Public & patient involvement to guide research in wound care in an Irish context. A round table report.

BACKGROUND: To date, research into interventions to promote wound healing has been led by scientists, clinicians, industry and academics, each with their own particular area of interest. However, the real experts in this area are the people who live with wounds and their families and heretofore their voice has not influenced or shaped the research agenda. AIM: This event aimed to seek patient and carer involvement as experts due to their lived experience in wounds through a partnership approach to identify research priorities and address a lack of patient and carer involvement in wound care research. METHODS: A roundtable discussion format guided by the Scottish Health Council Participation Toolkit Supporting Patient Focus and Public Involvement in NHS Scotland was utilised. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 - Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) guided the reporting process. RESULTS: Key areas for future research were identified and included; Patients and carers prioritised the establishment of support groups and the development of educational resources. Research priorities that emerged included understanding the impact of wounds, pain management, addressing educational needs and quantifying the financial burden on patients and carers of living with a wound. CONCLUSIONS: A key conclusion from this roundtable was that patients and their carers expressed a strong interest in further wound care related public and patient involvement events and identified areas for future research.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of perinatal antiretroviral therapies for HIV-infected women and their children: Systematic review and network meta-analysis including different study designs.

BACKGROUND: Nearly all newly infected children acquire Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) via mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) during pregnancy, labour or breastfeeding from untreated HIV-positive mothers. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the standard care for pregnant women with HIV. However, evidence of ART effectiveness and harms in infants and children of HIV-positive pregnant women exposed to ART has been largely inconclusive. The aim of our systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of ART drugs in children exposed to maternal HIV and ART (or no ART/placebo) across different study designs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception until December 7, 2015). Primary outcomes were any congenital malformations (CMs; safety), including overall major and minor CMs, and mother-to-child transmission (MTCT; effectiveness). Random-effects Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs were conducted. After screening 6,468 citations and 1,373 full-text articles, 90 studies of various study designs and 90,563 patients were included. RESULTS: The NMA on CMs (20 studies, 7,503 children, 16 drugs) found that none of the ART drugs examined here were associated with a significant increase in CMs. However, zidovudine administered with lamivudine and indinavir was associated with increased risk of preterm births, zidovudine administered with nevirapine was associated with increased risk of stillbirths, and lamivudine administered with stavudine and efavirenz was associated with increased risk of low birth weight. A NMA on MTCT (11 studies, 10,786 patients, 6 drugs) found that zidovudine administered once (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.19-0.83) or twice (OR = 0.43, 95% CrI: 0.21-0.68) was associated with significantly reduced risk of MTCT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ART drugs are not associated with an increased risk of CMs, yet some may increase adverse birth events. Some ART drugs (e.g., zidovudine) effectively reduce MTCT.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Cognitive Enhancers for Treating Alzheimer's Disease: Systematic Review and Network Metaanalysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: Systematic review and Bayesian network metaanalysis (NMA). SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Ageline (inception-March 2016). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with AD in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and nonrandomized studies. INTERVENTION: Any combination of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine. MEASUREMENTS: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts; abstracted data; and appraised risk of bias. RESULTS: Twenty thousand three hundred forty-three citations were screened, and 142 studies were included (110 RCTs, 21 non-RCTs, 11 cohort studies). NMA found that donepezil (Mini-Mental State Examination: mean difference (MD) = 1.39, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.53-2.24), donepezil+memantine (2.59, 95% CrI = 0.12-4.98), and transdermal rivastigmine (2.02, 95% CrI = 0.02-4.08) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive: MD = -3.29, 95% CrI = -4.57 to -1.99) and galantamine (MD = -2.13, 95% CrI = -3.91 to -0.27) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil+memantine (MD = -5.23, 95% CrI = -8.72 to -1.56) improved behavior more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (MD = -0.32, 95% CrI = -0.46 to -0.19), donepezil+memantine (MD = -0.57, 95% CrI = -0.95 to -0.21), oral rivastigmine (MD = -0.38, 95% CrI = -0.56 to -0.17), and galantamine (MD = -3.79, 95% CrI = -6.98 to -0.59) improved global status more than placebo. NMA found that galantamine decreased the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.36-0.87). No agent increased risk of serious adverse events, falls, or bradycardia. Some increased risk of headache (oral rivastigmine), diarrhea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil), nausea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine), and vomiting (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine). CONCLUSION: An exhaustive review of the literature involving 142 studies demonstrated that cognitive enhancers in general have minimal effects on cognition according to minimal clinically important difference and global ratings. The drugs appear safe, but this must be interpreted cautiously because trial participants may have less comorbidity and fewer adverse effects than those treated with these drugs in clinical practice.