Edward J Mills

Effects of a mobile phone short message service on antiretroviral treatment adherence in Kenya (WelTel Kenya1): a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Mobile (cell) phone communication has been suggested as a method to improve delivery of health services. However, data on the effects of mobile health technology on patient outcomes in resource-limited settings are limited. We aimed to assess whether mobile phone communication between health-care workers and patients starting antiretroviral therapy in Kenya improved drug adherence and suppression of plasma HIV-1 RNA load. METHODS WelTel Kenya1 was a multisite randomised clinical trial of HIV-infected adults initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) in three clinics in Kenya. Patients were randomised (1:1) by simple randomisation with a random number generating program to a mobile phone short message service (SMS) intervention or standard care. Patients in the intervention group received weekly SMS messages from a clinic nurse and were required to respond within 48 h. Randomisation, laboratory assays, and analyses were done by investigators masked to treatment allocation; however, study participants and clinic staff were not masked to treatment. Primary outcomes were self-reported ART adherence (>95% of prescribed doses in the past 30 days at both 6 and 12 month follow-up visits) and plasma HIV-1 viral RNA load suppression (<400 copies per mL) at 12 months. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00830622. FINDINGS Between May, 2007, and October, 2008, we randomly assigned 538 participants to the SMS intervention (n=273) or to standard care (n=265). Adherence to ART was reported in 168 of 273 patients receiving the SMS intervention compared with 132 of 265 in the control group (relative risk [RR] for non-adherence 0·81, 95% CI 0·69-0·94; p=0·006). Suppressed viral loads were reported in 156 of 273 patients in the SMS group and 128 of 265 in the control group, (RR for virologic failure 0·84, 95% CI 0·71-0·99; p=0·04). The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve greater than 95% adherence was nine (95% CI 5·0-29·5) and the NNT to achieve viral load suppression was 11 (5·8-227·3). INTERPRETATION Patients who received SMS support had significantly improved ART adherence and rates of viral suppression compared with the control individuals. Mobile phones might be effective tools to improve patient outcome in resource-limited settings. FUNDING US Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

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.

Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Objective To investigate the association between treatment induced change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and total death, coronary heart disease death, and coronary heart disease events (coronary heart disease death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) adjusted for changes in low density lipoprotein cholesterol and drug class in randomised trials of lipid modifying interventions. Design Systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, Central, CINAHL, and AMED to October 2006 supplemented by contact with experts in the field. Study selection In teams of two, reviewers independently determined eligibility of randomised trials that tested lipid modifying interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk, reported high density lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality or myocardial infarctions separately for treatment groups, and treated and followed participants for at least six months. Data extraction and synthesis Using standardised, pre-piloted forms, reviewers independently extracted relevant information from each article. The change in lipid concentrations for each trial and the weighted risk ratios for clinical outcomes were calculated. Results The meta-regression analysis included 108 randomised trials involving 299 310 participants at risk of cardiovascular events. All analyses that adjusted for changes in low density lipoprotein cholesterol showed no association between treatment induced change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and risk ratios for coronary heart disease deaths, coronary heart disease events, or total deaths. With all trials included, change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol explained almost no variability (<1%) in any of the outcomes. The change in the quotient of low density lipoprotein cholesterol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol did not explain more of the variability in any of the outcomes than did the change in low density lipoprotein cholesterol alone. For a 10 mg/dl (0.26 mmol/l) reduction in low density lipoprotein cholesterol, the relative risk reduction was 7.2% (95% confidence interval 3.1% to 11%; P=0.001) for coronary heart disease deaths, 7.1% (4.5% to 9.8%; P<0.001) for coronary heart disease events, and 4.4% (1.6% to 7.2%; P=0.002) for total deaths, when adjusted for change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and drug class. Conclusions Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating high density lipoprotein cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths. The results support reduction in low density lipoprotein cholesterol as the primary goal for lipid modifying interventions.

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.

