HIV infection and cardiovascular disease

Aims With the success of antiretroviral therapy (ART), non-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related comorbidities like cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are of increasing concern. We describe important recent research developments on the epidemiology of CVD in HIV infection, ART-related metabolic changes, and cardioprotective anti-inflammatory mechanisms, and summarize management strategies for CVD risk reduction. Methods and results We systematically identified and analysed systematic reviews and most cited literature published in the last 3 years and supplemented findings with selected evidence based on clinical expertise. Among HIV-infected individuals, the prevalence of CVD risk factors and the risk for CVD is higher compared with HIV negatives. Antiretroviral drugs may induce dyslipidaemia, reduce insulin sensitivity, and promote body fat redistribution that additionally contributes to CVD risk. Some antiretroviral drugs may increase risk for CVD events, but the absolute risk increase is moderate and has to be put into perspective with the massive HIV-related benefits. Sustained HIV suppression reduces systemic inflammatory markers and is associated with a moderate reduction in CVD events. Regular CVD risk assessment and counselling to stop smoking must be regularly done in all HIV-infected individuals. Statins are effective for the treatment of dyslipidaemia in HIV infection, but drug interactions with ART need to be considered. Conclusion Human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals are at increased risk for CVD. Timely initiation of ART with consequent viral suppression is likely to reduce CVD events and to offset potential side effects from ART-induced metabolic changes. Reduction in smoking in HIV-infected individuals is a public health priorit

Frequency of multiple changes to prespecified primary outcomes of clinical trials completed between 2009 and 2017 in German university medical centers: A meta-research study

Background: Clinical trial registries allow assessment of deviations of published trials from their protocol, which may indicate a considerable risk of bias. However, since entries in many registries can be updated at any time, deviations may go unnoticed. We aimed to assess the frequency of changes to primary outcomes in different historical versions of registry entries, and how often they would go unnoticed if only deviations between published trial reports and the most recent registry entry are assessed. Methods and findings: We analyzed the complete history of changes of registry entries in all 1746 randomized controlled trials completed at German university medical centers between 2009 and 2017, with published results up to 2022, that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German WHO primary registry (German Clinical Trials Register; DRKS). Data were retrieved on 24 January 2022. We assessed deviations between registry entries and publications in a random subsample of 292 trials. We determined changes of primary outcomes (1) between different versions of registry entries at key trial milestones, (2) between the latest registry entry version and the results publication, and (3) changes that occurred after trial start with no change between latest registry entry version and publication (so that assessing the full history of changes is required for detection of changes). We categorized changes as major if primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. We also assessed (4) the proportion of publications transparently reporting changes and (5) characteristics associated with changes. Of all 1746 trials, 23% (n = 393) had a primary outcome change between trial start and latest registry entry version, with 8% (n = 142) being major changes, that is, primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. Primary outcomes in publications were different from the latest registry entry version in 41% of trials (120 of the 292 sampled trials; 95% confidence interval (CI) [35%, 47%]), with major changes in 18% (54 of 292; 95% CI [14%, 23%]). Overall, 55% of trials (161 of 292; 95% CI [49%, 61%]) had primary outcome changes at any timepoint over the course of a trial, with 23% of trials (67 of 292; 95% CI [18%, 28%]) having major changes. Changes only within registry records, with no apparent discrepancy between latest registry entry version and publication, were observed in 14% of trials (41 of 292; 95% CI [10%, 19%]), with 4% (13 of 292; 95% CI [2%, 7%]) being major changes. One percent of trials with a change reported this in their publication (2 of 161 trials; 95% CI [0%, 4%]). An exploratory logistic regression analysis indicated that trials were less likely to have a discrepant registry entry if they were registered more recently (odds ratio (OR) 0.74; 95% CI [0.69, 0.80]; p<0.001), were not registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (OR 0.41; 95% CI [0.23, 0.70]; p = 0.002), or were not industry-sponsored (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.21, 0.41]; p<0.001). Key limitations include some degree of subjectivity in the categorization of outcome changes and inclusion of a single geographic region. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that changes to primary outcomes occur in 55% of trials, with 23% trials having major changes. They are rarely transparently reported in the results publication and often not visible in the latest registry entry version. More transparency is needed, supported by deeper analysis of registry entries to make these changes more easily recognizable

ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ РЕЖИМНыХ ПАРАМЕТРОВ СЕПАРАТОРА СісП-1,4-МПт

В настоящее время для переработки техногенных месторождений, содержащих уголь, применяются обогатительные установки на базе пневматических сепараторов

How to use FDA drug approval documents for evidence syntheses

There is compelling evidence that published trial information is selectively reported and that results not showing favourable effects of the tested treatments often remain unpublished. Clinical trial information published by regulatory authorities such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may help to reduce such reporting biases. FDA approval documents are long and do not follow the typical structure of medical journal articles, which may discourage reviewers from using them for evidence syntheses. Our practical guidance on how to efficiently identify and use approval documents to find the relevant information may help promoting the use of this valuable data source for evidence syntheses

The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient.

OBJECTIVES: To assess reporting quality of studies using routinely collected health data (RCD) to inform the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PubMed search for observational studies using RCD on any epidemiologic or clinical topic. Sample of studies published in 2012. Evaluation of five items based on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and eight newly developed items for RCD studies. RESULTS: Of 124 included studies, 39 (31.5%) clearly described its design in title or abstract. Complete information to frame a focused research question, that is, on the population, intervention/exposure, and outcome, was provided for 51 studies (41.1%). In 44 studies where definitions of codes or classification algorithms would be necessary to operationalize such a research question, only nine (20.5%) reported all items adequately. In 81 studies describing multivariable analyses, 54 (66.7%) reported all variables used for modeling and 34 (42.0%) reported basic details required for replication. Database linkage was reported adequately in 12 of 41 studies (29.3%). Statements about data sharing/availability were rare (5/124; 4%). CONCLUSION: Most RCD studies are insufficiently reported. Specific reporting guidelines and more awareness and education on their use are urgently needed

Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assessing changes in coverage, recall, review, conclusions and references not found when searching fewer databases. METHODS: In randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews, we checked included study publications' coverage (indexation) and recall (findability) using different search approaches with MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and related them to authors' conclusions and certainty. We assessed characteristics of unfound references. RESULTS: Overall 1989/2080 included references, were indexed in ≥1 database (coverage = 96%). In reviews where using one of our search approaches would not change conclusions and certainty (n = 44-54), median coverage and recall were highest (range 87.9%-100.0% and 78.2%-93.3%, respectively). Here, searching ≥2 databases reached &gt;95% coverage and ≥87.9% recall. In reviews with unchanged conclusions but less certainty (n = 2-8): 63.3%-79.3% coverage and 45.0%-75.0% recall. In reviews with opposite conclusions (n = 1-3): 63.3%-96.6% and 52.1%-78.7%. In reviews where a conclusion was no longer possible (n = 3-7): 60.6%-86.0% and 20.0%-53.8%. The 265 references that were indexed but unfound were more often abstractless (30% vs. 11%) and older (28% vs. 17% published before 1991) than found references. CONCLUSION: Searching ≥2 databases improves coverage and recall and decreases the risk of missing eligible studies. If researchers suspect that relevant articles are difficult to find, supplementary search methods should be used

Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications

This work was supported by Stiftung Institut für klinische Epidemiologie. The Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University is funded by a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The funders had no role in design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript or its submission for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting