Talking about links between sexually transmitted infections and infertility with college and university students from SE England, UK: a qualitative study

Background Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea are largely symptomless diseases which, left untreated, can result in serious complications including infertility. Fertility problems currently affect approximately one in seven couples in the UK and there is increasing demand for couples seeking reproductive technologies. Young people are at greatest risk of contracting STIs, therefore this study aimed to identify young people’s knowledge and beliefs about the link between untreated STIs and infertility. Methods Focus groups were conducted with participants aged 16–24 years old inclusive in college or university settings in the SE of England. Groups were quota sampled on the basis of age and gender. A topic guide was used. The data were analysed using a framework analysis approach. Results Ten single-sex focus groups were conducted with sixty participants: six groups of college students and four groups of university students. Participants were generally aware of the link between STIs and potential infertility and considered the discussion of this subject very relevant at their age. Knowledge about how and why STIs potentially lead to fertility complications was poor. The issues of blame relating to infertility following an STI emerged, although most participants did not think that access to free reproductive technologies after an untreated STI should be limited. Conclusions Young people would benefit from more education in order to improve their understanding of the long-term consequences of untreated STIs, such as infertility. Participants in our sample felt these were extremely relevant and important issues for them to understand alongside current education about STIs

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial

Background Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero–one inflated beta regression. Results The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] − 3.30%; 3.40%], − 0.39% [95% CrI − 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI − 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of − 3.55 days [95% CrI − 6.38; − 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI − 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66. Conclusions In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation