Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies

OBJECTIVES: There is concern regarding the possible health effects of cellular telephone use. We examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies of controlled exposure to radiofrequency radiation with health-related outcomes (electroencephalogram, cognitive or cardiovascular function, hormone levels, symptoms, and subjective well-being). DATA SOURCES: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and a specialist database in February 2005 and scrutinized reference lists from relevant publications. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on the source of funding, study design, methodologic quality, and other study characteristics were extracted. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one statistically significant association between the exposure and a health-related outcome. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding (including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78), compared with studies funded by public agencies or charities. This finding was not materially altered in analyses adjusted for the number of outcomes reported, study quality, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to monitor adults on antiretroviral treatment: a combined analysis of three mathematical models

Background: WHO's 2013 revisions to its Consolidated Guidelines on antiretroviral drugs recommend routine viral load monitoring, rather than clinical or immunological monitoring, as the preferred monitoring approach on the basis of clinical evidence. However, HIV programmes in resource-limited settings require guidance on the most cost-effective use of resources in view of other competing priorities such as expansion of antiretroviral therapy coverage. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative patient monitoring strategies. Methods: We evaluated a range of monitoring strategies, including clinical, CD4 cell count, and viral load monitoring, alone and together, at different frequencies and with different criteria for switching to second-line therapies. We used three independently constructed and validated models simultaneously. We estimated costs on the basis of resource use projected in the models and associated unit costs; we quantified impact as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. We compared alternatives using incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings: All models show that clinical monitoring delivers significant benefit compared with a hypothetical baseline scenario with no monitoring or switching. Regular CD4 cell count monitoring confers a benefit over clinical monitoring alone, at an incremental cost that makes it affordable in more settings than viral load monitoring, which is currently more expensive. Viral load monitoring without CD4 cell count every 6—12 months provides the greatest reductions in morbidity and mortality, but incurs a high cost per DALY averted, resulting in lost opportunities to generate health gains if implemented instead of increasing antiretroviral therapy coverage or expanding antiretroviral therapy eligibility. Interpretation: The priority for HIV programmes should be to expand antiretroviral therapy coverage, firstly at CD4 cell count lower than 350 cells per μL, and then at a CD4 cell count lower than 500 cells per μL, using lower-cost clinical or CD4 monitoring. At current costs, viral load monitoring should be considered only after high antiretroviral therapy coverage has been achieved. Point-of-care technologies and other factors reducing costs might make viral load monitoring more affordable in future. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO.