Transplant Recipients and Anal Neoplasia Study: Design, Methods, and Participant Characteristics of a Prevalence Study.

Kidney recipients have anal cancer rates 3 times higher than the general population in Australia and New Zealand. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes are implicated in the majority of anal cancers. Establishing the epidemiology of anal HPV infection and precursors of anal cancer in transplant recipient populations is 1 consideration in any potential screening program. The Transplant and Anal Neoplasia Study is a cross-sectional study of the prevalence of anal cytological abnormalities and HPV deoxyribonucleic acid in kidney transplant recipients, as well as evaluating the acceptability of an anal cancer screening intervention. The study aims to recruit 100 kidney transplant recipients, older than 18 years, in Australia. Transplant recipients attending for a protocol biopsy at 3 and 12 months and annually posttransplant are approached to participate. Participants undergo an anal swab, which is then analyzed using liquid-based cytological examination and tested for the detection of 37 anogenital HPV deoxyribonucleic acid genotypes. Participants also complete a demographic and behavioral questionnaire that covers sexual behavior, history of anal symptoms, and possible anal cancer risk factors. Associations will be tested using multiple regression analysis. Recruitment for the study began in 2015 and is ongoing. To date, 96 (77%) of 125 kidney transplant recipients approached have consented to the study. The mean age is 48 (median, 47 y; range, 20-76 y), 59% are male, and Northwest European (58%) represented the largest ethnic group. No participants self-identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. High consent rates and positive qualitative results suggest that a larger screening program may be well received by kidney transplant recipients, with increased resources and some modification to the timing of approach. Further results of the study will inform the possible implementation of a larger screening trial for prevention of anal cancers in kidney and other solid organ transplant recipients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common and costly condition to treat. Economic evaluations of health care often incorporate patient preferences for health outcomes using utilities. The objective of this study was to determine pooled utility-based quality of life (the numerical value attached to the strength of an individual's preference for a specific health outcome) by CKD treatment modality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of peer-reviewed published articles and of PhD dissertations published through 1 December 2010 that reported utility-based quality of life (utility) for adults with late-stage CKD. Studies reporting utilities by proxy (e.g., reported by a patient's doctor or family member) were excluded. In total, 190 studies reporting 326 utilities from over 56,000 patients were analysed. There were 25 utilities from pre-treatment CKD patients, 226 from dialysis patients (haemodialysis, n = 163; peritoneal dialysis, n = 44), 66 from kidney transplant patients, and three from patients treated with non-dialytic conservative care. Using time tradeoff as a referent instrument, kidney transplant recipients had a mean utility of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.90). The mean utility was comparable in pre-treatment CKD patients (difference  =  -0.02; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.04), 0.11 lower in dialysis patients (95% CI: -0.15, -0.08), and 0.2 lower in conservative care patients (95% CI: -0.38, -0.01). Patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis had a significantly higher mean utility (0.80) than those on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (0.72; p = 0.02). The mean utility of transplant patients increased over time, from 0.66 in the 1980s to 0.85 in the 2000s, an increase of 0.19 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.26). Utility varied by elicitation instrument, with standard gamble producing the highest estimates, and the SF-6D by Brazier et al., University of Sheffield, producing the lowest estimates. The main limitations of this study were that treatment assignments were not random, that only transplant had longitudinal data available, and that we calculated EuroQol Group EQ-5D scores from SF-36 and SF-12 health survey data, and therefore the algorithms may not reflect EQ-5D scores measured directly. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with late-stage CKD, treatment with dialysis is associated with a significant decrement in quality of life compared to treatment with kidney transplantation. These findings provide evidence-based utility estimates to inform economic evaluations of kidney therapies, useful for policy makers and in individual treatment discussions with CKD patients.

Perioperative epidural steroids for lumbar spine surgery in degenerative spinal disease. A review.

OBJECT: This systematic review assesses the efficacy of epidural steroids on adults undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative spinal disease. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched for relevant articles. Search terms included "laminectomy," "discectomy," and "steroid." Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing lumbar spinal surgery for degenerative spinal disease were included. The main outcomes were pain, quality of life, total analgesic agent consumption, postoperative length of hospital stay, the ability to return to full-time work, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twelve trials (involving 1053 patients) were included. Epidural steroids reduced back pain at 12-24 hours postoperatively (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.26, 95% CI -2.35 to -0.0.18, p = 0.02), and radicular pain at 1 week postoperatively (SMD -0.71, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.24, p = 0.003) and 1-2 months postoperatively (SMD -2.14, 95% CI -3.47 to -0.81, p = 0.002). Epidural steroids decreased postoperative consumption of analgesic agents (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.14, p = 0.002), length of stay (SMD -0.95, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.27, p = 0.006) and the risk of not returning to full-time work at 1 year (relative risk of 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.57, p = 0.0006). There was no significant difference in quality of life or in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that epidural steroids decrease pain in the short term and shorten length of stay in adults undergoing lumbar spinal surgery for degenerative spinal disease. Most of the evidence comes from studies without validated outcomes and that selectively report positive results. More research is required before establishing perioperative epidural steroids as an effective adjunct to surgery for reducing pain in the long term.

Efficacy and safety of bupropion for smoking cessation and reduction in schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of bupropion as an aid for smoking cessation in schizophrenia remain uncertain. AIMS: To summarise the current evidence for efficacy and safety of bupropion as treatment for nicotine dependence in schizophrenia. METHOD: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bupropion with placebo or alternative therapeutic control in adult smokers with schizophrenia. RESULTS: Twenty-one reports from seven RCTs were included. Biochemically verified self-reported smoking cessation rates after bupropion were significantly higher than placebo at the end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 2.57, P = 0.004) and at 6 months (RR = 2.78, P = 0.05). Expired carbon monoxide level was significantly lower with bupropion at the end of therapy (P = 0.002) but not at 6 months (P = 0.37). There was no significant difference in positive (P = 0.28) or negative symptoms (P = 0.49) between the bupropion and the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion increases the rates of smoking abstinence in smokers with schizophrenia, without jeopardising their mental state.