A scoping review of human pathogens detected in untreated human wastewater and sludge.

Wastewater monitoring is an approach to identify the presence or abundance of pathogens within a population. The objective of this scoping review (ScR) was to identify and characterize research on human pathogens and antimicrobial resistance detected in untreated human wastewater and sludge. A search was conducted up to March 2023 and standard ScR methodology was followed. This ScR included 1,722 articles, of which 56.5% were published after the emergence of COVID-19. Viruses and bacteria were commonly investigated, while research on protozoa, helminths, and fungi was infrequent. Articles prior to 2019 were dominated by research on pathogens transmitted through fecal-oral or waterborne pathways, whereas more recent articles have explored the detection of pathogens transmitted through other pathways such as respiratory and vector-borne. There was variation in sampling, samples, and sample processing across studies. The current evidence suggests that wastewater monitoring could be applied to a range of pathogens as a public health tool to detect an emerging pathogen and understand the burden and spread of disease to inform decision-making. Further development and refinement of the methods to identify and interpret wastewater signals for different prioritized pathogens are needed to develop standards on when, why, and how to monitor effectively.

Transient elastography for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis, but its use as a diagnostic tool is limited by its invasive nature and high cost. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of transient elastography (TE) with and without controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis or steatosis in patients with hepatitis B, hepatitis C, alcoholic liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. METHODS: An economic literature search was performed. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews, health technology assessments or economic evaluations of TE compared to liver biopsy and other non-invasive tests. After abstract screening, full-text reports of potentially relevant articles were assessed in duplicate. The methodological quality of the included studies was also appraised. RESULTS: The database search yielded 253 records; four cost-effectiveness and four cost-utility studies were included. The methodological quality of the included studies varies. High-quality cost-effectiveness studies not only suggested that TE is less costly but also less accurate than liver biopsy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of TE improves with a greater level of diagnostic accuracy and a higher degree of liver fibrosis. High-quality cost-utility studies indicated that TE is a cost-effective alternative to biopsy with ICER between $9000 and $14 000 per QALY for patients with hepatitis C. We did not find studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of TE with CAP for the diagnosis of liver steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: Transient elastography is an economically attractive alternative to liver biopsy and other non-invasive diagnostic tests especially for patients with a higher degree of liver fibrosis.

Clinical Practice Recommendations for the Management and Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Hearing Loss Using Pharmacogenetic Markers.

Currently no pharmacogenomics-based criteria exist to guide clinicians in identifying individuals who are at risk of hearing loss from cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This review summarizes findings from pharmacogenomic studies that report genetic polymorphisms associated with cisplatin-induced hearing loss and aims to (1) provide up-to-date information on new developments in the field, (2) provide recommendations for the use of pharmacogenetic testing in the prevention, assessment, and management of cisplatin-induced hearing loss in children and adults, and (3) identify knowledge gaps to direct and prioritize future research. These practice recommendations for pharmacogenetic testing in the context of cisplatin-induced hearing loss reflect a review and evaluation of recent literature, and are designed to assist clinicians in providing optimal clinical care for patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Evidence brief on facilitators, barriers and hesitancy of COVID-19 booster doses in Canada.

Background: Understanding the facilitators, barriers and hesitancy to accepting COVID-19 booster doses is important for encouraging recommended vaccination. This evidence brief summarizes literature on the intention to accept or reject COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and the factors associated with intention/uptake among individuals in Canada. Methods: A database of COVID-19 literature established at the Public Health Agency of Canada was searched for articles referencing vaccination and knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards COVID-19 boosters. A grey literature search of Canadian governmental and academic institutions was also conducted. Primary research conducted in Canada (n=21) and relevant systematic reviews of the global literature (n=8) were included in this evidence brief. Results: Intentions to get a booster dose in the general population have decreased between 2021-2023, with intentions varying across subpopulations. In Canada and within the global systematic reviews, facilitators, barriers and hesitancy were similar. Older age was the most common factor positively associated with intention/uptake of a booster, and the most common motivators were government/healthcare provider recommendations and helping to protect others. The main reasons for hesitancy were concerns about vaccine side effects and a lack of belief in the vaccine's efficacy. Conclusion: Intentions to get a booster dose have decreased in Canada. Understanding the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and motivators for obtaining a booster can help guide future public health COVID-19 booster vaccination programs.

An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency.

