STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence, the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) studies initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

The CONSORT statement checklist in allergen-specific immunotherapy: a GA2LEN paper

The methodology of randomized clinical trials is essential for the critical assessment and registration of therapeutic interventions. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was developed to alleviate the problems arising from the inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The present article reflects on the items that we believe should be included in the CONSORT checklist in the context of conducting and reporting trials in allergen-specific immunotherapy. Only randomized, blinded (in particular blinding of patients, health care providers, and outcome assessors), placebo-controlled Phase III studies in this article. Our analysis focuses on the definition of patients' inclusion and exclusion criteria, allergen standardization, primary, secondary and exploratory outcomes, reporting of adverse events and analysis.

Tuberculosis in antiretroviral treatment programs in lower income countries: availability and use of diagnostics and screening

OBJECTIVES In resource-constrained settings, tuberculosis (TB) is a common opportunistic infection and cause of death in HIV-infected persons. TB may be present at the start of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but it is often under-diagnosed. We describe approaches to TB diagnosis and screening of TB in ART programs in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS We surveyed ART programs treating HIV-infected adults in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America in 2012 using online questionnaires to collect program-level and patient-level data. Forty-seven sites from 26 countries participated. Patient-level data were collected on 987 adult TB patients from 40 sites (median age 34.7 years; 54% female). Sputum smear microscopy and chest radiograph were available in 47 (100%) sites, TB culture in 44 (94%), and Xpert MTB/RIF in 23 (49%). Xpert MTB/RIF was rarely available in Central Africa and South America. In sites with access to these diagnostics, microscopy was used in 745 (76%) patients diagnosed with TB, culture in 220 (24%), and chest X-ray in 688 (70%) patients. When free of charge culture was done in 27% of patients, compared to 21% when there was a fee (p = 0.033). Corresponding percentages for Xpert MTB/RIF were 26% and 15% of patients (p = 0.001). Screening practices for active disease before starting ART included symptom screening (46 sites, 98%), chest X-ray (38, 81%), sputum microscopy (37, 79%), culture (16, 34%), and Xpert MTB/RIF (5, 11%). CONCLUSIONS Mycobacterial culture was infrequently used despite its availability at most sites, while Xpert MTB/RIF was not generally available. Use of available diagnostics was higher when offered free of charge.

Frequency of patient-reported infections among sicker adults in high-income countries: an international perspective

The frequency of patient-reported health care-associated infections across several high-income countries was analyzed in representative population samples based on data from "The Commonwealth Fund's 2011 International Survey of Sicker Adults in Eleven countries." Across countries, 8.9% of patients who were hospitalized and/or had surgery reported an infection, but this rate varied considerably from 5.3% in the United States to 11.9% in New Zealand. Patients who reported infection were more likely to rate the quality of medical care received as fair or poor (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-3.1, P < .001). Female sex (OR, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0-1.5, P = .027), reporting 2 or more chronic conditions (OR, 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-2.0, P = .004), poor health (OR, 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.1, P < .001), and surgery (OR, 1.8; 95% CI: 1.4-2.3, P < .001) were significant predictors for health care-associated infection across countries. Being above 64 years of age (OR, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.95, P = .013) and day-surgery (OR, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48-0.79, P < .001) decreased the likelihood for reporting infection.

Risk of tuberculosis following HIV seroconversion in high-income countries

Background Few data exist on tuberculosis (TB) incidence according to time from HIV seroconversion in high-income countries and whether rates following initiation of a combination of antiretroviral treatments (cARTs) differ from those soon after seroconversion. Methods Data on individuals with well estimated dates of HIV seroconversion were used to analyse post-seroconversion TB rates, ending at the earliest of 1 January 1997, death or last clinic visit. TB rates were also estimated following cART initiation, ending at the earliest of death or last clinic visit. Poisson models were used to examine the effect of current and past level of immunosuppression on TB risk after cART initiation. Results Of 19 815 individuals at risk during 1982–1996, TB incidence increased from 5.89/1000 person-years (PY) (95% CI 3.77 to 8.76) in the first year after seroconversion to 10.56 (4.83 to 20.04, p=0.01) at 10 years. Among 11 178 TB-free individuals initiating cART, the TB rate in the first year after cART initiation was 4.23/1000 PY (3.07 to 5.71) and dropped thereafter, remaining constant from year 2 onwards averaging at 1.64/1000 PY (1.29 to 2.05). Current CD4 count was inversely associated with TB rates, while nadir CD4 count was not associated with TB rates after adjustment for current CD4 count, HIV-RNA at cART initiation. Conclusions TB risk increases with duration of HIV infection in the absence of cART. Following cART initiation, TB incidence rates were lower than levels immediately following seroconversion. Implementation of current recommendations to prevent TB in early HIV infection could be beneficial.

Immunodeficiency at the start of combination antiretroviral therapy in low-, middle-, and high-income countries

OBJECTIVE To describe the CD4 cell count at the start of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in low-income (LIC), lower middle-income (LMIC), upper middle-income (UMIC), and high-income (HIC) countries. METHODS Patients aged 16 years or older starting cART in a clinic participating in a multicohort collaboration spanning 6 continents (International epidemiological Databases to Evaluate AIDS and ART Cohort Collaboration) were eligible. Multilevel linear regression models were adjusted for age, gender, and calendar year; missing CD4 counts were imputed. RESULTS In total, 379,865 patients from 9 LIC, 4 LMIC, 4 UMIC, and 6 HIC were included. In LIC, the median CD4 cell count at cART initiation increased by 83% from 80 to 145 cells/μL between 2002 and 2009. Corresponding increases in LMIC, UMIC, and HIC were from 87 to 155 cells/μL (76% increase), 88 to 135 cells/μL (53%), and 209 to 274 cells/μL (31%). In 2009, compared with LIC, median counts were 13 cells/μL [95% confidence interval (CI): -56 to +30] lower in LMIC, 22 cells/μL (-62 to +18) lower in UMIC, and 112 cells/μL (+75 to +149) higher in HIC. They were 23 cells/μL (95% CI: +18 to +28 cells/μL) higher in women than men. Median counts were 88 cells/μL (95% CI: +35 to +141 cells/μL) higher in countries with an estimated national cART coverage >80%, compared with countries with <40% coverage. CONCLUSIONS Median CD4 cell counts at the start of cART increased 2000-2009 but remained below 200 cells/μL in LIC and MIC and below 300 cells/μL in HIC. Earlier start of cART will require substantial efforts and resources globally.