Explore the vast range of titles available.

Randomised placebo-controlled trials have shown that daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir–emtricitabine reduces the risk of HIV infection. However, this benefit could be counteracted by risk compensation in users of PrEP. We did the PROUD study to assess this effect. PROUD is an open-label randomised trial done at 13 sexual health clinics in England. We enrolled HIV-negative gay and other men who have sex with men who had had anal intercourse without a condom in the previous 90 days. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (245 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg) either immediately or after a deferral period of 1 year. Randomisation was done via web-based access to a central computer-generated list with variable block sizes (stratified by clinical site). Follow-up was quarterly. The primary outcomes for the pilot phase were time to accrue 500 participants and retention; secondary outcomes included incident HIV infection during the deferral period, safety, adherence, and risk compensation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN94465371) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02065986). We enrolled 544 participants (275 in the immediate group, 269 in the deferred group) between Nov 29, 2012, and April 30, 2014. Based on early evidence of effectiveness, the trial steering committee recommended on Oct 13, 2014, that all deferred participants be offered PrEP. Follow-up for HIV incidence was complete for 243 (94%) of 259 patient-years in the immediate group versus 222 (90%) of 245 patient-years in the deferred group. Three HIV infections occurred in the immediate group (1·2/100 person-years) versus 20 in the deferred group (9·0/100 person-years) despite 174 prescriptions of post-exposure prophylaxis in the deferred group (relative reduction 86%, 90% CI 64–96, p=0·0001; absolute difference 7·8/100 person-years, 90% CI 4·3–11·3). 13 men (90% CI 9–23) in a similar population would need access to 1 year of PrEP to avert one HIV infection. We recorded no serious adverse drug reactions; 28 adverse events, most commonly nausea, headache, and arthralgia, resulted in interruption of PrEp. We detected no difference in the occurrence of sexually transmitted infections, including rectal gonorrhoea and chlamydia, between groups, despite a suggestion of risk compensation among some PrEP recipients. In this high incidence population, daily tenofovir–emtricitabine conferred even higher protection against HIV than in placebo-controlled trials, refuting concerns that effectiveness would be less in a real-world setting. There was no evidence of an increase in other sexually transmitted infections. Our findings strongly support the addition of PrEP to the standard of prevention for men who have sex with men at risk of HIV infection. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Public Health England, and Gilead Sciences.

Although over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered globally, the issue of whether the optimal doses are being used has received little attention. To address this question we reviewed the reports of early-phase dose-finding trials of the nine COVID-19 vaccines approved by World Health Organization, extracting information on study design and findings on reactogenicity and early humoral immune response. The number of different doses evaluated for each vaccine varied widely (range 1–7), as did the number of subjects studied per dose (range 15–190). As expected, the frequency and severity of adverse reactions generally increased at higher doses, although most were clinically tolerable. Higher doses also tended to elicit better immune responses, but differences between the highest dose and the second-highest dose evaluated were small, typically less than 1.6-fold for both binding antibody concentration and neutralising antibody titre. All of the trials had at least one important design limitation – few doses evaluated, large gaps between adjacent doses, or an inadequate sample size – although this is not a criticism of the study investigators, who were working under intense time pressures at the start of the epidemic. It is therefore open to question whether the single dose taken into clinical efficacy trials, and subsequently authorised by regulatory agencies, was optimal. In particular, our analysis indicates that the recommended doses for some vaccines appear to be unnecessarily high. Although reduced dosing for booster injections is an active area of research, the priming dose also merits study. We conclude by suggesting improvements in the design of future vaccine trials, for both next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and for vaccines against other pathogens.

