The annual growth rate of biomarkers publications is consistently higher than non-biomarkers publications, showing the growth in biomarkers research. From 20 years of systematic review publications indexed in PubMed, we identified a GW4869 concentration bias in systematic reviews against
the inclusion of biomarker-based RCTs.
Conclusions: With the realisation of genome-based personalised medicine, biomarkers are becoming important for clinical decision making. The bias against the inclusion of biomarkers in systematic reviews leads to medical practitioners deprive of important information they require to address clinical questions. Sparse or weak evidence and lack of genetic training for systematic reviewers may contribute to this trend.”
“BACKGROUND: Most cases with anti-tuberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity (ATDH) have been attributed to isoniazid.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the polymorphisms of the cytochrome P450 2EI (CYP2E1) and N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) gene are associated
with ATDH.
DESIGN: A total of 140 tuberculosis (TB) patients without liver diseases before treatment who received anti-tuberculosis treatment were followed prospectively. Their CYP2E1 LDK378 and NAT2 genotypes were determined using the TaqMan polymerase chain reaction assay.
RESULTS: Forty-five (32.1%) patients were diagnosed with ATDH. No significant differences were reported in age and sex between patients with and without ATDH. Slow acetylators defined by NAT2 genotypes had a higher risk of hepatotoxicity
than rapid acetylators (51.2% vs. 25.2%, P = 0.0026). Odds ratio (OR) analysis showed that slow acetylator status (OR 3.15, 95%CI 1.47-6.48) was the only independent risk factor for ATDH. Pyrazinamide co-administration induced hepatitis was also associated with NAT2 acetylator status. CYP2E1 c1/c1 homozygotes are prone to developing more severe hepatotoxicity than other c1/c2 selleck inhibitor and c2/c2 genotypes.
CONCLUSION: The slow acetylator status of NAT2 is a significant susceptibility risk factor for ATDH. CYP2E1 is associated with the severity of ATDH.”
“Background: In Australia telephone surveys have been the method of choice for ongoing jurisdictional population health surveys. Although it was estimated in 2011 that nearly 20% of the Australian population were mobile-only phone users, the inclusion of mobile phone numbers into these existing landline population health surveys has not occurred. This paper describes the methods used for the inclusion of mobile phone numbers into an existing ongoing landline random digit dialling (RDD) health survey in an Australian state, the New South Wales Population Health Survey (NSWPHS). This paper also compares the call outcomes, costs and the representativeness of the resultant sample to that of the previous landline sample.