External Urethral Sphincter Pressure Measurement: An Accurate Method for the Diagnosis of Detrusor External Sphincter Dyssynergia?

Combined pelvic floor electromyography (EMG) and videocystourethrography (VCUG) during urodynamic investigation are the most acceptable and widely agreed methods for diagnosing detrusor external sphincter dyssynergia (DESD). Theoretically, external urethral sphincter pressure (EUSP) measurement would provide enough information for the diagnosis of DESD and could simplify the urodynamic investigation replacing combined pelvic floor EMG and VCUG. Thus, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of EUSP measurement for DESD. PATIENTS #ENTITYSTARTX00026;A consecutive series of 72 patients (36 women, 36 men) with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction able to void spontaneously was prospectively evaluated at a single university spinal cord injury center. Diagnosis of DESD using EUSP measurement (index test) versus combined pelvic floor EMG and VCUG (reference standard) was assessed according to the recommendations of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Initiative.Using EUSP measurement (index test) and combined pelvic floor EMG and VCUR (reference standard), DESD was diagnosed in 10 (14%) and in 41 (57%) patients, respectively. More than half of the patients presented discordant diagnosis between the index test and the reference standard. Among 41 patients with DESD diagnosed by combined pelvic floor EMG and VCUR, EUSP measurement identified only 6 patients. EUSP measurement had a sensitivity of 15% (95% CI 5%-25%), specificity of 87% (95% CI 76%-98%), positive predictive value of 60% (95% CI 30%-90%), and negative predictive value of 56% (95% CI 44%-68%) for the diagnosis of DESD.For diagnosis of DESD, EUSP measurement is inaccurate and cannot replace combined pelvic floor EMG and VCUR

Statistical inference and the replication crisis

The replication crisis has prompted many to call for statistical reform within the psychological sciences. Here we examine issues within Frequentist statistics that may have led to the replication crisis, and we examine the alternative—Bayesian statistics—that many have suggested as a replacement. The Frequentist approach and the Bayesian approach offer radically different perspectives on evidence and inference with the Frequentist approach prioritising error control and the Bayesian approach offering a formal method for quantifying the relative strength of evidence for hypotheses. We suggest that rather than mere statistical reform, what is needed is a better understanding of the different modes of statistical inference and a better understanding of how statistical inference relates to scientific inference

The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals

Interval estimates – estimates of parameters that include an allowance for sampling uncertainty – have long been touted as a key component of statistical analyses. There are several kinds of interval estimates, but the most popular are confidence intervals (CIs): intervals that contain the true parameter value in some known proportion of repeated samples, on average. The width of confidence intervals is thought to index the precision of an estimate; CIs are thought to be a guide to which parameter values are plausible or reasonable; and the confidence coefficient of the interval (e.g., 95 %) is thought to index the plausibility that the true parameter is included in the interval. We show in a number of examples that CIs do not necessarily have any of these properties, and can lead to unjustified or arbitrary inferences. For this reason, we caution against relying upon confidence interval theory to justify interval estimates, and suggest that other theories of interval estimation should be used instead

Identification and Typing of Human Enterovirus: A Genomic Barcode Approach

Identification and typing of human enterovirus (HEVs) are important to pathogen detection and therapy. Previous phylogeny-based typing methods are mainly based on multiple sequence alignments of specific genes in the HEVs, but the results are not stable with respect to different choices of genes. Here we report a novel method for identification and typing of HEVs based on information derived from their whole genomes. Specifically, we calculate the k-mer based barcode image for each genome, HEV or other human viruses, for a fixed k, 1<k<7, where a genome barcode is defined in terms of the k-mer frequency distribution across the whole genome for all combinations of k-mers. A phylogenetic tree is constructed using a barcode-based distance and a neighbor-joining method among a set of 443 representative non-HEV human viruses and 395 HEV sequences. The tree shows a clear separation of the HEV viruses from all the non-HEV viruses with 100% accuracy and a separation of the HEVs into four distinct clads with 93.4% consistency with a multiple sequence alignment-based phylogeny. Our detailed analyses of the HEVs having different typing results by the two methods indicate that our results are in better agreement with known information about the HEVs

Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies were identified from 15 databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) and by handsearching, reference checking, internet searches, and contacting experts. The last database searches were conducted in July 2016. There were 28 methodological evaluations that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 studies compared the proportion of trials reporting adverse events by publication status. The median percentage of published documents with adverse events information was 46% compared to 95% in the corresponding unpublished documents. There was a similar pattern with unmatched studies, for which 43% of published studies contained adverse events information compared to 83% of unpublished studies. A total of 11 studies compared the numbers of adverse events in matched published and unpublished documents. The percentage of adverse events that would have been missed had each analysis relied only on the published versions varied between 43% and 100%, with a median of 64%. Within these 11 studies, 24 comparisons of named adverse events such as death, suicide, or respiratory adverse events were undertaken. In 18 of the 24 comparisons, the number of named adverse events was higher in unpublished than published documents. Additionally, 2 other studies demonstrated that there are substantially more types of adverse events reported in matched unpublished than published documents. There were 20 meta-analyses that reported the odds ratios (ORs) and/or risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events with and without unpublished data. Inclusion of unpublished data increased the precision of the pooled estimates (narrower 95% confidence intervals) in 15 of the 20 pooled analyses, but did not markedly change the direction or statistical significance of the risk in most cases. The main limitations of this review are that the included case examples represent only a small number amongst thousands of meta-analyses of harms and that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences between published and unpublished data are more likely to be published. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events

Seladelpar efficacy and safety at 3 months in patients with primary biliary cholangitis: ENHANCE, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Background and Aims: ENHANCE was a phase 3 study that evaluated efficacy and safety of seladelpar, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ (PPAR) agonist, versus placebo in patients with primary biliary cholangitis with inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Approach and Results: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to oral seladelpar 5 mg (n=89), 10 mg (n=89), placebo (n=87) daily (with UDCA, as appropriate). Primary end point was a composite biochemical response [alkaline phosphatase (ALP) &lt; 1.67×upper limit of normal (ULN), ≥15% ALP decrease from baseline, and total bilirubin ≤ ULN] at month 12. Key secondary end points were ALP normalization at month 12 and change in pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) at month 6 in patients with baseline score ≥4. Aminotransferases were assessed. ENHANCE was terminated early following an erroneous safety signal in a concurrent, NASH trial. While blinded, primary and secondary efficacy end points were amended to month 3. Significantly more patients receiving seladelpar met the primary end point (seladelpar 5 mg: 57.1%, 10 mg: 78.2%) versus placebo (12.5%) (p &lt; 0.0001). ALP normalization occurred in 5.4% (p=0.08) and 27.3% (p &lt; 0.0001) of patients receiving 5 and 10 mg seladelpar, respectively, versus 0% receiving placebo. Seladelpar 10 mg significantly reduced mean pruritus NRS versus placebo [10 mg: −3.14 (p=0.02); placebo: −1.55]. Alanine aminotransferase decreased significantly with seladelpar versus placebo [5 mg: 23.4% (p=0.0008); 10 mg: 16.7% (p=0.03); placebo: 4%]. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: Patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) with inadequate response or intolerance to UDCA who were treated with seladelpar 10 mg had significant improvements in liver biochemistry and pruritus. Seladelpar appeared safe and well tolerated

The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: A systematic review with network meta-analyses of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in childhood. A wide variety of treatments have been used for the management of ADHD. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological, psychological and complementary and alternative medicine interventions for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses. Randomised controlled trials (≥ 3 weeks follow-up) were identified from published and unpublished sources through searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (up to April 7, 2016). Interventions of interest were pharmacological (stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other unlicensed drugs), psychological (behavioural, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine (dietary therapy, fatty acids, amino acids, minerals, herbal therapy, homeopathy, and physical activity). The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes included discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), as well as serious adverse events and specific adverse events. Random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain estimates as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals. We analysed interventions by class and individually. 190 randomised trials (52 different interventions grouped in 32 therapeutic classes) that enrolled 26114 participants with ADHD were included in complex networks. At the class level, behavioural therapy (alone or in combination with stimulants), stimulants, and non-stimulant seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Behavioural therapy in combination with stimulants seemed superior to stimulants or non-stimulants. Stimulants seemed superior to behavioural therapy, cognitive training and non-stimulants. Behavioural therapy, stimulants and their combination showed the best profile of acceptability. Stimulants and non-stimulants seemed well tolerated. Among medications, methylphenidate, amphetamine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and clonidine seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Methylphenidate and amphetamine seemed more efficacious than atomoxetine and guanfacine. Methylphenidate and clonidine seemed better accepted than placebo and atomoxetine. Most of the efficacious pharmacological treatments were associated with harms (anorexia, weight loss and insomnia), but an increased risk of serious adverse events was not observed. There is lack of evidence for cognitive training, neurofeedback, antidepressants, antipsychotics, dietary therapy, fatty acids, and other complementary and alternative medicine. Overall findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, small sample sizes of trials, short-term follow-up, and the absence of high-quality evidence; consequently, results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical differences may exist between the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment used for the management of ADHD. Uncertainties about therapies and the balance between benefits, costs and potential harms should be considered before starting treatment. There is an urgent need for high-quality randomised trials of the multiple treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents. PROSPERO, number CRD42014015008

Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Impair the Elimination of HIV-Infected Cells by Cytotoxic T-Lymphocytes

Resting memory CD4+ T-cells harboring latent HIV proviruses represent a critical barrier to viral eradication. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis), such as suberanilohydroxamic acid (SAHA), romidepsin, and panobinostat have been shown to induce HIV expression in these resting cells. Recently, it has been demonstrated that the low levels of viral gene expression induced by a candidate HDACi may be insufficient to cause the death of infected cells by viral cytopathic effects, necessitating their elimination by immune effectors, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTL). Here, we study the impact of three HDACis in clinical development on T-cell effector functions. We report two modes of HDACi-induced functional impairment: i) the rapid suppression of cytokine production from viable T-cells induced by all three HDACis ii) the selective death of activated T-cells occurring at later time-points following transient exposures to romidepsin or, to a lesser extent, panobinostat. As a net result of these factors, HDACis impaired CTL-mediated IFN-γ production, as well as the elimination of HIV-infected or peptide-pulsed target cells, both in liquid culture and in collagen matrices. Romidepsin exerted greater inhibition of antiviral function than SAHA or panobinostat over the dose ranges tested. These data suggest that treatment with HDACis to mobilize the latent reservoir could have unintended negative impacts on the effector functions of CTL. This could influence the effectiveness of HDACi-based eradication strategies, by impairing elimination of infected cells, and is a critical consideration for trials where therapeutic interruptions are being contemplated, given the importance of CTL in containing rebound viremia