BACKGROUND: Preprints are scientific articles that have not undergone the peer-review process. They allow the latest evidence to be rapidly shared, however it is unclear whether they can be confidently used for decision-making during a public health emergency. This study aimed to compare the data and quality of preprints released during the first four months of the 2022 mpox outbreak to their published versions. METHODS: Eligible preprints (n = 76) posted between May to August 2022 were identified through an established mpox literature database and followed to July 2024 for changes in publication status. Quality of preprints and published studies was assessed by two independent reviewers to evaluate changes in quality, using validated tools that were available for the study design (n = 33). Tools included the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2); and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. The questions in each tool led to an overall quality assessment of high quality (no concerns with study design, conduct, and/or analysis), moderate quality (minor concerns) or low quality (several concerns). Changes in data (e.g. methods, outcomes, results) for preprint-published pairs (n = 60) were assessed by one reviewer and verified by a second. RESULTS: Preprints and published versions that could be evaluated for quality (n = 25 pairs) were mostly assessed as low quality. Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality, while some diagnostic test accuracy studies (3/5) improved or worsened their quality assessment scores. Among all pairs (n = 60), outcomes were often added in the published version (58%) and less commonly removed (18%). Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the minimal changes in quality, results and main conclusions from preprint to published versions supports the use of preprints, and the use of the same critical evaluation tools on preprints as applied to published studies, in decision-making during a public health emergency.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among adults: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: This overview of reviews aims to identify evidence on the benefits (i.e. tobacco use abstinence and reduction in smoking frequency) and harms (i.e. possible adverse events/outcomes) of smoking cessation interventions among adults aged 18 years and older. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the CADTH Health Technology Assessment Database and several other websites for grey literature. Searches were conducted on November 12, 2018, updated on September 24, 2020, with publication years 2008 to 2020. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening considering pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessments were initially completed by two reviewers independently (i.e. 73% of included studies (n = 22)) using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR 2), and the remainder done by one reviewer and verified by another due to resources and feasibility. The application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another. RESULTS: A total of 22 Cochrane systematic reviews evaluating the impact of smoking cessation interventions on outcomes such as tobacco use abstinence, reduction in smoking frequency, quality of life and possible adverse events were included. Pharmaceutical (i.e. varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion) and behavioural interventions (i.e. physician advice, non-tailored print-based self-help materials, stage-based individual counselling, etc.) showed to have increased smoking cessation; whereas, data for mobile phone-based interventions including text messaging, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, continuous auricular stimulation, laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe), interactive voice response systems and other combination treatments were unclear. Considering harms related to smoking cessation interventions, small/mild harms (i.e. increased palpitations, chest pain, nausea, insomnia, headache) were observed following NRT, varenicline and cytisine use. There were no data on harms related to behavioural therapies (i.e. individual or group counselling self-help materials, internet interventions), combination therapies or other therapies (i.e. laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, SAMe). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that pharmacological and behavioural interventions may help the general smoking population quit smoking with observed small/mild harms following NRT or varenicline. Consequently, evidence regarding ideal intervention strategies and the long-term impact of these interventions for preventing smoking was unclear. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018099691.

COVID-19 literature surveillance-A framework to manage the literature and support evidence-based decision-making on a rapidly evolving public health topic.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a rapid surge of literature on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the wider impacts of the pandemic. Research on COVID-19 has been produced at an unprecedented rate, and the ability to stay on top of the most relevant evidence is top priority for clinicians, researchers, public health professionals and policymakers. This article presents a knowledge synthesis methodology developed and used by the Public Health Agency of Canada for managing and maintaining a literature surveillance system to identify, characterize, categorize and disseminate COVID-19 evidence daily. Methods: The Daily Scan of COVID-19 Literature project comprised a systematic process involving four main steps: literature search; screening for relevance; classification and summarization of studies; and disseminating a daily report. Results: As of the end of March 2022 there were approximately 300,000 COVID-19 and pandemic-related citations in the COVID-19 database, of which 50%-60% were primary research. Each day, a report of all new COVID-19 citations, literature highlights and a link to the updated database was generated and sent to a mailing list of over 200 recipients including federal, provincial and local public health agencies and academic institutions. Conclusion: This central repository of COVID-19 literature was maintained in real time to aid in accelerated evidence synthesis activities and support evidence-based decision-making during the pandemic response in Canada. This systematic process can be applied to future rapidly evolving public health topics that require the continuous evaluation and dissemination of evidence.

Tick exposures and alpha-gal syndrome: A systematic review of the evidence.

Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) refers to a delayed allergic reaction to galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-Gal) that occurs following the consumption of mammalian meat or exposure to other animal-based foods and products. Increasing evidence suggests that bites from certain tick species can lead to AGS through sensitization of a person's α-Gal specific IgE levels. This systematic review aimed to summarize the published evidence on this topic to understand post-tick exposure AGS epidemiology and health outcomes. A structured search for literature in eight bibliographic databases was conducted in January, 2020. Grey literature and verification searches were also performed. The exposure of interest was tick bites, and the outcome of interest was AGS. All primary research study designs were eligible for inclusion. References were screened for relevance, and data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were conducted on relevant studies by two independent reviewers. Data were descriptively and narratively summarized. Of 1390 references screened, 102 relevant articles (103 unique studies) were identified (published from 2009 to 2020). Most studies (76.7 %) were case report or series. These 79 studies reported on 236 post-tick exposure AGS cases from 20 different countries, mostly the United States (33.5 %), Spain (19.5 %), Sweden (18.6 %), and France (12.7 %). The mean case age was 51.3 (SD = 16.7, range 5-85, n = 229), while 68.1 % were male (n = 226). The most commonly reported symptom was urticaria (71.2 %); 51.7 % of cases reported anaphylaxis. Twenty-one observational studies were reported, mostly (95.2 %) among clinical allergy patients. The proportion of AGS cases that recalled tick bites was highly variable across these studies. Three challenge studies evaluating tick exposures and α-Gal levels in α-Gal deficient mice were identified. The existing evidence suggests tick bites lead to α-Gal-specific IgE sensitization, which can cause AGS, but further research is needed to clarify if AGS is only attributable to certain tick species and whether other vectors may trigger AGS. Additional research is needed on risk factors for AGS development, evaluation of diagnostic immunoassays, and the epidemiology and distribution of AGS in different populations. Climate change will likely lead to future cases of AGS in new regions worldwide due to the predicted alteration of suitable tick habitats.

Screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma and precancerous conditions (dysplasia and Barrett's esophagus) in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease with or without other risk factors: two systematic reviews and one overview of reviews to inform a guideline of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC).

BACKGROUND: Two reviews and an overview were produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) without alarm symptoms. The goal was to systematically review three key questions (KQs): (1) The effectiveness of screening for these conditions; (2) How adults with chronic GERD weigh the benefits and harms of screening, and what factors contribute to their preferences and decision to undergo screening; and (3) Treatment options for Barrett's esophagus (BE), dysplasia or stage 1 EAC (overview of reviews). METHODS: Bibliographic databases (e.g. Ovid MEDLINE®) were searched for each review in October 2018. We also searched for unpublished literature (e.g. relevant websites). The liberal accelerated approach was used for title and abstract screening. Two reviewers independently screened full-text articles. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer (KQ1 and 2). Quality assessments were completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate (KQ3). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We used various risk of bias tools suitable for study design. The GRADE framework was used for rating the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies evaluated the effectiveness of screening. One retrospective study reported no difference in long-term survival (approximately 6 to 12 years) between those who had a prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy and those who had not (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.50). Though there may be higher odds of a stage 1 diagnosis than a more advanced diagnosis (stage 2-4) if an EGD had been performed in the previous 5 years (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.00-7.67). Seven studies compared different screening modalities, and showed little difference between modalities. Three studies reported on patients' unwillingness to be screened (e.g. due to anxiety, fear of gagging). Eleven systematic reviews evaluated treatment modalities, providing some evidence of early treatment effect for some outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Little evidence exists on the effectiveness of screening and values and preferences to screening. Many treatment modalities have been evaluated, but studies are small. Overall, there is uncertainty in understanding the effectiveness of screening and early treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO (CRD42017049993 [KQ1], CRD42017050014 [KQ2], CRD42018084825 [KQ3]).

Hepatic high-density lipoprotein secretion regulates the mobilization of cell-surface hepatic lipase.

