A systematic review of performance-enhancing pharmacologicals and biotechnologies in the Army

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, the Australian Army commissioned a systematic review to assess the evidence on effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and biotechnological products for cognitive enhancement specifically in Army personnel.

METHODS

Searches for studies examining biotechnological and pharmacological products in Army populations were conducted in December 2015. Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched without date or language restrictions. WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify ongoing trials. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated for risk of bias using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Due to heterogeneity of findings, meta-analysis could not be conducted. Findings were synthesised narratively and by vote-counting method.

RESULTS

Sixteen pharmacological enhancement products were evaluated in 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 1284 personnel. Only three of the studies were published since 2010. The interventions evaluated were varied, including supplements (eg, carbohydrate), stimulants (eg, caffeine) and hormones (eg, melatonin). Generally, caffeine provided an improvement in performance compared with placebo on 5/7 reported cognitive outcomes, followed by levothyroxine (four cognitive outcomes) and prazosin (three cognitive outcomes). Performance results were mixed (finding an improvement and no effect in comparison to placebo) for caffeine and melatonin on two outcomes. No evidence was found pertaining to biotechnological products. Studies rarely reported safety outcomes (eg, adverse events and addiction).

CONCLUSION

Findings from this review need to be interpreted with considerable caution. Future studies should include outcomes such as acute and long-term adverse events, and should evaluate cognitive performance using cognitive tests that are specific to the Army population.

Integrated knowledge translation: digging deeper, moving forward

BACKGROUND

Integrated knowledge translation has risen in popularity as a solution to the underuse of research in policy and practice settings. It engages knowledge users-policymakers, practitioners, patients/consumers or their advocates, and members of the wider public-in mutually beneficial research that can involve the joint development of research questions, data collection, analysis and dissemination of findings. Knowledge that is co-produced has a better chance of being implemented.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this paper is to update developments in the field of integrated knowledge translation through a deeper analysis of the approach in practice-oriented and policy-oriented health research. We present collaborative models that fall outside the scope of integrated knowledge translation, but then explore consensus-based approaches and networks as alternate sites of knowledge co-production. We discuss the need to advance the field through the development, or use, of data collection and interpretation tools that creatively engage knowledge users in the research process. Most importantly, conceptually relevant outcomes need to be identified, including ones that focus on team transformation through the co-production of knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

We explore some of these challenges and benefits in detail to help researchers understand what integrated knowledge translation means, and whether the approach's potential added value is worth the investment of time, energy and other resources.

Changing the environment to improve population health: a framework for considering exposure in natural experimental studies

There is renewed optimism regarding the use of natural experimental studies to generate evidence as to the effectiveness of population health interventions. Natural experimental studies capitalise on environmental and policy events that alter exposure to certain social, economic or environmental factors that influence health. Natural experimental studies can be useful for examining the impact of changes to ‘upstream’ determinants, which may not be amenable to controlled experiments. However, while natural experiments provide opportunities to generate evidence, they often present certain conceptual and methodological obstacles. Population health interventions that alter the physical or social environment are usually administered broadly across populations and communities. The breadth of these interventions means that variation in exposure, uptake and impact may be complex. Yet many evaluations of natural experiments focus narrowly on identifying suitable ‘exposed’ and ‘unexposed’ populations for comparison. In this paper, we discuss conceptual and analytical issues relating to defining and measuring exposure to interventions in this context, including how recent advances in technology may enable researchers to better understand the nature of population exposure to changes in the built environment. We argue that when it is unclear whether populations are exposed to an intervention, it may be advantageous to supplement traditional impact assessments with observational approaches that investigate differing levels of exposure. We suggest that an improved understanding of changes in exposure will assist the investigation of the impact of complex natural experiments in population health.

Effects of placebos without deception compared with no treatment: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Placebos have long provided a robust control for evaluating active pharmacological preparations, but frequently demonstrate a variable therapeutic effect when delivered in double-blinded placebo-controlled trials. Delivery of placebos as treatment alone has been considered unethical, as it has been thought that deception is essential for their effect. However, recent evidence suggests that clinical benefit can be derived from placebos delivered without deception (unblinded/open-label) manner. Here, we present a protocol for the first systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the effects of non-deceptive placebos compared with no treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol will compare the effect of placebos delivered non-deceptively to no treatment. It will also assess the methods of delivery used for non-deceptive placebos. Studies will be sought through relevant database searches and will include those within disease settings and those among healthy controls. To be included, trials must include both non-deceptive (open-label) placebo and no treatment groups. All data extraction and analysis will be conducted by two independent reviewers. The analysis will evaluate any differences in outcome measures between the non-deceptive placebo and no treatment groups. Outcome measures will be the clinically-relevant outcomes detailed in the primary papers. The delivery methods, such as verbal instructions, which may provide positive expectations and outcomes, of non-deceptive placebos will also be assessed. Each study will be comprehensively assessed for bias. Subgroup analyses will identify any discrepancies among heterogeneous data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval. The completed review will be widely disseminated by publication and social media where appropriate. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (2015:CRD42015023347).

How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions

Although patient and public involvement in research is a requirement for research funding in many countries, the knowledge base for how to effectively involve people—and evidence of the effectiveness of involvement—is weak. This article describes how methods used in participatory health research were used to involve patients, clients, providers and community health workers across all stages of a realist review. Sustained involvement enabled better identification of the components of the complex intervention of community-based peer support. It also challenged assumptions of how peer support is constructed, leading the review team to question whether the process of designing and implementing interventions has more influence on effectiveness than previously recognised in empirical studies. We conclude with a discussion on when sustained involvement should be used, and the challenges of incorporating it into the traditional researcher-led approach to systematic reviews.

Does neighbourhood deprivation cause poor health? Within-individual analysis of movers in a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Neighbourhood deprivation has been associated with poor health. The evidence for social causation, however, remains scarce because selective residential mobility may also create neighbourhood differences. The present study examined whether individuals had poorer health when they were living in a deprived neighbourhood compared to another time when the same individuals were living in a less deprived neighbourhood.

METHODS

Participants were from the British Household Panel Survey prospective cohort study with 18 annual measurements of residential location and self-reported health outcomes between 1991 and 2009 (n=137 884 person-observations of 17 001 persons in England). Neighbourhood deprivation was assessed concurrently with health outcomes using the Index of Multiple Deprivation at the geographically detailed level of Lower Layer Super Output Areas. The main analyses were replicated in subsamples from Scotland (n=4897) and Wales (n=4442). Multilevel regression was used to separate within-individual and between-individuals associations.

RESULTS

Neighbourhood deprivation was associated with poorer self-rated health, and with higher psychological distress, functional health limitations and number of health problems. These associations were almost exclusively due to differences between different individuals rather than within-individual variations related to different neighbourhoods. By contrast, poorer health was associated with lower odds of moving to less deprived neighbourhoods among movers. The analysis was limited by the restricted within-individual variation and measurement imprecision of neighbourhood deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals living in deprived neighbourhoods have poorer health, but it appears that neighbourhood deprivation is not causing poorer health of adults. Instead, neighbourhood health differentials may reflect the more fundamental social inequalities that determine health and ability to move between deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods.

Bias analysis to improve monitoring an HIV epidemic and its response: approach and application to a survey of female sex workers in Iran

BACKGROUND

We present probabilistic and Bayesian techniques to correct for bias in categorical and numerical measures and empirically apply them to a recent survey of female sex workers (FSW) conducted in Iran.

METHODS

We used bias parameters from a previous validation study to correct estimates of behaviours reported by FSW. Monte-Carlo Sensitivity Analysis and Bayesian bias analysis produced point and simulation intervals (SI).

RESULTS

The apparent and corrected prevalence differed by a minimum of 1% for the number of 'non-condom use sexual acts' (36.8% vs 35.8%) to a maximum of 33% for 'ever associated with a venue to sell sex' (35.5% vs 68.0%). The negative predictive value of the questionnaire for 'history of STI' and 'ever associated with a venue to sell sex' was 36.3% (95% SI 4.2% to 69.1%) and 46.9% (95% SI 6.3% to 79.1%), respectively. Bias-adjusted numerical measures of behaviours increased by 0.1 year for 'age at first sex act for money' to 1.5 for 'number of sexual contacts in last 7 days'.

CONCLUSIONS

The 'true' estimates of most behaviours are considerably higher than those reported and the related SIs are wider than conventional CIs. Our analysis indicates the need for and applicability of bias analysis in surveys, particularly in stigmatised settings.

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials: socio-economic and ethical perspectives for sub-Saharan Africa

The advent of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as a HIV-prevention strategy has received optimistic support among HIV researchers. However, discourse on PrEP trials has tended to be dominated by the disputes arising between some activist groups and researchers about the research methodologies. Instead, this paper discusses other issues oftentimes neglected in discussions relating to PrEP trials. Specifically, I focus on the possible ethical implications and the potential impact of sub-Saharan Africa's socio-economic conditions on the promised benefits of PrEP trials for the region and the continent. I argue that the concept of PrEP as a affordable and practical HIV-prevention intervention presents challenges and questions that urgently need addressing as we await results from several ongoing trials. If research is undertaken with no plans on how the results of specific trials can render actual HIV-prevention-benefits - especially for the world's poor - then such endeavours risk being merely information-acquiring ventures.