Background The classification of phase 3 trials as superiority or non-inferiority has become routine, and it is widely accepted that there are important differences between the two types of trial in their design, analysis and interpretation. Main text There is a clear rationale for the superiority/non-inferiority framework in the context of regulatory trials. The focus of our article is non-regulatory trials with a public health objective. First, using two examples from infectious disease research, we show that the classification of superiority or non-inferiority trials is not always straightforward. Second, we show that several arguments for different approaches to the design, analysis and interpretation of superiority and non-inferiority trials are unconvincing when examined in detail. We consider, in particular, the calculation of sample size (and the choice of delta or the non-inferiority margin), intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analyses, and one-sided versus two-sided confidence intervals. We argue that the superiority/non-inferiority framework is not just unnecessary but can have a detrimental effect, being a barrier to clear scientific thought and communication. In particular, it places undue emphasis on tests for significance or non-inferiority at the expense of estimation. We emphasise that these concerns apply to phase 3 non-regulatory trials in general, not just to those where the classification of the trial as superiority or non-inferiority is ambiguous. Conclusions Guidelines and statistical practice should abandon the sharp division between superiority and non-inferiority phase 3 non-regulatory trials and be more closely aligned to the clinical and public health questions that motivate the trial.

\"In space, size matters. Boomers. Ships of the Line. Star Destroyers. The bigger the ship, the better the bang. From the dawn of history onward, commanding the most powerful ship around has been a dream of admirals, sultans, emperors, kings, generalissimos, and sea captains everywhere. For what the intimidation factor alone doesn't achieve, a massive barrage from super-weapons probably will. Thus it was, and ever shall be, even into the distant future. From the oceans of Earth, to beneath the ice of Europa, to the distant reaches of galactic empires, it is the great warships and their crews that sometimes keep civilization safe for the rest of us -- but sometimes become an extinction-level event in and of themselves\"--Back cover.

Active-control trials, where an experimental treatment is compared with an established treatment, are performed when the inclusion of a placebo control group is deemed to be unethical. For time-to-event outcomes, the primary estimand is usually the rate ratio, or the closely-related hazard ratio, comparing the experimental group with the control group. In this article we describe major problems in the interpretation of this estimand, using examples from COVID-19 vaccine and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials. In particular, when the control treatment is highly effective, the rate ratio may indicate that the experimental treatment is clearly statistically inferior even when it is worthwhile from a public health perspective. We argue that it is crucially important to consider averted events as well as observed events in the interpretation of active-control trials. An alternative metric that incorporates this information, the averted events ratio, is proposed and exemplified. Its interpretation is simple and conceptually appealing, namely the proportion of events that would be averted by using the experimental treatment rather than the control treatment. The averted events ratio cannot be directly estimated from the active-control trial, and requires an additional assumption about either: (a) the incidence that would have been observed in a hypothetical placebo arm (the counterfactual incidence) or (b) the efficacy of the control treatment (relative to no treatment) that pertained in the active-control trial. Although estimation of these parameters is not straightforward, this must be attempted in order to draw rational inferences. To date, this method has been applied only within HIV prevention research, but has wider applicability to treatment trials and other disease areas.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has a prevalence rate of 7%-9% in the general population of children. However, in children with epilepsy, ADHD has been found to be present in 20%-50% of patients. This paper provides a review of ADHD prevalence in pediatric epilepsy populations and reviews data on specific symptom presentation and attention deficits in patients with epilepsy. This paper also reviews evidence-based treatments for ADHD and specifically the treatment of ADHD as a comorbid condition in children with epilepsy.

Background. Many studies of sexual behavior have shown that individuals vary greatly in their number of sexual partners over time, but it has proved difficult to obtain parameter estimates relating to the dynamics of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission except in small-scale contact tracing studies. Recent developments in molecular phylodynamics have provided new routes to obtain these parameter estimates, and current clinical practice provides suitable data for entire infected populations. Methods. A phylodynamic analysis was performed on partial pol gene sequences obtained for routine clinical care from 14 560 individuals, representing approximately 60% of the HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) under care in the United Kingdom. Results. Among individuals linked to others in the data set, 29% are linked to only 1 individual, 41% are linked to 2-10 individuals, and 29% are linked to ≥ 10 individuals. The right-skewed degree distribution can be approximated by a power law, but the data are best fitted by a Waring distribution for all time depths. For time depths of 5—7 years, the distribution parameter p lies within the range that indicates infinite variance. Conclusions. The transmission network among UK MSM is characterized by preferential association such that a randomly distributed intervention would not be expected to stop the epidemic.