Beth Rachlis

Adherence to HAART: A Systematic Review of Developed and Developing Nation Patient-Reported Barriers and Facilitators

Background Adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) medication is the greatest patient-enabled predictor of treatment success and mortality for those who have access to drugs. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine patient-reported barriers and facilitators to adhering to antiretroviral therapy. Methods and Findings We examined both developed and developing nations. We searched the following databases: AMED (inception to June 2005), Campbell Collaboration (inception to June 2005), CinAhl (inception to June 2005), Cochrane Library (inception to June 2005), Embase (inception to June 2005), ERIC (inception to June 2005), MedLine (inception to June 2005), and NHS EED (inception to June 2005). We retrieved studies conducted in both developed and developing nation settings that examined barriers and facilitators addressing adherence. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included. We independently, in duplicate, extracted data reported in qualitative studies addressing adherence. We then examined all quantitative studies addressing barriers and facilitators noted from the qualitative studies. In order to place the findings of the qualitative studies in a generalizable context, we meta-analyzed the surveys to determine a best estimate of the overall prevalence of issues. We included 37 qualitative studies and 47 studies using a quantitative methodology (surveys). Seventy-two studies (35 qualitative) were conducted in developed nations, while the remaining 12 (two qualitative) were conducted in developing nations. Important barriers reported in both economic settings included fear of disclosure, concomitant substance abuse, forgetfulness, suspicions of treatment, regimens that are too complicated, number of pills required, decreased quality of life, work and family responsibilities, falling asleep, and access to medication. Important facilitators reported by patients in developed nation settings included having a sense of self-worth, seeing positive effects of antiretrovirals, accepting their seropositivity, understanding the need for strict adherence, making use of reminder tools, and having a simple regimen. Among 37 separate meta-analyses examining the generalizability of these findings, we found large heterogeneity. Conclusions We found that important barriers to adherence are consistent across multiple settings and countries. Research is urgently needed to determine patient-important factors for adherence in developing world settings. Clinicians should use this information to engage in open discussion with patients to promote adherence and identify barriers and facilitators within their own populations.

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Mortality and Events With Statin Treatments A Network Meta-Analysis Involving More Than 65,000 Patients

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) in primary prevention of cardiovascular events. BACKGROUND The role of statins is well established for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) clinical events and mortality. Little is known of their role in primary cardiovascular event prevention. METHODS We conducted comprehensive searches of 10 electronic databases from inception to May 2008. We contacted study investigators and maintained a comprehensive bibliography of statin studies. We included randomized trials of at least 12-month duration in predominantly primary prevention populations. Two reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression, calculated optimal information size, and conducted a mixed-treatment comparison analysis. RESULTS We included 20 randomized clinical trials. We pooled 19 trials (n = 63,899) for all-cause mortality and found a relative risk (RR) of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87 to 0.99, p = 0.03 [I(2) = 5%, 95% CI: 0% to 51%]). Eighteen trials (n = 59,469) assessed cardiovascular deaths (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.98, p = 0.01 [I(2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0% to 41%]). Seventeen trials (n = 53,371) found an RR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.95, p = 0.004 [I(2) = 61%, 95% CI: 38% to 77%]) for major cardiovascular events, and 17 trials (n = 52,976) assessed myocardial infarctions (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.95, p = 0.01 [I(2) = 59%, 95% CI: 24% to 74%]). Incidence of cancer was not elevated in 10 trials (n = 45,469) (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.11, p = 0.59 [I(2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0% to 46%]), nor was rhabdomyolysis (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.25 to 3.83, p = 0.96 [I(2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0% to 40%]). Our analysis included a sufficient sample to reliably answer our primary outcome of CVD mortality. CONCLUSIONS Statins have a clear role in primary prevention of CVD mortality and major events.

Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors.

BACKGROUND Enrolling participants onto clinical trials of cancer presents an important challenge. We aimed to identify the concerns of patients with cancer about, and the barriers to, participation in clinical trials. METHODS We did a systematic review to assess studies of barriers to participation in experimental trials and randomised trials for validity and content. We estimated the frequency with which patients identified particular issues by pooling across studies that presented data for barriers to participation in clinical trials as proportions. FINDINGS We analysed 12 qualitative studies (n=722) and 21 quantitative studies (n=5452). Two qualitative studies inquired of patients who were currently enrolled onto clinical trials, and ten inquired of patients who were eligible for enrolment onto various clinical trials. Barriers to participation in clinical trials were protocol-related, patient-related, or physician-related. The most common reasons cited as barriers included: concerns with the trial setting; a dislike of randomisation; general discomfort with the research process; complexity and stringency of the protocol; presence of a placebo or no-treatment group; potential side-effects; being unaware of trial opportunities; the idea that clinical trials are not appropriate for serious diseases; fear that trial involvement would have a negative effect on the relationship with their physician; and their physicians attitudes towards the trial. Meta-analysis confirmed the findings of our systematic review. INTERPRETATION The identification of such barriers to the participation in clinical trials should help trialists to develop strategies that will keep to a maximum participation and cooperation in cancer trials, while informing and protecting prospective participants adequately.

