Development and Validation of Decision Rules to Guide Frequency of Monitoring CD4 Cell Count in HIV-1 Infection before Starting Antiretroviral Therapy

Background: Although CD4 cell count monitoring is used to decide when to start antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV-1 infection, there are no evidence-based recommendations regarding its optimal frequency. It is common practice to monitor every 3 to 6 months, often coupled with viral load monitoring. We developed rules to guide frequency of CD4 cell count monitoring in HIV infection before starting antiretroviral therapy, which we validated retrospectively in patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.Methodology/Principal Findings: We built up two prediction rules ("Snap-shot rule" for a single sample and "Track-shot rule" for multiple determinations) based on a systematic review of published longitudinal analyses of CD4 cell count trajectories. We applied the rules in 2608 untreated patients to classify their 18 061 CD4 counts as either justifiable or superfluous, according to their prior >= 5% or < 5% chance of meeting predetermined thresholds for starting treatment. The percentage of measurements that both rules falsely deemed superfluous never exceeded 5%. Superfluous CD4 determinations represented 4%, 11%, and 39% of all actual determinations for treatment thresholds of 500, 350, and 200x10(6)/L, respectively. The Track-shot rule was only marginally superior to the Snap-shot rule. Both rules lose usefulness for CD4 counts coming near to treatment threshold.Conclusions/Significance: Frequent CD4 count monitoring of patients with CD4 counts well above the threshold for initiating therapy is unlikely to identify patients who require therapy. It appears sufficient to measure CD4 cell count 1 year after a count > 650 for a threshold of 200, > 900 for 350, or > 1150 for 500x10(6)/L, respectively. When CD4 counts fall below these limits, increased monitoring frequency becomes advisable. These rules offer guidance for efficient CD4 monitoring, particularly in resource-limited settings

Sales of over-the-counter products containing codeine in 31 countries, 2013-2019: a retrospective observational study

ABSTRACTIntroductionOpioid prescribing trends have been investigated in many countries. However, the patterns of over-the-counter purchases of opioids without a prescription, such as codeine combinations, are mostly unknown.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess national sales and expenditure trends of over-the-counter codeine-containing products purchased in countries with available data over six years.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study using electronic point-of-sale data from the human data science company, IQVIA, for countries that had such data, including Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. We calculated annual mean sales (dosage units per 1000 of the population) and public expenditure (GBP, £ per 1000 population) for each country between April 2013 and March 2019 and adjusted for data coverage reported by IQVIA. We quantified changes over time and the types of products sold.Results31.5 billion dosage units (adjusted: 42.8 billion dosage units) of codeine, costing £2.55 billion (adjusted: £3.68 billion), were sold over-the-counter in 31 countries between April 2013 and March 2019. Total adjusted sales increased by 11% (3911 dosage units/1000 population in 2013 to 4358 in 2019) and adjusted public expenditure increased by 72% (£263/1000 in 2013 to £451/1000 in 2019). Sales were not equally distributed; South Africa sold the most (36 mean dosage units/person), followed by Ireland (30 mean dosage units/person), France (20 mean dosage units/person), the UK (17.2 mean dosage units/person), and Latvia (16.8 mean dosage units/person). Types of products (n=569) and formulations (n=12) sold varied.ConclusionIn many parts of the world, substantial numbers of people may be purchasing and consuming codeine from over-the-counter products. Clinicians should ask patients about their use of over-the-counter products, and public health measures are required to improve the collection of sales data and the safety of such products.Study protocol pre-registrationhttps://osf.io/ay4mcThe pre-print version of this work is available on medRxiv:https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.21.21255888Key pointsCodeine is one of the most accessible pain medicines available worldwide, yet data on its use as an over-the-counter drug has been limited.We found that total sales and expenditure of over-the-counter products containing codeine increased from April 2013 to March 2019, but there was substantial variation in mean sales between countries and the coverage of data reported by IQVIA, with South Africa, France, Japan, the UK, and Poland accounting for 90% of all sales data.In countries with access to over-the-counter codeine products, sales data should be collected, made available, and reviewed to inform regulatory decisions and public health measures to ensure safety.</jats:sec

Oral hormone pregnancy tests and the risks of congenital malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; referees: 3 approved]

Background: Oral hormone pregnancy tests (HPTs), such as Primodos, containing ethinylestradiol and high doses of norethisterone, were given to over a million women from 1958 to 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market because of concerns about possible teratogenicity. We aimed to study the association between maternal exposure to oral HPTs and congenital malformations. Methods: We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies that included data from pregnant women and were exposed to oral HPTs within the estimated first three months of pregnancy, if compared with a relevant control group. We used random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the quality of each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies. Results: We found 16 case control studies and 10 prospective cohort studies, together including 71 330 women, of whom 4,209 were exposed to HPTs. Exposure to oral HPTs was associated with a 40% increased risk of all congenital malformations: pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.40 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.66; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%). Exposure to HPTs was associated with an increased risk of congenital heart malformations: pooled OR = 1.89 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.72; P = 0.0006; I2=0%); nervous system malformations  OR = 2.98 (95% CI 1.32 to 6.76; P = 0.0109 I2 = 78%); gastrointestinal malformations, OR = 4.50 (95% CI 0.63 to 32.20; P = 0.13; I2 = 54%); musculoskeletal malformations, OR = 2.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 4.08; P= 0.009; I2 = 0%); the VACTERL syndrome (Vertebral defects, Anal atresia, Cardiovascular anomalies, Tracheoesophageal fistula, Esophageal atresia, Renal anomalies, and Limb defects), OR = 7.47 (95% CI 2.92 to 19.07; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that use of oral HPTs in pregnancy is associated with increased risks of congenital malformations

Oral hormone pregnancy tests and the risks of congenital malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Background: Oral hormone pregnancy tests (HPTs), such as Primodos, containing ethinylestradiol and high doses of norethisterone, were given to over a million women from 1958 to 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market because of concerns about possible teratogenicity. We aimed to study the association between maternal exposure to oral HPTs and congenital malformations. Methods: We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies that included data from pregnant women and were exposed to oral HPTs within the estimated first three months of pregnancy, if compared with a relevant control group. We used random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the quality of each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies. Results: We found 16 case control studies and 10 prospective cohort studies, together including 71 330 women, of whom 4209 were exposed to HPTs. Exposure to oral HPTs was associated with a 40% increased risk of all congenital malformations: pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.40 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.66; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%). Exposure to HPTs was associated with an increased risk of congenital heart malformations: pooled OR = 1.89 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.72; P = 0.0006; I2=0%); nervous system malformations  OR = 2.98 (95% CI 1.32 to 6.76; P = 0.0109 I2 = 78%); gastrointestinal malformations, OR = 4.50 (95% CI 0.63 to 32.20; P = 0.13; I2 = 54%); musculoskeletal malformations, OR = 2.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 4.08; P= 0.009; I2 = 0%); the VACTERL syndrome (Vertebral defects, Anal atresia, Cardiovascular anomalies, Tracheoesophageal fistula, Esophageal atresia, Renal anomalies, and Limb defects), OR = 7.47 (95% CI 2.92 to 19.07; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that use of oral HPTs in pregnancy is associated with increased risks of congenital malformations

Lessons from working across fields to develop a framework for informed choices

In late 2018, Iain Chalmers, Andy Oxman and others from the Informed Health Choices team convened a cross-field forum to develop a generic framework of key concepts for thinking critically about claims, research and choices about interventions, with the aim of supporting ‘informed choices’. We define an informed choice as one that is based on critical understanding of the relevant available evidence. This paper describes the process of that cross-field engagement, and reflects on how consensus was reached on the generic framework. Working in an alliance of 24 researchers from across fields to develop the Key Concepts for Informed Choices framework, we learned three lessons about cross-field working: (1) there was much agreement, despite diversity of views and experiences; (2) the applications of our work were broader than we could have imagined; and (3) we identified a wide range of problems that we have in common when making informed choices. Here we describe our experience of working together to develop the framework, and draw out lessons for others who may be involved in similar cross-field initiatives