PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted on 86 patients with T2DM who had been receiving metformin monotherapy for <1 year. Patients showing ≥0.5% reduction in HbA1c levels from baseline within 3 months and remained low for at least another 3 months were defined as responders while those patients with <0.5% reduction in HbA1c levels and/or those whom started a new class of glucose-lowering drug(s) because of unsatisfactory reduction were defined as non-responders. In addition, good glycemic control was observed when HbA1c ≤7.0%, and the above values were regarded as poor. Genotyping of rs72552763 SNP was performed using TaqMan® Drug Metabolism Enzyme Genotyping Assay and its association with metformin response and glycemic control were assessed by measuring the change in HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels using Chi-square, logistic regression and Mann-Whitney U-test. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05.
RESULTS: The minor allele frequency of the rs72552763 SNP of SLC22A1 was 9.3%. Metformin response was significantly higher in deletion_GAT (del_G) genotypes as compared to the wild-type GAT_GAT (G_G) genotypes. Furthermore, a significantly lower median treatment HbA1 level was found in del_G genotypes as compared to G_G genotypes. However, the association of rs72552763 with metformin response was not replicated at the allele level. In contrast, the minor del_allele was significantly associated with good glycemic control compared to the G_allele, though not replicated at del_G genotypes level.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that metformin response was significantly higher in study participants with a heterozygous carrier of M420del variants of SLC22A1 as compared to the wild-type G_G genotypes after 3 months of treatment.
METHODS: Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.
RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.
METHODS: Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports.
RESULTS: Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method.
RESULTS: A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4-6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Physicians who managed H. pylori eradication in daily practice across 10 Southeast Asian countries were invited to participate in an online questionnaire, which included questions about the local availability of antimicrobial susceptibility tests (ASTs) and their preferred eradication regimens in real-world practice. An empiric regimen was considered inappropriate if it did not follow the local guidelines/consensus, particularly if it contained antibiotics with a high reported resistance rate or was recommended not to be empirically used worldwide.
RESULTS: There were 564 valid responses, including 314 (55.7%) from gastroenterologists (GIs) and 250 (44.3%) from non-GI physicians. ASTs were unavailable in 41.7%. In countries with low and intermediate clarithromycin resistance, the most common first-line regimen was PAC (proton pump inhibitor [PPI], amoxicillin, clarithromycin) (72.7% and 73.2%, respectively). Regarding second-line therapy, the most common regimen was bismuth-based quadruple therapy, PBMT (PPI, bismuth, metronidazole, tetracycline) (50.0% and 59.8%, respectively), if other regimens were used as first-line treatment. Concomitant therapy (PPI, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole) (30.5% and 25.9%, respectively) and PAL (PPI, amoxicillin, levofloxacin) (22.7% and 27.7%, respectively) were favored if PBMT had been used as first-line treatment. In countries with high clarithromycin resistance, the most common first-line regimen was PBMT, but the utilization rate was only 57.7%. Alarmingly, PAC was prescribed in 27.8% of patients, ranking as the second most common regimen, and its prescription rate was higher in non-GI physicians than GI physicians (40.1% vs. 16.2%, p