Aid alignment for global health research: the role of HIROs

The lack of a mechanism that aligns financial flows for global health research towards public health priorities limits the impact of health research on health and health equity. Collaborative groups of health research funders appear to be particularly well situated to ameliorate this situation and to initiate discussion on aid alignment for global health research. One such group is the Heads of International Research Organizations (HIROs), which brings together a large number of major government and philanthropic funders of biomedical research. Surprisingly, there is hardly any information publicly available on HIROs' objectives, or on how it aims to achieve more harmonization in the field of research for health. Greater transparency on HIROs' objectives and on its current efforts towards addressing the gap between global health research needs and investments would be desirable, given the enormous potential benefits of more coordination by this group

Cardiometabolic risk and the MTHFR C677T variant in children treated with second-generation antipsychotics

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are increasingly being used to treat children with a variety of psychiatric illnesses. Metabolic syndrome (MetS), a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is a side-effect of SGA-treatment. We conducted a cross-sectional study and assessed the association of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T variant with features of MetS in SGA-treated (n=105) and SGA–naïve (n=112) children. We targeted the MTHFR C677T variant, because it is associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, and features of MetS in adults without psychiatric illness. MetS in children is based on the presence of any three of the following: waist circumference ⩾90th percentile for age and sex; plasma triglyceride ⩾1.24 mmol l−1; plasma high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol ⩽1.03 mmol l−1; systolic or diastolic blood pressure ⩾90th percentile for age, sex, and height; and fasting glucose ⩾5.6 mmol l−1. We found that 15% of SGA-treated children had MetS compared with 2% of SGA-naïve children (OR 8.113, P<0.05). No effect of the MTHFR C677T variant on psychiatric diagnosis was observed. The MTHFR 677T allele was associated (P<0.05) with MetS (OR 5.75, 95% CI= 1.18–28.12) in SGA-treated children. Models adjusted for duration of SGA treatment, ethnicity, sex, age and use of other medications revealed a positive relationship between the MTHFR 677T allele and diastolic blood pressure Z-scores (P=0.001) and fasting plasma glucose (P<0.05) in SGA-treated children. These findings illustrate the high prevalence of MetS in SGA-treated children and suggest metabolic alterations associated with the MTHFR C677T variant may have a role in the development of MetS features in SGA-treated children

Pregabalin versus gabapentin in partial epilepsy: a meta-analysis of dose-response relationships

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To compare the efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin at comparable effective dose levels in patients with refractory partial epilepsy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight randomized placebo controlled trials investigating the efficacy of pregabalin (4 studies) and gabapentin (4 studies) over 12 weeks were identified with a systematic literature search. The endpoints of interest were "responder rate" (where response was defined as at least a 50% reduction from baseline in the number of seizures) and "change from baseline in seizure-free days over the last 28 days (SFD)". Results of all trials were analyzed using an indirect comparison approach with placebo as the common comparator. The base-case analysis used the intention-to-treat last observation carried forward method. Two sensitivity analyses were conducted among completer and responder populations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The base-case analysis revealed statistically significant differences in response rate in favor of pregabalin 300 mg versus gabapentin 1200 mg (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 3.25) and pregabalin 600 mg versus gabapentin 1800 mg (odds ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.21, 5.27). Both sensitivity analyses supported the findings of the base-case analysis, although statistical significance was not demonstrated. All dose levels of pregabalin (150 mg to 600 mg) were more efficacious than corresponding dosages of gabapentin (900 mg to 2400 mg) in terms of SFD over the last 28 days.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In patients with refractory partial epilepsy, pregabalin is likely to be more effective than gabapentin at comparable effective doses, based on clinical response and the number of SFD.</p

Well being of obstetric patients on minimal blood transfusions (WOMB trial)

Background: Primary postpartum haemorrhage is an obstetrical emergency often causing acute anaemia that may require immediate red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. This anaemia results in symptoms such as fatigue, whic

Community-based study on CKD subjects and the associated risk factors

Background. The study was performed to investigate the prevalence, awareness and the risk factors of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the community population in Shanghai, China

A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency

Systematic Review of Potential Health Risks Posed by Pharmaceutical, Occupational and Consumer Exposures to Metallic and Nanoscale Aluminum, Aluminum Oxides, Aluminum Hydroxide and Its Soluble Salts

