Data_Sheet_2_Comparative risk of adverse perinatal outcomes associated with classes of antiretroviral therapy in pregnant women living with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis.docx

BackgroundIntegrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) dolutegravir (DTG)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended by World Health Organisation as preferred first-line regimen in pregnant women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (WLHIV). Non-nucleoside reverse transfer inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART and protease inhibitor (PI)-based ART are designated as alternative regimens. The impact of different ART regimens on perinatal outcomes is uncertain. We aimed to assess the comparative risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in WLHIV receiving different classes of ART.Materials and methodsA systematic literature review was conducted by searching PubMed, CINAHL, Global Health, and EMBASE for studies published between Jan 1, 1980, and July 14, 2023. We included studies reporting on the association of pregnant WLHIV receiving different classes of ART with 11 perinatal outcomes: preterm birth (PTB), very PTB, spontaneous PTB, low birthweight (LBW), very LBW, term LBW, preterm LBW, small for gestational age (SGA), very SGA (VSGA), stillbirth, and neonatal death. Pairwise random-effects meta-analyses compared the risk of each adverse perinatal outcome among WLHIV receiving INSTI-ART, NNRTI-ART, PI-ART, and nucleoside reverse transfer inhibitor (NRTI)-based ART, and compared specific “third drugs” from different ART classes. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted based on country income status and study quality.ResultsThirty cohort studies published in 2006–2022, including 222,312 pregnant women, met the eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses found no evidence that INSTI-ART is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes compared to NNRTI-ART and PI-ART. We found that PI-ART is associated with a significantly increased risk of SGA (RR 1.28, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [1.09, 1.51], p = 0.003) and VSGA (RR 1.41, 95% CI [1.08, 1.83], p = 0.011), compared to NNRTI-ART. Specifically, lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) was associated with an increased risk of SGA (RR 1.40, 95% CI [1.18, 1.65], p = 0.003) and VSGA (RR 1.84, 95% CI [1.37, 2.45], p = 0.002), compared to efavirenz, but not compared to nevirapine. We found no evidence that any class of ART or specific “third drug” was associated with an increased risk of PTB.ConclusionOur findings support the recommendation of INSTI-ART as first-line ART regimen for use in pregnant WLHIV. However, the increased risks of SGA and VGSA associated with PI-ART, compared to NNRTI-ART, may impact choice of second- and third-line ART regimens in pregnancy.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021248987.</p

Data_Sheet_1_Comparative risk of adverse perinatal outcomes associated with classes of antiretroviral therapy in pregnant women living with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis.docx

BackgroundIntegrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) dolutegravir (DTG)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended by World Health Organisation as preferred first-line regimen in pregnant women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (WLHIV). Non-nucleoside reverse transfer inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART and protease inhibitor (PI)-based ART are designated as alternative regimens. The impact of different ART regimens on perinatal outcomes is uncertain. We aimed to assess the comparative risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in WLHIV receiving different classes of ART.Materials and methodsA systematic literature review was conducted by searching PubMed, CINAHL, Global Health, and EMBASE for studies published between Jan 1, 1980, and July 14, 2023. We included studies reporting on the association of pregnant WLHIV receiving different classes of ART with 11 perinatal outcomes: preterm birth (PTB), very PTB, spontaneous PTB, low birthweight (LBW), very LBW, term LBW, preterm LBW, small for gestational age (SGA), very SGA (VSGA), stillbirth, and neonatal death. Pairwise random-effects meta-analyses compared the risk of each adverse perinatal outcome among WLHIV receiving INSTI-ART, NNRTI-ART, PI-ART, and nucleoside reverse transfer inhibitor (NRTI)-based ART, and compared specific “third drugs” from different ART classes. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted based on country income status and study quality.ResultsThirty cohort studies published in 2006–2022, including 222,312 pregnant women, met the eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses found no evidence that INSTI-ART is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes compared to NNRTI-ART and PI-ART. We found that PI-ART is associated with a significantly increased risk of SGA (RR 1.28, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [1.09, 1.51], p = 0.003) and VSGA (RR 1.41, 95% CI [1.08, 1.83], p = 0.011), compared to NNRTI-ART. Specifically, lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) was associated with an increased risk of SGA (RR 1.40, 95% CI [1.18, 1.65], p = 0.003) and VSGA (RR 1.84, 95% CI [1.37, 2.45], p = 0.002), compared to efavirenz, but not compared to nevirapine. We found no evidence that any class of ART or specific “third drug” was associated with an increased risk of PTB.ConclusionOur findings support the recommendation of INSTI-ART as first-line ART regimen for use in pregnant WLHIV. However, the increased risks of SGA and VGSA associated with PI-ART, compared to NNRTI-ART, may impact choice of second- and third-line ART regimens in pregnancy.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021248987.</p

Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations

Background and objectives: We investigated the developing methods of reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's database. Methods: In October 2018, we screened all records and excluded those not describing reporting guidelines from further investigation. Twelve researchers performed duplicate data extraction on bibliometrics, scope, development methods, presentation, and dissemination of all publications. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings. Results: Of the 405 screened records, 262 described a reporting guidelines development. The number of reporting guidelines increased over the past 3 decades, from 5 in the 1990s and 63 in the 2000s to 157 in the 2010s. Development groups included 2-151 people. Literature appraisal was performed during the development of 56% of the reporting guidelines; 33% used surveys to gather external opinion on items to report; and 42% piloted or sought external feedback on their recommendations. Examples of good reporting for all reporting items were presented in 30% of the reporting guidelines. Eighteen percent of the reviewed publications included some level of spin. Conclusion: Reporting guidelines have been developed with varying methodology. Reporting guideline developers should use existing guidance and take an evidence-based approach, rather than base their recommendations on expert opinion of limited groups of individuals.</p