Barriers to participating in an HIV vaccine trial: a systematic review.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) exacts a heavy toll in terms of morbidity and mortality. Education programs stressing preventative methods have managed to slow the spread of HIV infection in some regions [1]. However, an estimated 15 000 new individuals are infected each day. Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), despite its proven benefits, remains too costly and complex for the majority of HIV-infected people, 90% of whom live in developing countries [2]. Under these circumstances, an effective preventative vaccine may represent the best hope for reversing the growing HIV pandemic.

Metastatic renal cell cancer treatments: an indirect comparison meta-analysis

BackgroundTreatment for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has advanced dramatically with understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease. New treatment options may provide improved progression-free survival (PFS). We aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of new therapies in this field.MethodsWe conducted comprehensive searches of 11 electronic databases from inception to April 2008. We included randomized trials (RCTs) that evaluated bevacizumab, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Two reviewers independently extracted data, in duplicate. Our primary outcome was investigator-assessed PFS. We performed random-effects meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison analysis.ResultsWe included 3 bevacizumab (2 of bevacizumab plus interferon-a [IFN-a]), 2 sorafenib, 1 sunitinib, and 1 temsirolimus trials (total n = 3,957). All interventions offer advantages for PFS. Using indirect comparisons with interferon-α as the common comparator, we found that sunitinib was superior to both sorafenib (HR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.38–0.86, P = < 0.001) and bevacizumab + IFN-a (HR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.60–0.93, P = 0.001). Sorafenib was not statistically different from bevacizumab +IFN-a in this same indirect comparison analysis (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.52–1.13, P = 0.23). Using placebo as the similar comparator, we were unable to display a significant difference between sorafenib and bevacizumab alone (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.58–1.12, P = 0.23). Temsirolimus provided significant PFS in patients with poor prognosis (HR 0.69, 95% CI, 0.57–0.85).ConclusionNew interventions for mRCC offer a favourable PFS for mRCC compared to interferon-α and placebo.

The safety of over-the-counter niacin. A randomized placebo-controlled trial [ISRCTN18054903].

BackgroundNiacin is widely available over the counter (OTC). We sought to determine the safety of 500 mg immediate release niacin, when healthy individuals use them as directed.Methods51 female and 17 male healthy volunteers (mean age 27 years SD 4.4) participated in a randomized placebo-controlled blinded trial of a single dose of an OTC, immediate-release niacin 500 mg (n = 33), or a single dose of placebo (n = 35) on an empty stomach. The outcomes measured were self-reported incidence of flushing and other adverse effects.Results33 volunteers on niacin (100%) and 1 volunteer on placebo (3%) flushed (relative risk 35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.8–194.7). Mean time to flushing on niacin was 18.2 min (95% CI: 12.7–23.6); mean duration of flushing was 75.4 min (95% CI: 62.5–88.2). Other adverse effects occurred commonly in the niacin group: chills (51.5% vs. 0%, P < .0001), generalized pruritus (75% vs. 0%, P = <.001), gastrointestinal upset (30% vs. 3%, P = .005), and cutaneous tingling (30% vs. 0%, P = <.001). Six participants did not tolerate the adverse effects of niacin and 3 required medical attention.ConclusionClinicians counseling patients about niacin should alert patients not only about flushing but also about gastrointestinal symptoms, the most severe in this study. They should not trust that patients would receive information about these side effects or their prevention (with aspirin) from the OTC packet insert.

High rates of homelessness among a cohort of street-involved youth

Using multivariate logistic regression, we examined the prevalence and correlates of homelessness among youth enrolled in a community-recruited prospective cohort known as the At-Risk Youth Study (ARYS), between September 2005 and October 2006. Of 478 individuals included in this analysis, 132 (27.6%) were female and 120 (25.1%) self-identified as Aboriginal. The median age was 22 (IQR: 20-24). In total, 284 (56.9%) participants reported baseline homelessness, with most living either at no fixed address, on the street, or in a hostel or shelter. Factors associated with homelessness included public injecting, frequent crack use, experienced violence, having less than a high-school education, and not having been in any addiction treatment. Homeless individuals were at-risk for various adverse health outcomes. These findings indicate the need for additional interventions, including residential addiction treatment, to address homelessness and drug use among youth.

Media reporting of tenofovir trials in Cambodia and Cameroon

BackgroundTwo planned trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis tenofovir in Cambodia and Cameroon to prevent HIV infection in high-risk populations were closed due to activist pressure on host country governments. The international news media contributed substantially as the primary source of knowledge transfer regarding the trials. We aimed to characterize the nature of reporting, specifically focusing on the issues identified by media reports regarding each trial.MethodsWith the aid of an information specialist, we searched 3 electronic media databases, 5 electronic medical databases and extensively searched the Internet. In addition we contacted stakeholder groups. We included media reports addressing the trial closures, the reasons for the trial closures, and who was interviewed. We extracted data using content analysis independently, in duplicate.ResultsWe included 24 reports on the Cambodian trial closure and 13 reports on the Cameroon trial closure. One academic news account incorrectly reported that it was an HIV vaccine trial that closed early. The primary reasons cited for the Cambodian trial closure were: a lack of medical insurance for trial related injuries (71%); human rights considerations (71%); study protocol concerns (46%); general suspicions regarding trial location (37%) and inadequate prevention counseling (29%). The primary reasons cited for the Cameroon trial closure were: inadequate access to care for seroconverters (69%); participants not sufficiently informed of risks (69%); inadequate number of staff (46%); participants being exploited (46%) and an unethical study design (38%). Only 3/23 (13%) reports acknowledged interviewing research personnel regarding the Cambodian trial, while 4/13 (30.8%) reports interviewed researchers involved in the Cameroon trial.ConclusionOur review indicates that the issues addressed and validity of the media reports of these trials is highly variable. Given the potential impact of the media in formulation of health policy related to HIV, efforts are needed to effectively engage the media during periods of controversy in the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Livelihood Security and Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy in Low and Middle Income Settings: A Systematic Review

Introduction We sought to examine the association between livelihood security and adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ARVs) in low- and middle-income countries (LIMC). Methods Performing a systematic review, we searched, independently and in duplicate, 7 electronic databases and 2 conference websites for quantitative surveys that examined the association between indicators of livelihood security and adherence to ARVs in LIMC between 2000–2010. Criteria for relevance were applied to complete papers (quantitative study with estimates of associations) and quality assessment was conducted on those deemed relevant. We performed three regressions to measure the association between each type of livelihood and adherence. Results Twenty original studies and 6 conference abstracts were included, the majority from Africa (n = 16). Seventeen studies and 3 conference abstracts were cross-sectional and 3 studies and 3 abstracts were prospective clinical cohort studies, with considerable variation in quality for studies of each design type. Among the diverse populations represented, we observed considerable variation in associations between measurements of livelihood indicators and increasingly accepted adherence measures, irrespective of study design or quality. A financial capital indicator, financial constraints/payment for ARV medication, was more commonly associated with non-adherence (3/5 studies). A human capital indicator, educational level, was most commonly associated with adherence (11/20 studies). Discussion Additional better quality research examining livelihood security is required to inform provision of optimal supports for adherence and mitigation of the impacts of HIV/AIDS.

Barriers to participation in HIV drug trials: a systematic review

The enrolling of adequate participants into HIV experimental drug trials presents an important challenge. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify barriers and concerns amongst HIV patients to participation in HIV clinical drug trials. We reviewed studies for validity and content, and generated pooled estimates of the frequency with which patients identified particular issues by pooling across studies that presented results as proportions. We included three semi-structured interview studies, two open-ended questionnaires, and nine quantitative studies. Major barriers to participation included fear of side-effects, distrust of researchers, general concerns about research design, interference in everyday life or changes in routine, and social discrimination. Results from the quantitative studies indicated that the most prevalent barriers were as follows: suspicions about the drug itself (53%, 95% CI 24-83%), patients were not informed or believed they were not eligible (38%, 25-50%), and travel or transport obstacles (39%, 21-57%). The findings of this study should aid drug trialists in developing strategies to maximise participation and cooperation in HIV clinical drug trials while adequately informing and protecting prospective participants.