Aluminum (Al) is a ubiquitous substance encountered both naturally (as the third most abundant element) and intentionally (used in water, foods, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines); it is also present in ambient and occupational airborne particulates. Existing data underscore the importance of Al physical and chemical forms in relation to its uptake, accumulation, and systemic bioavailability. The present review represents a systematic examination of the peer-reviewed literature on the adverse health effects of Al materials published since a previous critical evaluation compiled by Krewski et al. (2007). Challenges encountered in carrying out the present review reflected the experimental use of different physical and chemical Al forms, different routes of administration, and different target organs in relation to the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure. Wide variations in diet can result in Al intakes that are often higher than the World Health Organization provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI), which is based on studies with Al citrate. Comparing daily dietary Al exposures on the basis of “total Al”assumes that gastrointestinal bioavailability for all dietary Al forms is equivalent to that for Al citrate, an approach that requires validation. Current occupational exposure limits (OELs) for identical Al substances vary as much as 15-fold. The toxicity of different Al forms depends in large measure on their physical behavior and relative solubility in water. The toxicity of soluble Al forms depends upon the delivered dose of Al+ 3 to target tissues. Trivalent Al reacts with water to produce bidentate superoxide coordination spheres [Al(O2)(H2O4)+ 2 and Al(H2O)6 + 3] that after complexation with O2•−, generate Al superoxides [Al(O2•)](H2O5)]+ 2. Semireduced AlO2• radicals deplete mitochondrial Fe and promote generation of H2O2, O2 • − and OH•. Thus, it is the Al+ 3-induced formation of oxygen radicals that accounts for the oxidative damage that leads to intrinsic apoptosis. In contrast, the toxicity of the insoluble Al oxides depends primarily on their behavior as particulates. Aluminum has been held responsible for human morbidity and mortality, but there is no consistent and convincing evidence to associate the Al found in food and drinking water at the doses and chemical forms presently consumed by people living in North America and Western Europe with increased risk for Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD). Neither is there clear evidence to show use of Al-containing underarm antiperspirants or cosmetics increases the risk of AD or breast cancer. Metallic Al, its oxides, and common Al salts have not been shown to be either genotoxic or carcinogenic. Aluminum exposures during neonatal and pediatric parenteral nutrition (PN) can impair bone mineralization and delay neurological development. Adverse effects to vaccines with Al adjuvants have occurred; however, recent controlled trials found that the immunologic response to certain vaccines with Al adjuvants was no greater, and in some cases less than, that after identical vaccination without Al adjuvants. The scientific literature on the adverse health effects of Al is extensive. Health risk assessments for Al must take into account individual co-factors (e.g., age, renal function, diet, gastric pH). Conclusions from the current review point to the need for refinement of the PTWI, reduction of Al contamination in PN solutions, justification for routine addition of Al to vaccines, and harmonization of OELs for Al substances

Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age

Background Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both all‐cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. Objectives Primary • To assess effects on sedentary time of non‐occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary • To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions • To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour • To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for community‐dwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full‐text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: device‐measured sedentary time, self‐report sitting time, self‐report TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time. Main results We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in high‐income countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of self‐report outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in device‐measured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) ‐8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce device‐measured sedentary time in the medium term (MD ‐51.37 min/d, 95% CI ‐126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very low‐certainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self‐report sitting time in the short term (MD ‐64.12 min/d, 95% CI ‐260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very low‐certainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in self‐report TV viewing time in the medium term (MD ‐12.45 min/d, 95% CI ‐50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; low‐certainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI ‐0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low‐certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD ‐0.25 kg/m², 95% CI ‐0.48 to ‐0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD ‐2.04 cm, 95% CI ‐9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; low‐certainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD ‐0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.30 to ‐0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and medium term (MD ‐0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in device‐measured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI ‐4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve device‐measured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI ‐7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve self‐reported light‐intensity PA in the short‐term (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very low‐certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the short‐term (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI ‐519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low‐certainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies. Authors' conclusions Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in device‐measured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce device‐measured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self‐reported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in self‐report TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, cost‐effectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour