Explore the vast range of titles available.

The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

At global level, there are 37 million people infected with HIV and 115 million people with antibodies to hepatitis C virus (HCV). Little is known about the extent of HIV–HCV co-infection. We sought to characterise the epidemiology and burden of HCV co-infection in people living with HIV. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL+, POPLINE, Africa-wide Information, Global Health, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and WHO databases for studies measuring prevalence of HCV and HIV, published between Jan 1, 2002, and Jan 28, 2015. We included studies in HIV population samples of more than 50 individuals and recruited patients based on HIV infection status or other behavioural characteristics. We excluded editorials or reviews containing no primary data, samples of HCV or HIV–HCV co-infected individuals, or samples relying on self-reported infection status. We also excluded samples drawn from populations with other comorbidities or undergoing interventions that put them at increased risk of co-infection. Populations were categorised according to HIV exposure, with the regional burden of co-infection being derived by applying co-infection prevalence estimates to published numbers of HIV-infected individuals. We did a meta-analysis to estimate the odds of HCV in HIV-infected individuals compared with their HIV-negative counterparts. From 31 767 citations identified, 783 studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 902 estimates of the prevalence of HIV–HCV co-infection. In HIV-infected individuals, HIV–HCV co-infection was 2·4% (IQR 0·8–5·8) within general population samples, 4·0% (1·2–8·4) within pregnant or heterosexually exposed samples, 6·4% (3·2–10·0) in men who have sex with men (MSM), and 82·4% (55·2–88·5) in people who inject drugs (PWID). Odds of HCV infection were six times higher in people living with HIV (5·8, 95% CI 4·5–7·4) than their HIV-negative counterparts. Worldwide, there are approximately 2 278 400 HIV–HCV co-infections (IQR 1 271 300—4 417 000) of which 1 362 700 (847 700–1 381 800) are in PWID, equalling an overall co-infection prevalence in HIV-infected individuals of 6·2% (3·4–11·9). We noted a consistently higher HCV prevalence in HIV-infected individuals than HIV-negative individuals  across all risk groups and regions, but especially in PWID. This study highlights the importance of routine HCV testing in all HIV-infected individuals, but especially in PWID. There is also a need to improve country-level surveillance of HCV prevalence across different population groups in all regions. WHO.

Background. To understand regional burdens and inform delivery of health services, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of antiretroviral therapy (ART) on incidence of key opportunistic infections (OIs) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected adults in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods. Eligible studies describing the cumulative incidence of OIs and proportion on ART from 1990 to November 2013 were identified using multiple databases. Summary incident risks for the ART-naive period, and during and after the first year of ART, were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Summary estimates from ART subgroups were compared using meta-regression. The number of OI cases and associated costs averted if ART was initiated at a CD4 count ≥200 cells/μL were estimated using Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) country estimates and global average OI treatment cost per case. Results. We identified 7965 citations, and included 126 studies describing 491 608 HIV-infected persons. In ART-naive patients, summary risk was highest (>5%) for oral candidiasis, tuberculosis, herpes zoster, and bacterial pneumonia. The reduction in incidence was greatest for all OIs during the first 12 months of ART (range, 57%–91%) except for tuberculosis, and was largest for oral candidiasis, Pneumocystis pneumonia, and toxoplasmosis. Earlier ART was estimated to have averted 857 828 cases in 2013 (95% confidence interval [CI], 828 032–874 853), with cost savings of $46.7 million (95% CI, $43.8–$49.4 million). Conclusions. There was a major reduction in risk for most OIs with ART use in LMICs, with the greatest effect seen in the first year of treatment. ART has resulted in substantial cost savings from OIs averted.

Cryptococcal immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) may present as a clinical worsening or new presentation of cryptococcal disease after initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and is thought to be caused by recovery of cryptococcus-specific immune responses. We have reviewed reports of cryptococcal IRIS and have developed a consensus case definition specifically for paradoxical crytopcoccal IRIS in patients with HIV-1 and known cryptococcal disease before ART, and a separate definition for incident cryptococcosis developed during ART (termed ART-associated cryptococcosis), for which a proportion of cases are likely to be unmasking cryptococcal IRIS. These structured case definitions are intended to aid design of future clinical, epidemiological, and immunopathological studies of cryptococcal IRIS, to standardise diagnostic criteria, and to facilitate comparisons between studies. As for definitions of tuberculosis-associated IRIS, definitions for cryptococcal IRIS should be regarded as preliminary until further insights into the immunopathology of IRIS permit their refinement.

A large burden of undiagnosed hepatitis virus cases remains globally. Despite the 257 million people living with chronic hepatitis B virus infection, and 71 million with chronic viraemic HCV infection, most people with hepatitis remain unaware of their infection. Advances in rapid detection technology have created new opportunities for enhancing access to testing and care, as well as monitoring of treatment. This article examines a range of other technological innovations that can be leveraged to provide more affordable and simplified approaches to testing for HBV and HCV infection and monitoring of treatment response. These include improved access to testing through alternative sampling methods (use of dried blood spots, oral fluids, self-testing) and combination rapid diagnostic tests for detection of HIV, HBV and HCV infection; more affordable options for confirmation of virological infection (HBV DNA and HCV RNA) such as point-of-care molecular assays, HCV core antigen and multi-disease polyvalent molecular platforms that make use of existing centralised laboratory based or decentralised TB and HIV instrumentation for viral hepatitis testing; and finally health system improvements such as integration of laboratory services for procurement and sample transportation and enhanced data connectivity to support quality assurance and supply chain management.

Background Chronic Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection is characterised by the persistence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). Expanding HBV diagnosis and treatment programmes into low resource settings will require high quality but inexpensive rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in addition to laboratory-based enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect HBsAg. The purpose of this review is to assess the clinical accuracy of available diagnostic tests to detect HBsAg to inform recommendations on testing strategies in 2017 WHO hepatitis testing guidelines. Methods The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using 9 databases. Two reviewers independently extracted data according to a pre-specified plan and evaluated study quality. Meta-analysis was performed. HBsAg diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) was compared to enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and nucleic-acid test (NAT) reference standards. Subanalyses were performed to determine accuracy among brands, HIV-status and specimen type. Results Of the 40 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 33 compared RDTs and/or EIAs against EIAs and 7 against NATs as reference standards. Thirty studies assessed diagnostic accuracy of 33 brands of RDTs in 23,716 individuals from 23 countries using EIA as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% (95% CI: 89.1, 90.8) and 99.5% (95% CI: 99.4, 99.5) respectively, but accuracy varied widely among brands. Accuracy did not differ significantly whether serum, plasma, venous or capillary whole blood was used. Pooled sensitivity of RDTs in 5 studies of HIV-positive persons was lower at 72.3% (95% CI: 67.9, 76.4) compared to that in HIV-negative persons, but specificity remained high. Five studies evaluated 8 EIAs against a chemiluminescence immunoassay reference standard with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) and 98.4% (95% CI: 97.8, 98.8), respectively. Accuracy of both RDTs and EIAs using a NAT reference were generally lower, especially amongst HIV-positive cohorts. Conclusions HBsAg RDTs have good sensitivity and excellent specificity compared to laboratory immunoassays as a reference standard. Sensitivity of HBsAg RDTs may be lower in HIV infected individuals.

Background Although direct-acting antivirals can achieve sustained virological response rates greater than 90% in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infected persons, at present the majority of HCV-infected individuals remain undiagnosed and therefore untreated. While there are a wide range of HCV serological tests available, there is a lack of formal assessment of their diagnostic performance. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate he diagnostic accuracy of available rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and laboratory based EIA assays in detecting antibodies to HCV. Methods We used the PRISMA checklist and Cochrane guidance to develop our search protocol. The search strategy was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015023567). The search focused on hepatitis C, diagnostic tests, and diagnostic accuracy within eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, SCOPUS, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde and WHO Global Index Medicus. Studies were included if they evaluated an assay to determine the sensitivity and specificity of HCV antibody (HCV Ab) in humans. Two reviewers independently extracted data and performed a quality assessment of the studies using the QUADAS tool. We pooled test estimates using the DerSimonian-Laird method, by using the software R and RevMan. 5.3. Results A total of 52 studies were identified that included 52,673 unique test measurements. Based on five studies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of HCV Ab rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were 98% (95% CI 98-100%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%) compared to an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) reference standard. High HCV Ab RDTs sensitivity and specificity were observed across screening populations (general population, high risk populations, and hospital patients) using different reference standards (EIA, nucleic acid testing, immunoblot). There were insufficient studies to undertake subanalyses based on HIV co-infection. Oral HCV Ab RDTs also had excellent sensitivity and specificity compared to blood reference tests, respectively at 94% (95% CI 93-96%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%). Among studies that assessed individual oral RDTs, the eight studies revealed that OraQuick ADVANCE® had a slightly higher sensitivity (98%, 95% CI 97-98%) compared to the other oral brands (pooled sensitivity: 88%, 95% CI 84-92%). Conclusions RDTs, including oral tests, have excellent sensitivity and specificity compared to laboratory-based methods for HCV antibody detection across a wide range of settings. Oral HCV Ab RDTs had good sensitivity and specificity compared to blood reference standards.

Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) is a widely recognised complication of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but there are still limited data from resource-limited settings. Our objective was to characterize the incidence, clinical spectrum, risk factors and contribution to mortality of IRIS in two urban ART clinics in South Africa. 498 adults initiating ART in Durban, South Africa were followed prospectively for 24 weeks. IRIS diagnosis was based on consensus expert opinion, and classified by mode of presentation (paradoxical worsening of known opportunistic infection [OI] or unmasking of subclinical disease). 114 patients (22.9%) developed IRIS (36% paradoxical, 64% unmasking). Mucocutaneous conditions accounted for 68% of IRIS events, mainly folliculitis, warts, genital ulcers and herpes zoster. Tuberculosis (TB) accounted for 25% of IRIS events. 18/135 (13.3%) patients with major pre-ART OIs (e.g. TB, cryptococcosis) developed paradoxical IRIS related to the same OI. Risk factors for this type of IRIS were baseline viral load >5.5 vs. <4.5 log(10) (adjusted hazard ratio 7.23; 95% confidence interval 1.35-38.76) and ≤30 vs. >30 days of OI treatment prior to ART (2.66; 1.16-6.09). Unmasking IRIS related to major OIs occurred in 25/498 patients (5.0%), and risk factors for this type of IRIS were baseline C-reactive protein ≥25 vs. <25 mg/L (2.77; 1.31-5.85), haemoglobin <10 vs. >12 g/dL (3.36; 1.32-8.52), ≥10% vs. <10% weight loss prior to ART (2.31; 1.05-5.11) and mediastinal lymphadenopathy on pre-ART chest x-ray (9.15; 4.10-20.42). IRIS accounted for 6/25 (24%) deaths, 13/65 (20%) hospitalizations and 10/35 (29%) ART interruptions or discontinuations. IRIS occurred in almost one quarter of patients initiating ART, and accounted for one quarter of deaths in the first 6 months. Priority strategies to reduce IRIS-associated morbidity and mortality in ART programmes include earlier ART initiation before onset of advanced immunodeficiency, improved pre-ART screening for TB and cryptococcal infection, optimization of OI therapy prior to ART initiation, more intensive clinical monitoring in initial weeks of ART, and education of health care workers and patients about IRIS.

Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection represents a major public health burden with diverse epidemics worldwide, but at present, only a minority of infected persons have been tested and are aware of their diagnosis. The advent of highly effective direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, which is becoming available at increasingly lower costs in low and middle income countries (LMICs), represents a major opportunity to expand access to testing and treatment. However, there is uncertainty as to the optimal testing approaches and who to prioritize for testing. We undertook a narrative review of the cost-effectiveness literature on different testing approaches for chronic hepatitis C infection to inform decision-making and formulation of recommendations in the 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) viral hepatitis testing guidelines. Methods We undertook a focused search and narrative review of the literature for cost effectiveness studies of testing approaches in three main groups:- 1) focused testing of specific high-risk groups (defined as those who are part of a population with higher seroprevalence or who have a history of exposure or high-risk behaviours); 2) “birth cohort” testing among easily identified age groups (i.e. specific birth cohorts) known to have a high prevalence of HCV infection; and 3) routine testing in the general population. Articles included were those published in PubMed, written in English and published after 2000. Results We identified 26 eligible studies. Twenty-four of them were from Europe ( n  = 14) or the United States ( n  = 10). There was only one study from a LMIC (Egypt) and this evaluated general population testing. Thirteen studies evaluated focused testing among specific groups at high risk for HCV infection, including nine in persons who inject drugs (PWID); five among people in prison, and one among HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM). Eight studies evaluated birth cohort testing, and five evaluated testing in the general population. Most studies were based on a one-time testing intervention, but in one study testing was undertaken every 5 years and in another among HIV-infected MSM there was more frequent testing. Comparators were generally either: 1) no testing, 2) the status quo, or 3) multiple different strategies. Overall, we found broad agreement that focused testing of high risk groups such as persons who inject drugs and men who have sex with men was cost-effective, as was birth cohort testing. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were the prevalence of HCV infection in these groups, efficacy and cost of treatment, stage of disease and linkage to care. The evidence for routine population testing was mixed, and the cost-effectiveness depends largely on the prevalence of HCV. Conclusions The evidence base for different HCV testing approaches in LMICs is limited, minimizing the contribution of cost-effectiveness data alone to decision-making and recommendations on testing approaches in the 2017 WHO viral hepatitis testing guidelines. Overall, the guidelines recommended focused testing in high risk-groups, particularly PWID, prisoners, and men who have sex with men; with consideration of two other approaches:- birth cohort testing in those countries with epidemiological evidence of a significant birth cohort effect; and routine access to testing across the general population in those countries with a high HCV seroprevalence above 2% - 5% in the general population. Further implementation research on different testing approaches is needed in order to help guide national policy planning.

Background The detection and quantification of hepatitis B (HBV) DNA and hepatitis C (HCV) RNA in whole blood collected on dried blood spots (DBS) may facilitate access to diagnosis and treatment of HBV and HCV infection in resource-poor settings. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of DBS compared to venous blood samples for detection and quantification of HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA in two systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of HBV DNA and HCV RNA from DBS compared to venous blood samples. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science, LILAC and Cochrane library for studies that assessed diagnostic accuracy with DBS. Heterogeneity was assessed and where appropriate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using bivariate analyses with maximum likelihood estimates and 95% confidence intervals. We also conducted a narrative review on the impact of varying storage conditions or different cut-offs for detection from studies that undertook this in a subset of samples. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess risk of bias. Results In the quantitative synthesis for diagnostic accuracy of HBV-DNA using DBS, 521 citations were identified, and 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall quality of studies was rated as low. The pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity for HBV-DNA was 95% (95% CI: 83–99) and 99% (95% CI: 53–100), respectively. In the two studies that reported on cut-offs and limit of detection (LoD) – one reported a sensitivity of 98% for a cut-off of ≥2000 IU/ml and another reported a LoD of 914 IU/ml using a commercial assay. Varying storage conditions for individual samples did not result in a significant variation of results. In the synthesis for diagnostic accuracy of HCV-RNA using DBS, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, and this included six additional studies to a previously published review. The pooled sensitivity and specificity was 98% (95% CI:95–99) and 98% (95% CI:95–99.0), respectively. Varying storage conditions resulted in a decrease in accuracy for quantification but not for reported positivity. Conclusions These findings show a high level of diagnostic performance for the use of DBS for HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA detection. However, this was based on a limited number and quality of studies. There is a need for development of standardized protocols by manufacturers on the use of DBS with their assays, as well as for larger studies on use of DBS conducted in different settings and with varying storage conditions.