·2%) of 3032 were male. Of participants with HIV alone, 2365 (70·3%) of 3365 were female and 1000 (29·7%) of 3365 were male. Follow-up lasted for 12 months. Among participants with diabetes, hypertension, or both, the proportion alive and retained in care at study end was 1254 (89·0%) of 1409 in integrated care and 1457 (89·8%) of 1623 in standard care. The risk differences were -0·65% (95% CI -5·76 to 4·46; p=0·80) unadjusted and -0·60% (-5·46 to 4·26; p=0·81) adjusted. Among participants with HIV, the proportion who had a plasma viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL was 1412 (97·0%) of 1456 in integrated care and 1451 (97·3%) of 1491 in standard care. The differences were -0·37% (one-sided 95% CI -1·99 to 1·26; pnon-inferiority<0·0001 unadjusted) and -0·36% (-1·99 to 1·28; pnon-inferiority<0·0001 adjusted). INTERPRETATION:In sub-Saharan Africa, integrated chronic care services could achieve a high standard of care for people with diabetes or hypertension without adversely affecting outcomes for people with HIV. FUNDING:European Union Horizon 2020 and Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases.

World Health Organization (WHO) preferred product characteristics describe preferences for product attributes that would help optimize value and use to address global public health needs, with a particular focus on low- and middle-income countries. Having previously published preferred product characteristics for both maternal and paediatric respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, WHO recently published preferred product characteristics for monoclonal antibodies to prevent severe RSV disease in infants. This article summarizes the key attributes from the preferred product characteristics and discusses key considerations for future access and use of preventive RSV monoclonal antibodies.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.

Background Knowing whether COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes is crucial for informing vaccine policy, such as the need for and timing of booster doses. We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the duration of protection of COVID-19 vaccines against various clinical outcomes, and to assess changes in the rates of breakthrough infection caused by the delta variant with increasing time since vaccination. Methods This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-regression. We did a systematic review of preprint and peer-reviewed published article databases from June 17, 2021, to Dec 2, 2021. Randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness were eligible. Studies with vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates at discrete time intervals of people who had received full vaccination and that met predefined screening criteria underwent full-text review. We used random-effects meta-regression to estimate the average change in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness 1-6 months after full vaccination. Findings Of 13 744 studies screened, 310 underwent full-text review, and 18 studies were included (all studies were carried out before the omicron variant began to circulate widely). Risk of bias, established using the risk of bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials or the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool was low for three studies, moderate for eight studies, and serious for seven studies. We included 78 vaccine-specific vaccine efficacy or effectiveness evaluations (Pfizer-BioNTech-Comirnaty, n=38; Moderna-mRNA-1273, n=23; Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S, n=9; and AstraZeneca-Vaxzevria, n=8). On average, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased from 1 month to 6 months after full vaccination by 21.0 percentage points (95% CI 13 .9-29.8) among people of all ages and 20.7 percentage points (10. 2-36.6) among older people (as defined by each study, who were at least 50 years old). For symptomatic COVID- 19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 24.9 percentage points (95% CI 13.4-41.6) in people of all ages and 32.0 percentage points (11. 0-69.0) in older people. For severe COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 10 .0 percentage points (95% CI 6.1-15.4) in people of all ages and 9.5 percentage points (5.7-14.6) in older people. Most (81%) vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates against severe disease remained greater than 70% over time. Interpretation COVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease somewhat by 6 months after full vaccination. By contrast, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease decreased approximately 20-30 percentage points by 6 months. The decrease in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness is likely caused by, at least in part, waning immunity, although an effect of bias cannot be ruled out. Evaluating vaccine efficacy or effectiveness beyond 6 months will be crucial for updating COVID-19 vaccine policy. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

BACKGROUND:HIV, diabetes and hypertension have a high disease burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Healthcare is organised in separate clinics, which may be inefficient. In a cohort study, we evaluated integrated management of these conditions from a single chronic care clinic. OBJECTIVES:To determined the feasibility and acceptability of integrated management of chronic conditions in terms of retention in care and clinical indicators. DESIGN AND SETTING:Prospective cohort study comprising patients attending 10 health facilities offering primary care in Dar es Salaam and Kampala. INTERVENTION:Clinics within health facilities were set up to provide integrated care. Patients with either HIV, diabetes or hypertension had the same waiting areas, the same pharmacy, were seen by the same clinical staff, had similar provision of adherence counselling and tracking if they failed to attend appointments. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Retention in care, plasma viral load. FINDINGS:Between 5 August 2018 and 21 May 2019, 2640 patients were screened of whom 2273 (86%) were enrolled into integrated care (832 with HIV infection, 313 with diabetes, 546 with hypertension and 582 with multiple conditions). They were followed up to 30 January 2020. Overall, 1615 (71.1%)/2273 were female and 1689 (74.5%)/2266 had been in care for 6 months or more. The proportions of people retained in care were 686/832 (82.5%, 95% CI: 79.9% to 85.1%) among those with HIV infection, 266/313 (85.0%, 95% CI: 81.1% to 89.0%) among those with diabetes, 430/546 (78.8%, 95% CI: 75.4% to 82.3%) among those with hypertension and 529/582 (90.9%, 95% CI: 88.6 to 93.3) among those with multimorbidity. Among those with HIV infection, the proportion with plasma viral load <100 copies/mL was 423(88.5%)/478. CONCLUSION:Integrated management of chronic diseases is a feasible strategy for the control of HIV, diabetes and hypertension in Africa and needs evaluation in a comparative study.

Vaccine licensure requires a very high safety standard and vaccines routinely used are very safe. Vaccine safety monitoring prelicensure and postlicensure enables continual assessment to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks and, when safety problems arise, they are quickly identified, characterised and further problems prevented when possible. We review five vaccine safety case studies: (1) dengue vaccine and enhanced dengue disease, (2) pandemic influenza vaccine and narcolepsy, (3) rotavirus vaccine and intussusception, (4) human papillomavirus vaccine and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome, and (5) RTS,S/adjuvant system 01 malaria vaccine and meningitis, cerebral malaria, female mortality and rebound severe malaria. These case studies were selected because they are recent and varied in the vaccine safety challenges they elucidate. Bringing these case studies together, we develop lessons learned that can be useful for addressing some of the potential safety issues that will inevitably arise with new vaccines.

IntroductionIn sub-Saharan Africa, the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension, has increased rapidly in recent years, although HIV infection remains a leading cause of death among young-middle-aged adults. Health service coverage for NCDs remains very low in contrast to HIV, despite the increasing prevalence of comorbidity of NCDs with HIV. There is an urgent need to expand healthcare capacity to provide integrated services to address these chronic conditions.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes procedures for a qualitative process evaluation of INTE-AFRICA, a cluster randomised trial comparing integrated health service provision for HIV infection, DM and hypertension, to the current stand-alone vertical care. Interviews, focus group discussions and observations of consultations and other care processes in two clinics (in Tanzania, Uganda) will be used to explore the experiences of stakeholders. These stakeholders will include health service users, policy-makers, healthcare providers, community leaders and members, researchers, non-governmental and international organisations. The exploration will be carried out during the implementation of the project, alongside an understanding of the impact of broader structural and contextual factors.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (UK), the National Institute of Medical Research (Tanzania) and TASO Research Ethics Committee (Uganda) in 2020. The evaluation will provide the opportunity to document the implementation of integration over several timepoints (6, 12 and 18 months) and refine integrated service provision prior to scale up. This synergistic approach to evaluate, understand and respond will support service integration and inform monitoring, policy and practice development efforts to involve and educate communities in Tanzania and Uganda. It will create a model of care and a platform of good practices and lessons learnt for other countries implementing integrated and decentralised community health services.Trial registration numberISRCTN43896688; Pre-results.

Phase 3 randomized-controlled trials have provided promising results of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, ranging from 50 to 95% against symptomatic disease as the primary endpoints, resulting in emergency use authorization/listing for several vaccines. However, given the short duration of follow-up during the clinical trials, strict eligibility criteria, emerging variants of concern, and the changing epidemiology of the pandemic, many questions still remain unanswered regarding vaccine performance. Post-introduction vaccine effectiveness evaluations can help us to understand the vaccine's effect on reducing infection and disease when used in real-world conditions. They can also address important questions that were either not studied or were incompletely studied in the trials and that will inform evolving vaccine policy, including assessment of the duration of effectiveness; effectiveness in key subpopulations, such as the very old or immunocompromised; against severe disease and death due to COVID-19; against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern; and with different vaccination schedules, such as number of doses and varying dosing intervals. WHO convened an expert panel to develop interim best practice guidance for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness evaluations. We present a summary of the interim guidance, including discussion of different study designs, priority outcomes to evaluate, potential biases, existing surveillance platforms that can be used, and recommendations for reporting results.

Background: Multiple factors contribute to variation in disease burden, including the type and quality of data, and inherent properties of the models used. Understanding how these factors affect mortality estimates is crucial, especially in the context of public health decision making. We examine how the quality of the studies selected to provide mortality data, influence estimates of burden and provide recommendations about the inclusion of studies and datasets to calculate mortality estimates. Methods: To determine how mortality estimates are affected by the data used to generate model outputs, we compared the studies used by The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and Maternal and Child Epidemiology Estimation (MCEE) modelling groups to generate enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) and Shigella-associated mortality estimates for 2016. Guided by an expert WHO Working Group, we applied a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of studies used by both modelling groups. Results: IHME and MCEE used different sets of ETEC and Shigella studies in their models and the majority of studies were high quality. The distribution of the NOS scores was similar between the two modelling groups. We observed an overrepresentation of studies from some countries in SEAR, AFR and WPR compared to other WHO regions. Conclusion: We identified key differences in study inclusion and exclusion criteria used by IHME and MCEE and discuss their impact on datasets used to generate diarrhoea-associated mortality estimates. Based on these observations, we provide a set of recommendations for future estimates of mortality associated with enteric diseases. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).