Current medical research and opinion
-
With current COVID-19 vaccine demand outweighing supply and the emergency authorization/rollout of three novel vaccines in the United States, discussions continue regarding fair prioritization among various groups for this scarce resource. The US federal government's recommended vaccination schedule, meant to assist states with vaccine allocation, demonstrates fair ethical considerations; however, difficulties remain comparing various groups to determine fair vaccine access and distribution. Although strides have been taken to analyze risks versus benefits of early vaccination across certain high-risk populations, prioritizing vulnerable populations versus essential workers remains challenging for multiple reasons. ⋯ Similarly, given current vaccine hesitancy, mandatory vaccination of certain groups, like healthcare personnel, may need to be considered when these vaccines are licensed, especially if voluntary vaccination proves insufficient. Continued discussions regarding risks versus benefits of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and the unique role of healthcare personnel in providing a safe healthcare environment could lead to better deliberation regarding potential policies. This commentary aims to address both questions of fair prioritization and sub-prioritization of various groups, as well as ethical considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel.
-
Accurate information on HIV transmission risk is required to construct evidence-based risk reduction practices for individuals and to direct the provision of prevention strategies at the population level. HIV transmission risk assessment will help in identifying individuals at high risk of HIV infection and directing the provision of post exposure prophylaxis (PEP). ⋯ Key drivers of HIV transmissions can be incorporated into a risk scoring model in order to quantify the risks of HIV acquisition. Such tools can facilitate the screening of PLWH and at-risk-individuals and direct interventions to halt HIV transmission.
-
Fast dissemination of research is important for improving treatments and thus benefitting patients, caregivers, and researchers. However, getting scientific papers published may take a long time. The editorial handling time can be delayed by several processes both before and after acceptance of the paper. The aim of this study was to systematically review the editorial handling time of biomedical peer-reviewed literature (i.e. time from submission to publication). ⋯ Editorial handling times of journals varied widely from a few months to almost two years, which delays the availability of new evidence. The editorial handling time did not differ between submission-to-acceptance-time and acceptance-to-publication-time. Examining differences in editorial processes between journals with long and short editorial handling times may help uncover, which processes are frequent causes of delay and thereby where to improve.
-
Assess the real-world efficacy of netarsudil, either as monotherapy or concomitant therapy, in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT) requiring modification of intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering treatment. ⋯ In the real-world treatment of patients with OAG or OHT, netarsudil consistently maintained IOP control when it replaced previous IOP-lowering therapies and provided additional IOP-lowering efficacy when added to other treatments.
-
To conduct a descriptive content analysis of normative documents on the role of research ethics committees (RECs) after the approval of clinical trial protocols. The question to be addressed is whether and to what extent normative documents support a monitoring role for RECs in the United States and the European Union. ⋯ The role of RECs post approval of protocols is to protect human participants through activities such as continuing review of: (a) progress reports, (b) notifications of significant protocol amendments, (c) adverse events, (d) protocol deviations, and (e) protocol violations. Although some international guidelines such as the Declaration of Helsinki emphasize the right to monitor, RECs' predominant activity is document review. In the USA, RECs are authorized to issue approvals and terminate/suspend previously issued approvals. However, in the EU, the approach is to relegate to member states to decide the extent of legislative power they wish to give to the RECs. The REC's opinion on the end of trial report is identified as an area for further exploration.