There are about 38 clinical studies being (or have been) conducted in Lesotho. The country of the clinical trial is determined by the location of where the clinical research is being studied. Most studies are often held in multiple locations & countries.
The primary research objective is to examine how uncertainty towards a new medical treatment changes in patients when a partner (can be any close other, i.e. romantic partner, family member, or a close friend) supports the new treatment choice and is willing to be involved in the patient's treatment. I hypothesize that when the patients know that their partner supports uptake of the new medical treatment and will physically accompany them to the visit, patients will (1) experience lower levels of uncertainty and (2) report a higher likelihood of participating in a new treatment in the future, as compared to patients who face the decision about the new treatment alone.
The CATALYST study is an implementation study that will characterize and assess the implementation of an enhanced service delivery package providing informed choice of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) products among women at PEPFAR sites in Kenya, Lesotho, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
This cluster-randomized intervention is embedded in the ComBaCaL (Community-Based Chronic disease care Lesotho) cohort study (EKNZ ID AO_2022-00058, clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT05596773, Lesotho NH-REC ID 210-2022), a platform for the investigation of chronic diseases and their management in rural Lesotho that is maintained by local lay chronic care village health workers (CC-VHWs). The overall objective of the ComBaCaL cohort study and nested TwiCs is to assess the impact of eHealthsupported, lay-led chronic disease control measures in rural Lesotho. In this T2D TwiC, the effect, safety and feasibility of a community-based T2D care package (which includes the offer of first-line oral antidiabetic and lipid-lowering treatment for uncomplicated T2D by lay CC-VHWs in comparison to facility-based care after community-based screening and diagnosis) will be evaluated.
ComBaCaL aHT TwiC 1 and aHT TwiC 2 are two cluster-randomized controlled trials that are identical in intervention, design and endpoints. TwiC 1 enrols individuals with uncomplicated aHT with baseline BP values above treatment targets and the hypothesis is that in intervention clusters where community-based treatment is offered, a higher proportion will have controlled aHT at twelve months' follow-up as compared to control clusters where participants are referred to the facility for further care after diagnosis. TwiC 2 enrols individuals with uncomplicated pharmacologically controlled aHT with the hypothesis that the offer of community-based antihypertensive treatment is non-inferior to facility-based care with regard to BP control rates at twelve months. The trials are nested within the ComBaCaL (Community-Based Chronic disease care Lesotho) cohort study (EKNZ ID 2022-00058, clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT05596773), a platform for the investigation of chronic diseases and their management in rural Lesotho that is maintained by local chronic care village health workers (CC-VHWs). 50% of the villages being part of the overarching ComBaCaL cohort will be randomly allocated to receive the TwiC intervention. The non-selected villages will serve as comparators and follow the regular ComBaCaL cohort activities conducted by CC-VHWs, including screening, diagnosis, standardized counselling and referral to a health facility for further therapeutic management. The TwiC intervention will be offered to all eligible people living with aHT in the sampled intervention villages. Individuals with uncomplicated uncontrolled and uncomplicated controlled aHT at baseline will be enrolled in aHT TwiC 1 and aHT 2 respectively. In case of complicated disease, unclear diagnosis, or presence of clinical alarm signs or symptoms, participants will be referred to the closest health facility for further investigation.
This ComBaCaL cohort study is to assess the impact of community-based, lay-led chronic disease screening and care interventions in rural Lesotho. It aims to establish a prospective research and service delivery platform in rural Lesotho that is managed by eHealth-supported Chronic Care Village Health Worker (CC-VHWs) providing regular chronic disease screening, monitoring and referral services. The implementation outcomes of the cohort as well as the effect of the cohort activities on disease-specific care cascades will be assessed. Subsequently, nested trials to assess the effectiveness of specific chronic disease control interventions will be developed. Measurements and data entry will be conducted by CC-VHWs. The CC-VHWs will be equipped with the essential tools required for chronic disease monitoring in the community (i.e. BP machines, scales, measuring band, glucometers, and urine dipsticks). They will undergo a theoretical and practical training covering all aspects required for correct data collection and chronic disease screening, diagnosing, referral and counselling services. At every visit, the CC-VHW will screen participants for warning signs and symptoms (i.e. shortness of breath, severe headache, chest pain, new-onset confusion, impaired consciousness, severely impaired general state of health) and refer participants to the closest health centre in case of any danger-sign. The CC-VHWs will be continuously monitored and supervised by health centre nurses of the respective village's catchment area, mainly through direct interaction during monthly VHW meetings and by CC nurses through field visits, remote interaction via phone calls or messages sent via the ComBaCaL app and through direct contact during the monthly VHW meetings at the health centre. The CC-VHWs are embedded within the Lesotho MoH VHW program and may during the project period be trained and equipped to provide further routine services in their communities.
According to WHO, about 40% of the incident TB cases in 2020 are either under-reported or under-diagnosed causing on one hand major health risks and on the other hand catastrophic financial consequences. In particular, indigent people in hard-to-reach communities with high TB/HIV burden are at high risk of missed or delayed diagnoses. Hence, active case finding for TB remains an integral part of tuberculosis control in high-risk groups, such as people living with HIV (PLHIV) or diabetes mellitus, people living in specific geographical locations associated with a high burden of TB and poor access to health care, miners, or prisoners. CAD4TB (Delft Imaging, NL), a digital chest X-ray analysis software, and point-of care C-reactive protein assay (POC-CRP; e.g. LumiraDx, UK), which detects a cytokine induced acute phase protein, are two tests which have great potential of becoming a screening and triage test for TB as outlined in the WHO target product profiles. Data on CAD4TB and CRP suggest that accuracy can be improved if thresholds are stratified by patient characteristics, such as HIV status, history of TB and TB symptoms. TB TRIAGE+ Trial takes place in the communities of Lesotho and South Africa, which present high prevalence of subclinical TB, where a symptom-based screening would miss almost half of all infectious TB cases. TB TRIAGE+ Trials conducts a direct (in the same individual) comparison of the two screening/triaging approaches which are not based on symptoms: CAD4TB screening alone (approach 1) versus CAD4TB screening with POC-CRP triage testing (approach 2), and followed by confirmatory Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra testing in both approaches. TB TRIAGE TRIAL is investigates the hypothesis that a community-based active case finding strategy with CAD4TB screening with POC-CRP triage testing (approach 2) will be non-inferior compared to CAD4TB screening alone (approach 1) with regard to yield of detected TB cases and superior with regard to cost effectiveness.
PandrTB is a study of the pharmacokinetics(PK) and pharmacodynamics(PD) of bedaquiline, delamanid, clofazimine, linezolid, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin and pyrazinamide used in novel combinations to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis(MDR-TB).
The aim of this study is to evalulate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three models of ART provision for stable ART patients. The objectives are to measure patient retention, virological suppression, provider and patient costs, cost-effectiveness, and patient acceptability amongst stable patients who receive ART at intervals of three and six months within community distribution models, and to compare these to patients who receive ART directly from the clinic at three month intervals. Methods A prospective, parallel, cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial with three study arms will be conducted. 30 Clusters (sites) will be randomized in strata according to geographic location (urban and rural) to the 3 study arms as follows: - Control arm: sites at which patients will receive three monthly ART supply at the facility (arm 3MF). - Intervention arm 1: sites at which patients will receive three monthly ART supply in CAGs (arm 3MC) - Intervention arm 2: sites at which patients will receive six monthly ART supply in the community by a healthcare worker (arm 6MCD). The study population will consist of stable, HIV-infected adults who have received first-line ART for at least six months, who have a viral load <1000 copies/ml at baseline, and who provide informed consent for inclusion in the study. An average of 192 participants from each study site will be included, with a total sample size of approximately 5760 participants. The primary outcome is retention in care defined as the proportion of patients remaining in care 12 months after study enrolment, with the hypothesis that patient retention within the intervention arms will be non-inferior compared to the control arm. Retention in care will also be compared between the three arms after 24 months. The secondary outcomes are: - Viral suppression: defined as the proportion of patients with virological suppression (<1000 copies/ml) 12 and 24 months after study enrolment; - Cost of providing ART: defined as the cost per patient of providing ART in each of the three arms (from a provider perspective); - Cost of retaining a patient: defined as the provider cost per patient retained and provider cost per patient retained with virological suppression in each of the three arms, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the comparative arms.