Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment

OBJECTIVES Synthesizing qualitative research is an important means of ensuring the needs, preferences, and experiences of patients are taken into account by service providers and policy makers, but the range of methods available can appear confusing. This study presents the methods for synthesizing qualitative research most used in health research to-date and, specifically those with a potential role in health technology assessment. METHODS To identify reviews conducted using the eight main methods for synthesizing qualitative studies, nine electronic databases were searched using key terms including meta-ethnography and synthesis. A summary table groups the identified reviews by their use of the eight methods, highlighting the methods used most generally and specifically in relation to health technology assessment topics. RESULTS Although there is debate about how best to identify and quality appraise qualitative research for synthesis, 107 reviews were identified using one of the eight main methods. Four methods (meta-ethnography, meta-study, meta-summary, and thematic synthesis) have been most widely used and have a role within health technology assessment. Meta-ethnography is the leading method for synthesizing qualitative health research. Thematic synthesis is also useful for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings. Four other methods (critical interpretive synthesis, grounded theory synthesis, meta-interpretation, and cross-case analysis) have been under-used in health research and their potential in health technology assessments is currently under-developed. CONCLUSIONS Synthesizing individual qualitative studies has becoming increasingly common in recent years. Although this is still an emerging research discipline such an approach is one means of promoting the patient-centeredness of health technology assessments

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in adults (≥ 20 years) during Alpha- and Delta-dominant circulation: I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS SARI VE networks, Europe, 2021

Members of the I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS hospital study teams (in addition to the named authors): Svjetlana Karabuva, Petra Tomaš Petrić, Marija Marković, Sandra Ljubičić, Bojana Mahmutović, Irena Tabain, Petra Smoljo, Iva Pem Novosel, Tanya Melillo, John Paul Cauchi, Benédicte Lissoir, Xavier Holemans, Marc Hainaut, Nicolas Dauby, Benedicte Delaere, Marc Bourgeois, Evelyn Petit, Marijke Reynders, Door Jouck, Koen Magerman, Marieke Bleyen, Melissa Vermeulen, Sébastien Fierens, François Dufrasne, Siel Daelemans, Ala’a Al Kerwi, Francoise Berthet, Guy Fagherazzi, Myriam Alexandre, Charlene Bennett, Jim Christle, Jeff Connell, Peter Doran, Laura Feeney, Binita Maharjan, Sinead McDermott, Rosa McNamara, Nadra Nurdin, Salif Mamadou Cissé, Anne-Sophie L'Honneur, Xavier Duval, Yolande Costa, Fidouh Nadhira, Florence Galtier, Laura Crantelle, Vincent Foulongne, Phillipe Vanhems, Sélilah Amour, Bruno Lina, Fabrice Lainé, Laetitia Gallais, Gisèle Lagathu, Anna Maisa, Yacine Saidi, Christine Durier, Rebecca Bauer, Ana Paula Rodrigues, Adriana Silva, Raquel Guiomar, Margarida Tavares, Débora Pereira, Maria José Manata, Heidi Gruner, André Almeida, Paula Pinto, Cristina Bárbara, Itziar Casado, Ana Miqueleiz, Ana Navascués, Camino Trobajo-Sanmartín, Miguel Fernández-Huerta, María Eugenia Portillo, Carmen Ezpeleta, Nerea Egüés, Manuel García Cenoz, Eva Ardanaz, Marcela Guevara, Conchi Moreno-Iribas, Hana Orlíková, Carmen Mihaela Dorobat, Carmen Manciuc, Simin Aysel Florescu, Alexandru Marin, Sorin Dinu, Catalina Pascu, Alina Ivanciuc, Iulia Bistriceanu, Mihaela Oprea, Maria Elena Mihai, Silke Buda, Ute Preuss, Marianne Wedde, Auksė Mickienė, Giedrė Gefenaitė, Alain Moren, Anthony NardoneIntroduction: Two large multicentre European hospital networks have estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 since 2021. Aim: We aimed to measure VE against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) patients ≥ 20 years, combining data from these networks during Alpha (March–June)- and Delta (June–December)-dominant periods, 2021. Methods: Forty-six participating hospitals across 14 countries follow a similar generic protocol using the test-negative case–control design. We defined complete primary series vaccination (PSV) as two doses of a two-dose or one of a single-dose vaccine ≥ 14 days before onset. Results: We included 1,087 cases (538 controls) and 1,669 cases (1,442 controls) in the Alpha- and Delta-dominant periods, respectively. During the Alpha period, VE against hospitalisation with SARS-CoV2 for complete Comirnaty PSV was 85% (95% CI: 69–92) overall and 75% (95% CI: 42–90) in those aged ≥ 80 years. During the Delta period, among SARI patients ≥ 20 years with symptom onset ≥ 150 days from last PSV dose, VE for complete Comirnaty PSV was 54% (95% CI: 18–74). Among those receiving Comirnaty PSV and mRNA booster (any product) ≥ 150 days after last PSV dose, VE was 91% (95% CI: 57–98). In time-since-vaccination analysis, complete all-product PSV VE was > 90% in those with their last dose < 90 days before onset; ≥ 70% in those 90–179 days before onset. Conclusions: Our results from this EU multi-country hospital setting showed that VE for complete PSV alone was higher in the Alpha- than the Delta-dominant period, and addition of a first booster dose during the latter period increased VE to over 90%.Key public health message: - What did you want to address in this study? To understand how well the COVID-19 vaccine was performing in Europe against hospitalisation during SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Delta variant periods, we present vaccine effectiveness results from a multi-country study of complete and booster dose COVID-19 vaccination among adults (aged 20 years and over). - What have we learnt from this study? Between March and June 2021 (Alpha period), vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 43% for partial vaccination and 86% for complete vaccination. For June to December 2021 (Delta period), vaccine effectiveness for complete vaccination was lower (52%) but with addition of an mRNA booster dose, effectiveness reached 91%, and remained > 90% up to 119 days after the booster dose. - What are the implications of your findings for public health? In Europe in 2021, COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness results for the Alpha period indicated an excellent benefit for preventing hospitalisation after complete vaccination. During Delta variant circulation, however, a booster dose was required to achieve this level of effectiveness, and this was maintained for up to 4 months post booster.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Cerebral small vessel disease genomics and its implications across the lifespan

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are the most common brain-imaging feature of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD), hypertension being the main known risk factor. Here, we identify 27 genome-wide loci for WMH-volume in a cohort of 50,970 older individuals, accounting for modification/confounding by hypertension. Aggregated WMH risk variants were associated with altered white matter integrity (p = 2.5×10-7) in brain images from 1,738 young healthy adults, providing insight into the lifetime impact of SVD genetic risk. Mendelian randomization suggested causal association of increasing WMH-volume with stroke, Alzheimer-type dementia, and of increasing blood pressure (BP) with larger WMH-volume, notably also in persons without clinical hypertension. Transcriptome-wide colocalization analyses showed association of WMH-volume with expression of 39 genes, of which four encode known drug targets. Finally, we provide insight into BP-independent biological pathways underlying SVD and suggest potential for genetic stratification of high-risk individuals and for genetically-informed prioritization of drug targets for prevention trials.Peer reviewe

The ARID1B spectrum in 143 patients: from nonsyndromic intellectual disability to Coffin–Siris syndrome

Purpose: Pathogenic variants in ARID1B are one of the most frequent causes of intellectual disability (ID) as determined by large-scale exome sequencing studies. Most studies published thus far describe clinically diagnosed Coffin–Siris patients (ARID1B-CSS) and it is unclear whether these data are representative for patients identified through sequencing of unbiased ID cohorts (ARID1B-ID). We therefore sought to determine genotypic and phenotypic differences between ARID1B-ID and ARID1B-CSS. In parallel, we investigated the effect of different methods of phenotype reporting. Methods: Clinicians entered clinical data in an extensive web-based survey. Results: 79 ARID1B-CSS and 64 ARID1B-ID patients were included. CSS-associated dysmorphic features, such as thick eyebrows, long eyelashes, thick alae nasi, long and/or broad philtrum, small nails and small or absent fifth distal phalanx and hypertrichosis, were observed significantly more often (p < 0.001) in ARID1B-CSS patients. No other significant differences were identified. Conclusion: There are only minor differences between ARID1B-ID and ARID1B-CSS patients. ARID1B-related disorders seem to consist of a spectrum, and patients should be managed similarly. We demonstrated that data collection methods without an explicit option to report the absence of a feature (such as most Human Phenotype Ontology-based methods) tended to underestimate gene-related features

No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer

Objective. Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3' UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370. Methods. Centralized genotyping and analysis were performed for 140,012 women enrolled in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (15,357 ovarian cancer patients; 30,816 controls), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (33,530 breast cancer patients; 37,640 controls), and the Consortium of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (14,765 BRCA1 and 7904 BRCA2 mutation carriers). Results. We found no association with risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.04, p = 0.74) or breast cancer (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01, p = 0.19) and results were consistent among mutation carriers (BRCA1, ovarian cancer HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p = 0.14, breast cancer HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12, p = 0.27; BRCA2, ovarian cancer HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13, p = 034, breast cancer HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19, p = 0.35). Null results were also obtained for associations with overall survival following ovarian cancer (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p = 0.38), breast cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06, p = 0.38), and all other previously-reported associations. Conclusions. rs61764370 is not associated with risk of ovarian or breast cancer nor with clinical outcome for patients with these cancers. Therefore, genotyping this variant has no clinical utility related to the prediction or management of these cancers. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe