Background Disease and disability from alcohol use disproportionately impact people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While varied interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use in high-income countries, their efficacy in LMICs has not been assessed. This systematic review describes current published literature on patient-level alcohol interventions in LMICs and specifically describes clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use in LMICs. Methods and findings In accordance with PRISMA, we performed a systematic review using an electronic search strategy from January 1, 1995 to December 1, 2020. Title, abstract, as well as full-text screening and extraction were performed in duplicate. A meta-summary was performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated alcohol-related outcomes. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, WHO Global Health Library, and PsycINFO. Articles that evaluated patient-level interventions targeting alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in LMICs were eligible for inclusion. No studies were excluded based on language. After screening 5,036 articles, 117 articles fit our inclusion criteria, 75 of which were RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93% were performed in 13 middle-income countries, while 7% were from 2 low-income countries. These RCTs evaluated brief interventions (24, defined as any intervention ranging from advice to counseling, lasting less than 1 hour per session up to 4 sessions), psychotherapy or counseling (15, defined as an interaction with a counselor longer than a brief intervention or that included a psychotherapeutic component), health promotion and education (20, defined as an intervention encouraged individuals’ agency of taking care of their health), or biologic treatments (19, defined as interventions where the biological function of alcohol use disorder (AUD) as the main nexus of intervention) with 3 mixing categories of intervention types. Due to high heterogeneity of intervention types, outcome measures, and follow-up times, we did not conduct meta-analysis to compare and contrast studies, but created a meta-summary of all 75 RCT studies. The most commonly evaluated intervention with the most consistent positive effect was a brief intervention; similarly, motivational interviewing (MI) techniques were most commonly utilized among the diverse array of interventions evaluated. Conclusions Our review demonstrated numerous patient-level interventions that have the potential to be effective in LMICs, but further research to standardize interventions, populations, and outcome measures is necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness. Brief interventions and MI techniques were the most commonly evaluated and had the most consistent positive effect on alcohol-related outcomes. Trial registration Protocol Registry: PROSPERO CRD42017055549

Activities of clarithromycin alone and in combination with rifampicin, gatifloxacin or linezolid were evaluated against Mycobacterium kansasii in a murine infection model. Clarithromycin was the most active single agent. Rifampicin and gatifloxacin had similar activities, but were less active than clarithromycin. Clarithromycin in combination with rifampicin was the most active combination therapy.

Sexual trauma is highly prevalent among women living with HIV in South Africa, and there is a great need for psychotherapeutic interventions to address these concerns. Improving AIDS Care After Trauma (ImpACT) is a manualized intervention, based on stress and coping theories, that builds skills for coping with sexual trauma and HIV to promote long-term HIV care engagement. Using qualitative case study methodology, we report the case of Xoliswa, a 34-year-old woman with a complex history of sexual trauma and alcohol use who was diagnosed with HIV 1 year prior to enrollment in ImpACT. The interventionist, a lay counselor, worked with Xoliswa in a primary care clinic to address her concerns by exploring personal values, managing barriers to HIV care, and teaching active coping. Xoliswa’s drinking reduced, symptoms of trauma and depression improved, and she maintained strong HIV care engagement. The interventionist experienced stress and emotional challenges in delivering ImpACT to Xoliswa and other highly traumatized women, and the interventionist’s skill development and support received through training and supervision are briefly discussed. The case demonstrates the feasibility of ImpACT in a resource-limited setting and highlights themes and barriers in therapy, which can inform future interventions for women living with HIV.

Victims of substance-involved sexual assault often experience worse post-assault outcomes than other sexual assault victims. These outcomes may be exacerbated by their heightened risk of receiving negative reactions when disclosing their assault to informal disclosure recipients, such as friends, family members, and intimate partners. To date, little research has explored the associations between informal disclosure recipient and receipt of positive and negative reactions among victims of substance-involved sexual assault. Our sample included data about 400 victims of substance-involved sexual assault (91% women; 30% minors) who visited an anonymous sexual assault hotline and discussed reactions received during their first disclosure to an informal support provider. Using logistic regressions, we examined how the type of informal recipient to whom the victim disclosed was associated with receipt of positive and negative reactions, controlling for individual and situational characteristics (e.g., victim gender, perpetrator). Negative reactions were more common than positive reactions (65% vs. 47% of victims, respectively). Victims who disclosed to family members had lower odds of receiving positive reactions and higher odds of receiving negative reactions than those who disclosed to friends and intimate partners. Results support previous research that victims of substance-involved sexual assault commonly receive negative disclosure reactions, especially when disclosing to family members. Future work is needed to identify best strategies for improving support providers’ responses to sexual assault disclosure, such as recent interventions focused on educating potential recipients about how to respond to disclosures. Further, our results highlight the utility of sexual assault hotlines as a data source for understanding the disclosure experiences of stigmatized victims underrepresented in traditional research.