Decentralisation, integration, and task-shifting in hepatitis C virus infection testing and treatment: a global systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing access to hepatitis C virus (HCV) care and treatment will require simplified service delivery models. We aimed to evaluate the effects of decentralisation and integration of testing, care, and treatment with harm-reduction and other services, and task-shifting to non-specialists on outcomes across the HCV care continuum. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, WHO Global Index Medicus, and conference abstracts for studies published between Jan 1, 2008, and Feb 20, 2018, that evaluated uptake of HCV testing, linkage to care, treatment, cure assessment, and sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) in people who inject drugs, people in prisons, people living with HIV, and the general population. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies with a sample size of ten or less for the largest denominator were excluded. Studies were categorised according to the level of decentralisation: full (testing and treatment at same site), partial (testing at decentralised site and referral elsewhere for treatment), or none. Task-shifting was categorised as treatment by specialists or non-specialists. Data on outcomes across the HCV care continuum (linkage to care, treatment uptake, and SVR12) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Our search identified 8050 reports, of which 132 met the eligibility criteria, and an additional ten reports were identified from reference citations and grey literature. Therefore, the final synthesis included 142 studies from 34 countries (20 [14%] studies from low-income and middle-income countries) and a total of 489 996 patients (239 446 [49%] from low-income and middle-income countries). Rates of linkage to care were higher with full decentralisation compared with partial or no decentralisation among people who inject drugs (full 72% [95% CI 57-85] vs partial 53% [38-67] vs none 47% [11-84]) and among people in prisons (full 94% [79-100] vs partial 50% [29-71]), although the CIs overlap for people who inject drugs. Similarly, treatment uptake was higher with full decentralisation compared with partial or no decentralisation (people who inject drugs: full 73% [65-80] vs partial 66% [55-77] vs none 35% [23-48]; people in prisons: full 72% [48-91] vs partial 39% [17-63]), although CIs overlap for full versus partial decentralisation. The results in the general population studies were more heterogeneous. SVR12 rates were high (≥90%) across different levels of decentralisation in all populations. Task-shifting of care and treatment to a non-specialist was associated with similar SVR12 rates to treatment delivered by specialists. There was a severe or critical risk of bias for 46% of studies, and heterogeneity across studies tended to be very high (I2>90%). INTERPRETATION: Decentralisation and integration of HCV care to harm-reduction sites or primary care showed some evidence of improved access to testing, linkage to care, and treatment, and task-shifting of care and treatment to non-specialists was associated with similarly high cure rates to care delivered by specialists, across a range of populations and settings. These findings provide support for the adoption of decentralisation and task-shifting to non-specialists in national HCV programmes. FUNDING: Unitaid.

Correction to: Cardiovascular Safety of Empagliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Comparisons.

The authors have updated Fig. 3 which was incorrectly published in the original publication.

The Ad-Hoc Uncertainty Principle of Patient Privacy.

The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) allows for the exchange of de-identified patient data, but its definition of de-identification is essentially open-ended, thus leaving the onus on dataset providers to ensure patient privacy. The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network (PCORnet) builds a de-identification approach into queries, but we have noticed various subtle problems with this approach. We censor aggregate counts below a threshold (i.e. <11) to protect patient privacy. However, we have found that thresholded numbers can at times be inferred, and some key numbers are not thresholded at all. Furthermore, PCORnet's approach of thresholding low counts introduces a selection bias which slants the data towards larger health care sites and their corresponding demographics. We propose a solution: instead of censoring low counts, introduce Gaussian noise to all aggregate counts. We describe this approach and the freely available tools we created for this purpose.

Cardiovascular Safety of Empagliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with glucose-lowering drugs and examining cardiovascular-related outcomes have yielded mixed results. In this work, we aimed to assess the relative treatment effects of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin and saxagliptin (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors) on cardiovascular-related outcomes in patients with T2DM. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify clinical trials assessing cardiovascular-related outcomes for sitagliptin-, saxagliptin-, and empagliflozin-treated patients with T2DM. A network meta-analysis of indirect treatment comparisons was conducted in a Bayesian framework. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were computed for six cardiovascular-related outcomes to estimate the relative efficacies of these agents. RESULTS: Empagliflozin showed a statistically significant superiority over saxagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46-0.80) and sitagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46-0.79) to reduce the risk for cardiovascular-related mortality. For all-cause mortality, empagliflozin showed a statistically significant risk reduction compared to saxagliptin (HR 0.61; 95% CrI 0.49-0.76) and sitagliptin (HR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.54-0.83). A similar pattern was observed in the risk reduction for hospitalization due to heart failure, where empagliflozin was found to be statistically significantly superior to saxagliptin (HR 0.51; 95% CrI 0.37-0.70) and sitagliptin (HR 0.65; 95% CrI 0.47-0.90). Empagliflozin was not statistically significantly different to sitagliptin and saxagliptin with regard to the risk of a composite endpoint composed of death, stroke or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: In this indirect comparison to the DPP-4 inhibitors saxagliptin and sitagliptin, empagliflozin significantly lowered the risk of cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH.