Describing Engagement in the HIV Care Cascade: A Methodological Study.

Introduction: Engagement in the HIV care cascade is required for people living with HIV (PLWH) to achieve an undetectable viral load. However, varying definitions of engagement exist, contributing to heterogeneity in research regarding how many individuals are actively participating and benefitting from care. A standardized definition is needed to enhance comparability and pooling of data from engagement studies. Objectives: The objective of this paper was to describe the various definitions for engagement used in HIV clinical trials. Methods: Articles were retrieved from CASCADE, a database of 298 clinical trials conducted to improve the HIV care cascade (https://hivcarecascade.com/), curated by income level, vulnerable population, who delivered the intervention, the setting in which it was delivered, the intervention type, and the level of pragmatism of the intervention. Studies with engagement listed as an outcome were selected from this database. Results: 13 studies were eligible, of which five did not provide an explicit definition for engagement. The remaining studies used one or more of the following: appointment adherence (n=6), laboratory testing (n=2), adherence to antiretroviral therapy (n=2), time specification (n=5), intervention adherence (n=5), and quality of interaction (n=1). Conclusion: This paper highlights the existing diversity in definitions for engagement in the HIV care cascade and categorize these definitions into appointment adherence, laboratory testing, adherence to antiretroviral therapy, time specification, intervention adherence, and quality of interaction. We recommend consensus on how to describe and measure engagement.

Measures of Retention in HIV Care: A Study Within a Review.

People living with HIV (PLHIV) need lifelong medical care. However, retention in HIV care is not measured uniformly, making it challenging to compare or pool data. The objective of this study within a review (SWAR) is to describe the assortment of definitions used for retention in HIV care in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a SWAR, drawing data from an overview of systematic reviews on interventions to improve the HIV care cascade. Ethics review was not required for this analysis of secondary data. We identified RCTs of interventions used to improve retention in care for PLHIV, including all age groups and extracted the definitions used and their characteristics. We identified 50 trials that measured retention published between 2007 and 2021 and provided 59 definitions for retention in care. The definitions consisted of nine different characteristics with follow-up time (n = 47), and clinical visits (n = 36) most used. The definitions of retention in HIV care are highly heterogeneous. In this study, we present the pros and cons of characteristics used to measure retention in HIV care.

Design, analysis, and reporting of pilot studies in HIV: a systematic review and methodological study.

BACKGROUND: Pilot studies are essential in determining if a larger study is feasible. This is especially true when targeting populations that experience stigma and may be difficult to include in research, such as people with HIV. We sought to describe how pilot studies have been used to inform HIV clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a methodological study of pilot studies of interventions in people living with HIV published until November 25, 2020, using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL). We extracted data on their nomenclature, primary objective, use of progression criteria, sample size, use of qualitative methods, and other contextual information (region, income, level, type of intervention, study design). RESULTS: Our search retrieved 10,597 studies, of which 248 were eligible. The number of pilot studies increased steadily over time. We found that 179 studies (72.2%) used the terms "pilot" or "feasibility" in their title, 65.3% tested feasibility as a primary objective, only 2% used progression criteria, 23.9% provided a sample size estimation and only 30.2% used qualitative methods. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot studies are increasingly being used to inform HIV research. However, the titles and objectives are not always consistent with piloting. The design and reporting of pilot studies in HIV could be improved.

Guidelines are needed for studies of pre-treatment HIV drug resistance: a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been accompanied by an increase in pre-treatment drug resistance (PDR). While it is critical to monitor the increasing prevalence of PDR across countries and populations to inform optimal regimen selection, the completeness of reporting is often suboptimal, limiting the interpretation and generalizability of the results. Indeed, there is no formal guidance on how studies investigating the prevalence of drug resistance should be reported. Thus, we sought to determine the completeness of reporting in studies of PDR and the factors associated with sub-optimal reporting to ascertain the need for guidelines. METHODS: As part of a systematic review on the global prevalence of PDR in key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people, people who inject drugs and people in prisons), we searched 10 electronic databases until January 2019. We extracted information on selected study characteristics useful for interpreting prevalence data. Data were extracted in duplicate. Analyses of variance and correlation were used to explore factors that may explain the number of items reported. RESULTS: We found 650 studies of which 387 were screened as full text and 234 were deemed eligible. The included studies were published between 1997 and 2019 and included a median of 239 (quartile 1 = 101; quartile 3 = 778) participants. Most studies originated from high-income countries (125/234; 53.0%). Of 23 relevant data items, including study design, setting, participant sociodemographic characteristics, HIV risk factors, type of resistance test conducted, definition of resistance, the mean (standard deviation) number of items reported was 13 (2.2). We found that more items were reported in studies published more recently (r = 0.20; p < 0.002) and in studies at low risk of bias (F [2231] = 8.142; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete reporting in studies on PDR makes characterising levels of PDR in subpopulations across countries challenging. Hence, guidelines are needed to define a minimum set of variables to be included in such studies.

Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Dose Reduction for Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness and safety of dose reduction of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) compared to usual care. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, and trial registries. We screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Data were pooled using random-effects models; subgroup analyses were performed for type of TNFi, prior TNFi exposure, and follow-up duration. Outcomes of interest were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) response and remission criteria, disease activity, relapse, and safety. RESULTS: We included 6 randomized trials with 747 participants (442 with ankylosing spondylitis and 305 with nonradiographic axial SpA). Compared to the standard dose, there were fewer events with the reduced dose for the ASAS criteria for 40% improvement (risk ratio [RR] 0.62 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.49, 0.78]) and for ASAS partial remission (RR 0.17 [95% CI 0.06, 0.46]). There was a mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score (mean difference [MD] 0.35 [95% CI 0.10, 0.60]) and no difference in C-reactive protein levels (MD 0.16 [95% CI -0.76, 1.07]) with the reduced dose. There were more disease flares/relapses (RR 1.73 [95% CI 1.32, 2.27]) with the reduced dose. There were no differences in infection rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.76, 1.25]) or injection/infusion reactions (IRR 0.71 [95% CI 0.42, 1.19]). CONCLUSION: Patients with axial SpA may experience little to no clinical benefit from reduction of TNFi therapy. Maintaining the standard dose probably improves the sustained effect on disease activity and helps to prevent disease flare.

Clinical Impact of Pretreatment Human Immunodeficiency Virus Drug Resistance in People Initiating Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor-Containing Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increased access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has resulted in rising levels of pretreatment human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance (PDR). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of PDR on treatment outcomes among people initiating nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART, including the combination of efavirenz (EFV), tenofovir (TDF), and lamivudine or emtricitabine (XTC). METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies and conference proceedings comparing treatment outcomes in populations initiating NNRTI-based ART with and without PDR. We conducted subgroup analyses by regimen: (1) NNRTIs + 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), (2) EFV + 2 NRTIs, or (3) EFV/TDF/XTC; by population (children vs adults); and by definition of resistance (PDR vs NNRTI PDR). RESULTS: Among 6197 studies screened, 32 were analyzed (31 441 patients). We found that individuals with PDR initiating NNRTIs across all the subgroups had increased risk of virological failure compared to those without PDR. Risk of acquisition of new resistance mutations and ART switch was also higher in people with PDR. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows poorer treatment outcomes in the presence of PDR, supporting the World Health Organization's recommendation to avoid using NNRTIs in countries where levels of PDR are high.

Outcomes after corrective surgery for congenital dextro-transposition of the arteries using the arterial switch technique: a scoping systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dextro-transposition of the great arteries (D-TGA) is the most frequent cyanotic congenital heart pathology in neonates. Surgical correction of this condition is possible using the arterial switch operation (ASO) which was first performed by Jatene in 1975. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence on short- (less than 1 year), medium- (1-20 years), and long-term (more than 20 years) outcomes of children with D-TGA treated with the ASO. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary outcomes were freedom from cardiac reoperations, occurrence of aortic insufficiency, pulmonary stenosis, coronary artery anomalies, neuropsychological development problems and quality of life. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, and reference lists of included articles for studies reporting outcomes after ASO for D-TGA. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done independently by two reviewers. We pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and, where not possible, outcomes were synthesized narratively. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Following ASO for TGA, short-term survival was 92.0% (95% CI 91.0-93.0%; I2 = 85.8%, 151 studies, 30,186 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Medium-term survival was 90.0% (95% CI 89.0-91.0%; I2 = 84.3%, 133 studies; 23,686 participants, moderate certainty evidence), while long-term survival was 87.0% (95% CI 80.0-92.0 %; I2 = 84.5%, 4 studies, 933 participants, very low certainty evidence). Evaluation of the different secondary outcomes also showed satisfactory results in the short, medium and long term. Subgroup analysis suggests slightly higher survival following ASO for TGA in the second surgical era (1998 to 2018) than in the first surgical era (1975 to 1997) in the short and medium term [93.0% (95% CI 92.0-94.0) vs 90.0% (95% CI 89.0-92.0) and 93.0% (95% CI 91.0-94.0) vs 88.0% (87.0-90.0%) respectively] but not in the long term [81.0% (95% CI 76.0-86.0%) vs 89.0% (80.0-95.0%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled data from many sources suggests that the ASO for D-TGA leads to high rates of survival in the short, medium, and long term.

Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review.

BACKGROUND: A relatively novel method of appraisal, methodological reviews (MRs) are used to synthesize information on the methods used in health research. There are currently no guidelines available to inform the reporting of MRs. OBJECTIVES: This pilot review aimed to determine the feasibility of a full review and the need for reporting guidance for methodological reviews. METHODS: Search strategy: We conducted a search of PubMed, restricted to 2017 to include the most recently published studies, using different search terms often used to describe methodological reviews: "literature survey" OR "meta-epidemiologic* review" OR "meta-epidemiologic* survey" OR "methodologic* review" OR "methodologic* survey" OR "systematic survey."Data extraction: Study characteristics including country, nomenclature, number of included studies, search strategy, a priori protocol use, and sampling methods were extracted in duplicate and summarized.Outcomes: Primary feasibility outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the search terms (criteria for success of feasibility set at sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 70%).Analysis: The estimates are reported as a point estimate (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved and 31 were included in the final analysis. The most accurate search term was "meta-epidemiological" (sensitivity [Sn] 48.39; 95% CI 31.97-65.16; specificity [Sp] 97.56; 94.42-98.95). The majority of studies were published by authors from Canada (n = 12, 38.7%), and Japan and USA (n = 4, 12.9% each). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of included studies in the MRs was 77 (13-1127). Reporting of a search strategy was done in most studies (n = 23, 74.2%). The use of a pre-published protocol (n = 7, 22.6%) or a justifiable sampling method (n = 5, 16.1%) occurred rarely. CONCLUSIONS: Using the MR nomenclature identified, it is feasible to build a comprehensive search strategy and conduct a full review. Given the variation in reporting practices and nomenclature attributed to MRs, there is a need for guidance on standardized and transparent reporting of MRs. Future guideline development would likely include stakeholders from Canada, USA, and Japan.

Barriers and facilitators to optimal oral anticoagulant management: a scoping review.

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are high alert medications and require high-quality management to optimize health outcomes. The objective of this scoping review was to identify barriers and facilitators (B&Fs) associated with the quality of OAC management. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases until July 12, 2018, and cross-referenced the bibliographies of the retrieved studies. We included quantitative and qualitative studies that assessed B&Fs to OAC management. The study selection and data extraction processes were performed in duplicate. Analyses included measuring the prevalence of reported B&Fs from studies reporting quantitative data, identifying B&Fs in narrative analyses, and identifying their impact on important outcomes of OAC management. B&Fs were coded and aggregated to higher-level themes using a consensus approach. Factors were described as "key" if they were statistically associated with important outcomes in a randomized trial or observational study. We included 62 studies-three randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 46 observational studies (cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies), 11 qualitative studies, and two mixed-methods studies. Factors identified could be grouped into four themes-therapy-related, patient-related, healthcare provider-related, and health system-related. Key barriers to optimal OAC management were mostly patient-related, whereas interventions focused on education or implementing protocols were shown through RCTs to be effective at improving knowledge scores of OAC patients. While multiple barriers and some facilitators were identified in this review, none was proven to be associated with clinical outcomes. With this in mind, individual physicians may wish to address the key barriers in their practice as a quality improvement initiative but system-wide or policy changes should await high-quality evidence. Future trials should address these factors.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017069043.

Reporting quality of pilot clinical trials in chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis: a methodological survey.

BACKGROUND: The conduct of high-quality pilot studies can help inform the success of larger clinical trials. Guidelines have been recently developed for the reporting of pilot trials. OBJECTIVE: This methodological survey evaluates the completeness of reporting in pilot randomized controlled trials in chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis (HD patients) and explores factors associated with better completion of reporting. METHODS: The authors searched Pubmed on July 1, 2018, for all pilot trials conducted in HD patients. Reporting quality was assessed against the 40-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Pilot Trials. Study factors including year and country of publication, intervention, number of centers, type of funding, and journal endorsement of CONSORT were also examined. RESULTS: The mean number of items reported from the CONSORT extension for pilot trials across all included articles was 18.4 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.4). In the adjusted analysis, studies reported in later years (IRR = 1.026, 95% CI [1.018, 1.034], p < 0.001) and an increase of 20 persons in sample size (adjusted IRR = 1.021, 95% CI [1.010, 1.031], p < 0.001) were associated with a significantly higher number of CONSORT pilot items reported. CONCLUSIONS: Current reporting completeness of pilot trials in HD patients is suboptimal. Endorsing the CONSORT extension specific to pilot and feasibility studies and ensuring that pilot trials focus on the feasibility objectives may improve reporting completeness of these trials.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

PURPOSE: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). RESULTS: Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. METHODS: Electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively. RESULTS: There were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

Agreement in reporting between trial publications and current clinical trial registry in high impact journals: A methodological review.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this systematic survey was to examine the percentage of studies in which there was agreement in the reporting of the primary outcome between the currently updated version of the clinical trial registry and the published paper. We also investigated the factors associated with agreement in reporting of the primary outcome. METHODS: We searched PubMed for all randomized control trials (RCT)s published in 2012-2015 in the top five general medicine journals (based on the 2014 impact factor). Two hundred abstracts (50 from each year) were randomly selected for data extraction. Agreement in reporting of 11 key study conduct items (e.g., sample size) and study characteristics (e.g., funding, number of sites) were extracted by two independent reviewers. ANALYSIS: Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine the proportion of studies on which there was agreement in reporting of key study conduct items. Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with agreement in reporting of the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 200 included studies, 87% had agreement in reporting of the primary outcome. After adjusting for other covariates, having greater than 50 sites was associated with an increased likelihood of agreement in reporting of the primary outcome (odds ratio=7.1, 95% confidence interval=1.39, 36.27, p=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: We identified substantive disagreement in reporting between publications and current clinical trial registry, which were associated with several study characteristics. Further measures are needed to improve reporting given the potential threats to the quality and integrity of scientific research.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.