HDL acts much like heparin to liberate hepatic lipase (HL) from cell surface proteoglycans and stimulate triglyceride clearance. Experiments were undertaken to evaluate the effects of factors that stimulate the secretion of HDL from the liver on the release of HL. Treatment of HepG2 cells with linoleic acid phospholipids (LAPL) (12 muM) promotes a similar increase in the accumulation of both HDL and HL in the cell media. LAPL also induce both apoA-I and HL release from primary human hepatocytes. Dilinoleoylphosphatidylcholine has a greater effect on both apoA-I secretion and HL release than palmitoyllinoleoylphosphatidylcholine. HL released from HepG2 cells is inactive and associated with a large HDL complex containing both apoA-I and apoA-II. Inclusion of the PPARalpha inhibitor, MK-886, or MAPK inhibitor, U0126, completely blocks the LAPL-induced apoA-I and HL accumulation in the media. LAPL-treated cell lysates, however, showed no change in HL protein expression nor HL mRNA. LAPL-induced HL release appears to be a consequence of the displacement ability of newly secreted HDL. Overexpression of pre-pro-apoA-I in HepG2 cells increased HL release, while siRNA inhibition of the apoA-I gene reduced HL in the media. The data show that factors that stimulate HDL secretion in hepatocytes act to also increase the release of HL. This may partly explain why HDL therapeutics often impact plasma triglyceride levels.

The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review.

Plain English summary: With the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement?We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported. Background: Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181-94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587-8]. Since POR's inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal.We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials. Methods: The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included. Results: Of the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23) and 26% (6/23) of trials; respectively. Engagement was identified in the development of the research question, the selection of study outcomes, and the dissemination and implementation of results. Conclusions: The prevalence of patient engagement in patient-oriented interventional research is very poor with 23 trials reporting activities engaging patients. Research dedicated to determining the best practice for meaningful engagement is still needed, but adequate reporting measures also need to be defined.

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively. RESULTS: Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection. CONCLUSIONS: Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS: Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Effectiveness and safety of short-stay units in the emergency department: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Overcrowding is a serious and ongoing challenge in Canadian hospital emergency departments (EDs) that has been shown to have negative consequences for patient outcomes. The American College of Emergency Physicians recommends observation/short-stay units as a possible solution to alleviate this problem. However, the most recent systematic review assessing short-stay units shows that there is limited synthesized evidence to support this recommendation; it is over a decade old and has important methodologic limitations. The aim of this study was to conduct a more methodologically rigorous systematic review to update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of short-stay units, compared with usual care, on hospital and patient outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ABI/INFOM, and EconLit databases and gray literature sources. Randomized controlled trials of ED short-stay units (stay of 72 hours or less) were compared with usual care (i.e., not provided in a short-stay unit), for adult patients. Risk-of-bias assessments were conducted. Important decision-making (gradable) outcomes were patient outcomes, quality of care, utilization of and access to services, resource use, health system-related outcomes, economic outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: Ten reports of five studies were included, all of which compared short-stay units with inpatient care. Studies had small sample sizes and were collectively at a moderate risk of bias. Most outcomes were only reported by one study and the remaining outcomes were reported by two to four studies. No deaths were reported. Three of the four included studies reporting length of stay found a significant reduction among short-stay unit patients, and one of the two studies reporting readmission rates found a significantly lower rate for short-stay unit patients. All four economic evaluations indicated that short-stay units were a cost-saving intervention compared to inpatient care from both hospital and health care system perspectives. Results were mixed for outcomes related to quality of care and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists to make conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of short-stay units, compared with inpatient care.

The Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety: a model for safety pharmacology.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) rank as one of the top 10 leading causes of death in the developed world, and the direct medical costs of ADRs exceed $100 billion annually in the United States alone. Pharmacogenomics research seeks to identify genetic factors that are responsible for individual differences in drug efficacy and susceptibility to ADRs. This has led to several genetic tests that are currently being used to provide clinical recommendations. The Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety is a nation-wide effort established in Canada to identify novel predictive genomic markers of severe ADRs in children and adults. A surveillance network has been established in 17 of Canada's major hospitals to identify patients experiencing specific ADRs and to collect biological samples and relevant clinical history for genetic association studies. To identify ADR-associated genetic markers that could be incorporated into predictive tests that will reduce the occurrence of serious ADRs, high-throughput genomic analyses are conducted with samples from patients that have suffered serious ADRs and matched control patients. SUMMARY: ADRs represent a significant unmet medical problem with significant morbidity and mortality, and Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety is a nation-wide network in Canada that seeks to identify genetic factors responsible for interindividual differences in susceptibility to serious ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: Active ADR surveillance is necessary to identify and recruit patients who suffer from serious ADRs. National and international collaborations are required to recruit sufficient patients for these studies. Several pharmacogenomics tests are currently in clinical use to provide dosing recommendations, and the number of pharmacogenomics tests is expected to significantly increase in the future.