Applying evidence-based methods to the development and use of adverse outcome pathways

The workshop “Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanistic frameworks for the development and use of non-animal toxicity tests” was organized by the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration and hosted by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group on June 12, 2019. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together international regulatory bodies, risk assessors, academic scientists, and industry to explore how systematic review methods and the adverse outcome pathway framework could be combined to develop and use mechanistic test methods for predicting the toxicity of chemical substances in an evidence-based manner. The meeting covered the history of biological frameworks, the way adverse outcome pathways are currently developed, the basic principles of systematic methodology, including systematic reviews and evidence maps, and assessment of certainty in models, and adverse outcome pathways in particular. Specific topics were discussed via case studies in small break-out groups. The group concluded that adverse outcome pathways provide an important framework to support mechanism-based assessment in environmental health. The process of their development has a few challenges that could be addressed with systematic methods and automation tools. Addressing these challenges will increase the transparency of the evidence behind adverse outcome pathways and the consistency with which they are defined; this in turn will increase their value for supporting public health decisions. It was suggested to explore the details of applying systematic methods to adverse outcome pathway development in a series of case studies and workshops

A Historiometric Examination of Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership

Although researchers have extensively examined the relationship between charismatic leadership and Machiavellianism (Deluga, 2001; Gardner & Avolio, 1995; House & Howell, 1992), there has been a lack of investigation of Machiavellianism in relation to alternative forms of outstanding leadership. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between Machiavellianism and a new taxonomy of outstanding leadership comprised of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Using an historiometric approach, raters assessed Machiavellianism via the communications of 120 outstanding leaders in organizations across the domains of business, political, military, and religious institutions. Academic biographies were used to assess twelve general performance measures as well as twelve general controls and five communication specific controls. The results indicated that differing levels of Machiavellianism is evidenced across the differing leader types as well as differing leader orientation. Additionally, Machiavellianism appears negatively related to performance, though less so when type and orientation are taken into account.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Efficacy and Safety of Three Antiretroviral Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV-1: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Diverse Multinational Settings

Background:Antiretroviral regimens with simplified dosing and better safety are needed to maximize the efficiency of antiretroviral delivery in resource-limited settings. We investigated the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral regimens with once-daily compared to twice-daily dosing in diverse areas of the world.Methods and Findings:1,571 HIV-1-infected persons (47% women) from nine countries in four continents were assigned with equal probability to open-label antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz plus lamivudine-zidovudine (EFV+3TC-ZDV), atazanavir plus didanosine-EC plus emtricitabine (ATV+DDI+FTC), or efavirenz plus emtricitabine-tenofovir-disoproxil fumarate (DF) (EFV+FTC-TDF). ATV+DDI+FTC and EFV+FTC-TDF were hypothesized to be non-inferior to EFV+3TC-ZDV if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound for the hazard ratio (HR) was ≤1.35 when 30% of participants had treatment failure.An independent monitoring board recommended stopping study follow-up prior to accumulation of 472 treatment failures. Comparing EFV+FTC-TDF to EFV+3TC-ZDV, during a median 184 wk of follow-up there were 95 treatment failures (18%) among 526 participants versus 98 failures among 519 participants (19%; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.27; p = 0.74). Safety endpoints occurred in 243 (46%) participants assigned to EFV+FTC-TDF versus 313 (60%) assigned to EFV+3TC-ZDV (HR 0.64, CI 0.54-0.76; p<0.001) and there was a significant interaction between sex and regimen safety (HR 0.50, CI 0.39-0.64 for women; HR 0.79, CI 0.62-1.00 for men; p = 0.01). Comparing ATV+DDI+FTC to EFV+3TC-ZDV, during a median follow-up of 81 wk there were 108 failures (21%) among 526 participants assigned to ATV+DDI+FTC and 76 (15%) among 519 participants assigned to EFV+3TC-ZDV (HR 1.51, CI 1.12-2.04; p = 0.007).Conclusion: EFV+FTC-TDF had similar high efficacy compared to EFV+3TC-ZDV in this trial population, recruited in diverse multinational settings. Superior safety, especially in HIV-1-infected women, and once-daily dosing of EFV+FTC-TDF are advantageous for use of this regimen for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection in resource-limited countries. ATV+DDI+FTC had inferior efficacy and is not recommended as an initial antiretroviral regimen.Trial Registration:http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00084136

Assessment of key characteristics, methodology, and effect size measures used in meta-analysis of human-health-related animal studies

Since the early 1990s the number of systematic reviews (SR) of animal studies has steadily increased. There is, however, little guidance on when and how to conduct a meta-analysis of human-health-related animal studies. To gain insight about the methods that are currently used we created an overview of the key characteristics of published meta-analyses of animal studies, with a focus on the choice of effect size measures. An additional goal was to learn about the rationale behind the meta-analysis methods used by the review authors. We show that important details of the meta-analyses are not fully described, only a fraction of all human-health-related meta-analyses provided rationales for their decision to use specific effect size measures. In addition, our data may suggest that authors make post-hoc decisions to switch to another effect size measure during the course of their meta-analysis, and possibly search for significant effects. Based on analyses in this paper we recommend that review teams: 1) publish a review protocol before starting the conduct of a SR, prespecifying all methodological details (providing special attention to the planned meta-analysis including the effect size measure and the rational behind choosing a specific effect size, prespecifying subgroups and restricting the number of subgroup analyses), 2) always use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist to report your SR of animal studies, and 3) use the random effects model (REM) in human-health-related meta-analysis of animal studies, unless the assumptions for using the fixed effect model (FEM) are all met