Validity of composite end points in clinical trials

Use of composite end points as the main outcome in randomised trials can hide wide differences in the individual measures. How should you apply the results to clinical practice? Improvements in medical care over the past two decades have decreased the frequency with which patients with common conditions such as myocardial infarction develop subsequent adverse events. Although welcome for patients, low event rates provide challenges for clinical investigators, who consequently require large sample sizes and long follow up to test the incremental benefits of new treatments. Clinical trialists have responded to these challenges by relying increasingly on composite end points, which capture the number of patients experiencing any one of several adverse events—for example, death, myocardial infarction, or hospital admission.1 Use of composite end points is usually justified by the assumption that the effect on each of the components will be similar and that patients will attach similar importance to each component.1 But this is not always the case. In this article we provide a strategy to interpret the results of clinical trials when investigators measure the effect of treatment on an aggregate of end points of varying importance. Consider a 76 year old man who has disabling angina despite taking β blockers, nitrates, aspirin, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, and a statin. His doctor suggests cardiac catheterisation and possible revascularisation. The patient is reluctant to have invasive management, and wonders how much benefit he might expect from surgery. The trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients (TIME) is relevant.2 The study randomised 301 patients aged 75 years or older with resistant angina to optimised drug treatment or cardiac catheterisation and possible revascularisation. Although the groups showed no difference in quality of life at 12 months, the frequency of a composite end point (death, non-fatal …

Life Expectancy of Persons Receiving Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Low-Income Countries: A Cohort Analysis From Uganda

BACKGROUND Little is known about the effect of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) on life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa. OBJECTIVE To estimate life expectancy of patients once they initiate cART in Uganda. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING Public sector HIV and AIDS disease-management program in Uganda. PATIENTS 22 315 eligible patients initiated cART during the study period, of whom 1943 were considered to have died. MEASUREMENTS All-cause mortality rates were calculated and abridged life tables were constructed and stratified by sex and baseline CD4 cell count status to estimate life expectancies for patients receiving cART. The average number of years remaining to be lived by patients who received cART at varying age categories was estimated. RESULTS After adjustment for loss to follow-up, crude mortality rates (deaths per 1000 person-years) ranged from 26.9 (95% CI, 25.4 to 28.5) in women to 43.9 (CI, 40.7 to 47.0) in men. For patients with a baseline CD4 cell count less than 0.050 × 10(9) cells/L, the mortality rate was 67.3 (CI, 62.1 to 72.9) deaths per 1000 person-years, whereas among persons with a baseline CD4 cell count of 0.250 × 10(9) cells/L or more, the mortality rate was 19.1 (CI, 16.0 to 22.7) deaths per 1000 person-years. Life expectancy at age 20 years for the overall cohort was 26.7 (CI, 25.0 to 28.4) additional years and at age 35 years was 27.9 (CI, 26.7 to 29.1) additional years. Life expectancy increased substantially with increasing baseline CD4 cell count. Similar trends are observed for older age groups. LIMITATIONS A small (6.4%) proportion of patients were lost to follow-up, and it was imputed that 30% of these patients had died. Few patients with a CD4 cell count greater than 0.250 × 10(9) cells/L initiated cART. CONCLUSION Ugandan patients receiving cART can expect an almost normal life expectancy, although there is considerable variability among subgroups of patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objective To explore the extent to which components of composite end points in randomised controlled trials vary in importance to patients, the frequency of events in the more and less important components, and the extent of variability in the relative risk reductions across components. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Cardiovascular randomised controlled trials published in the Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Circulation, European Heart Journal, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine, from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2003. Component end points of composite end points were categorised according to importance to patients as fatal, critical, major, moderate, or minor. Results Of 114 identified randomised controlled trials that included a composite end point of importance to patients, 68% (n=77) reported complete component data for the primary composite end point; almost all (98%; n=112) primary composite end points included a fatal end point. Of 84 composite end points for which component data were available, 54% (n=45) showed large or moderate gradients in both importance to patients and magnitude of effect across components. When analysed by categories of importance to patients, the most important components were associated with lower event rates in the control group (medians of 3.3-3.7% for fatal, critical, and major outcomes; 12.3% for moderate outcomes; and 8.0% for minor outcomes). Components of greater importance to patients were associated with smaller treatment effects than less important ones (relative risk reduction of 8% for death and 33% for components of minor importance to patients). Conclusion The use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials is frequently complicated by large gradients in importance to patients and in magnitude of the effect of treatment across component end points. Higher event rates and larger treatment effects associated with less important components may result in misleading impressions of the impact of treatment.

Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis.

Networks of randomized clinical trials can be evaluated in the context of a network meta-analysis, a procedure that permits inferences into the comparative effectiveness of interventions that may or may not have been evaluated directly against each other. This approach is quickly gaining popularity among clinicians and guideline decision makers. However, certain methodological aspects are poorly understood. Here, we explain the geometry of a network, statistical and conceptual heterogeneity and incoherence, and challenges in the application and interpretation of data synthesis. These concepts are essential to make sense of a network meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundSmoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (~3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons.ResultsWe identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55–1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60–1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37–1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41–1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77–2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10–2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72–2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20–6.42).Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12–4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65–5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22–2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16–2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17–2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22–2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies.ConclusionNRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.