Needle and syringe programmes (NSP) are a critical component of harm reduction interventions among people who inject drugs (PWID). Our primary objective was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of NSP for PWID in reducing blood-borne infection transmission and injecting risk behaviours (IRB). We conducted an overview of systematic reviews that included PWID (excluding prisons and consumption rooms), addressed community-based NSP, and provided estimates of the effect regarding incidence/prevalence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis C virus (HCV), Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and bacteremia/sepsis, and/or measures of IRB. Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO (up to May 2015). For each review we identified relevant studies and extracted data on methods, and findings, including risk of bias and quality of evidence assessed by review authors. We evaluated the risk of bias of each systematic review using the ROBIS tool. We categorized reviews by reported outcomes and use of meta-analysis; no additional statistical analysis was performed. We included thirteen systematic reviews with 133 relevant unique studies published between 1989 and 2012. Reported outcomes related to HIV (n = 9), HCV (n = 8) and IRB (n = 6). Methods used varied at all levels of design and conduct, with four reviews performing meta-analysis. Only two reviews were considered to have low risk of bias using the ROBIS tool, and most included studies were evaluated as having low methodological quality by review authors. We found that NSP was effective in reducing HIV transmission and IRB among PWID, while there were mixed results regarding a reduction of HCV infection. Full harm reduction interventions provided at structural level and in multi-component programmes, as well as high level of coverage, were more beneficial. The heterogeneity and the overall low quality of evidence highlights the need for future community-level studies of adequate design to support these results. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015026145 ).

Introduction Underreporting is a major limitation of the voluntary reporting system of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). A 2009 systematic review showed the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals were strongly related with underreporting of ADRs. Objective Our aim was to update our previous systematic review to determine factors (sociodemographic, knowledge and attitudes) associated with the underreporting of ADRs by healthcare professionals. Methods We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for studies published between 2007 and 2021 that met the following inclusion criteria: (1) published in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish; (2) involving health professionals; and (3) the goal was to evaluate factors associated with underreporting of ADRs through spontaneous reporting. Results Overall, 65 papers were included. While health professional sociodemographic characteristics did not influence underreporting, knowledge and attitudes continue to show a significant effect: (1) ignorance (only serious ADRs need to be reported) in 86.2%; (2) lethargy (procrastination, lack of interest, and other excuses) in 84.6%; (3) complacency (the belief that only well tolerated drugs are allowed on the market) in 46.2%; (4) diffidence (fear of appearing ridiculous for reporting merely suspected ADRs) in 44.6%; and (5) insecurity (it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a drug is responsible for a specific adverse reaction) in 33.8%, and the absence of feedback in 9.2%. In this review, the non-obligation to reporting and confidentiality emerge as new reasons for underreporting. Conclusions Attitudes regarding the reporting of adverse reactions continue to be the main determinants of underreporting. Even though these are potentially modifiable factors through educational interventions, minimal changes have been observed since 2009. Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42021227944.

Purpose The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) have proposed procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP) and β isomerized C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (β-CTX-I) as reference bone turnover markers (BTMs) for osteoporosis. This report examines the published literature since the 2011 IOF-IFCC position paper in order to determine the clinical potential of the reference BTMs and newer markers for the prediction of fracture risk and monitoring the treatment of osteoporosis. Methods Evidence for the relationship between BTMs and subsequent fractures was gathered from prospective studies through literature review of the Medline database from years 2011 to May 2024. The impact of treatment on BTMs was also studied by examining publications in that period. Studies of the accuracy of BTMs in the assessment of bone turnover in the setting of advanced chronic kidney disease were also examined. Results Increased BTM concentrations are associated with higher fracture risk in postmenopausal women. PINP and β-CTX-I measured in blood are associated with fracture risk but their interaction with other risk factors has not been sufficiently studied limiting their incorporation into fracture risk algorithms. Treatment-induced changes in PINP and β-CTX-I account for a substantial proportion of fracture risk reduction and are useful for improving adherence; they are recommended for inclusion in studies to examine adherence in individual patients. However, total PINP (tPINP) and β-CTX-I may be elevated in CKD due to renal retention. Bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP), intact PINP (iPINP), and tartrate resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP5b) show the most promise in discriminating high and low turnover bone diseases in patients with advanced CKD and for predicting fracture risk, monitoring treatment response, and assessing the risk of treatment-related complications. Conclusion We re-affirm the use of serum/plasma tPINP and plasma β-CTX-I as reference BTMs with appropriate patient preparation and sample handling and measurement by standardized/harmonized assays in clinical studies to accumulate further data, and for monitoring treatment of osteoporosis in the setting of normal renal function in clinical practice. BALP and TRACP5b, measured by standardized assays, are recommended as reference BTMs for CKD-associated osteoporosis and should be included in observational and intervention studies to ascertain their utility for risk-evaluation, treatment initiation, and assessment of treatment response in CKD-associated osteoporosis.

Background: Spontaneous reporting is the most used method to monitor post-marketing safety information. Although patient involvement in spontaneous reporting has increased overtime, little is known about factors associated with patients’ adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. Aim: To identify and assess the sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes and knowledge that influence spontaneous reporting and the reasons associated with ADR underreporting by patients. Method: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A search on the MEDLINE and EMBASE scientific databases was performed to retrieve studies published between 1 January 2006 and 1 November 2022. Studies were included if they addressed knowledge and attitudes associated with ADR underreporting. Results: A total of 2512 citations were identified, of which 13 studies were included. Sociodemographic characteristics were frequently identified with ADR reporting in 6 studies, being age (3/13) and level of education (3/13) the most often reported. Older age groups (2/13) and individuals with higher level of education (3/13) were more likely to report ADRs. Underreporting was shown to be motivated by reasons related to knowledge, attitudes, and excuses. Ignorance (10/13), complacency (6/13), and lethargy (6/13) were the most frequent reasons for not reporting. Conclusion: This study highlighted the scarcity of research conducted with the aim of assessing ADR underreporting by patients. Knowledge, attitudes, and excuses were commonly observed in the decision to report ADRs. These motives are characteristics that can be changed; hence strategies must be designed to raise awareness, continually educate, and empower this population to change the paradigm of underreporting.

Sepsis is currently defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, and it affects over 25 million people every year. Even more severe, septic shock is a subset of sepsis defined by persistent hypotension, and hospital mortality rates are higher than 40%. Although early sepsis mortality has greatly improved in the past few years, sepsis patients who survive the hyperinflammation and subsequent organ damage often die from long-term complications, such as secondary infection, and despite decades of clinical trials targeting this stage of the disease, currently, no sepsis-specific therapies exist. As new pathophysiological mechanisms have been uncovered, immunostimulatory therapy has emerged as a promising path forward. Highly investigated treatment strategies include cytokines and growth factors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and even cellular therapies. There is much to be learned from related illnesses, and immunotherapy trials in oncology, as well as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, have greatly informed sepsis research. Although the journey ahead is a long one, the stratification of patients according to their immune status and the employment of combination therapies represent a hopeful way forward.