BackgroundConflicts of interest may bias the findings of systematic reviews. The objective of this methodological survey was to assess the frequency and different types of conflicts of interest that authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews report.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Ovid MEDLINE (limited to the 119 Core Clinical Journals and the year 2015). We defined a conflict of interest disclosure as the reporting of whether a conflict of interest exists or not, and used a framework to classify conflicts of interest into individual (financial, professional and intellectual) and institutional (financial and advocatory) conflicts of interest. We conducted descriptive and regression analyses.ResultsOf the 200 systematic reviews, 194 (97%) reported authors' conflicts of interest disclosures, typically in the main document, and in a few cases either online (2%) or on request (5%). Of the 194 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 49% and 33%, respectively, had at least one author reporting any type of conflict of interest (p=0.023). Institutional conflicts of interest were less frequently reported than individual conflicts of interest, and Cochrane reviews were more likely to report individual intellectual conflicts of interest compared with non-Cochrane reviews (19% and 5%, respectively, p=0.004). Regression analyses showed a positive association between reporting of conflicts of interest (at least one type of conflict of interest, individual financial conflict of interest, institutional financial conflict of interest) and journal impact factor and between reporting individual financial conflicts of interest and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention.ConclusionsAlthough close to half of the published systematic reviews report that authors (typically many) have conflicts of interest, more than half report that they do not. Authors reported individual conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and non-financial conflicts of interest.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information.MethodsWe addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.ResultsOf 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.ConclusionAlthough the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. Results: Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. Conclusion: A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Congenital Hemidysplasia with Ichthyosiform nevus and Limb Defects (CHILD syndrome) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations in the NAD(P) dependent steroid dehydrogenase-like protein gene. Its defect leads to accumulation of toxic metabolic intermediates upstream from the pathway block and to the deficiency of bulk cholesterol, probably leading to altered keratinocyte membrane function, resulting in the phenotype seen in CHILD syndrome. Symptomatic treatment using emollients and retinoids to reduce scaling has long been used until recently, whereby new therapeutic means based on the pathogenesis-targeted therapy have been developed. We subsequently chose to use the same pathogenesis-based therapy using a 2% cholesterol and 2% lovastatin cream with or without glycolic acid in two of our patients. Improvement in CHILD skin lesions was seen as early as 4 weeks after initiation. The addition of glycolic acid helped improve the penetrance of the cholesterol and lovastatin cream into the thick waxy scales. Our study confirms the efficacy of the pathogenesis-targeted therapy and introduces the possibility of modifying its formula by adding glycolic acid in order to improve the treatment.

No abstract

Our study underscores cases of Middle Eastern MDM with SLURP1 mutations and skin malignancies at PPK sites. Our findings also highlight a plausible epithelial lineage-specific tumor suppressor role for the SLURP1 gene, as well as a role in the development and metastasis of melanoma and thus a potential molecular signature for melanoma.

IMPORTANCE Autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis (ARCI) is a heterogeneous group of disorders caused by defects in signaling pathways involved in epidermal proliferation and differentiation, leading to a wide range of skin manifestations. Therapeutic options are limited and often unsatisfactory. Topical cholesterol and statin as a combined formulation has proven successful in the treatment of patients with CHILD syndrome (congenital hemidysplasia ichthyosis and limb defects).OBJECTIVE To assess change in disease severity score after a 3-month therapeutic regimen consisting of a glycolic acid, 10% to 20%, cream and a combination cream of lovastatin, 2%, with cholesterol, 2%, in the treatment of ARCI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis case series of 15 patients with ARCI was conducted at the American University of Beirut, a referral center in the Middle East region for genodermatoses, between May 2017 and January 2018. No age groups were excluded; all patients were from the Middle East area; and all were initially not responsive to treatment with hydrating creams in combination with urea creams, 30% to 40%, or glycolic acid, 10% to 20%. Excluded were patients who had been taking systemic retinoids within 3 months before the start of the study.INTERVENTIONS A 3-month therapeutic regimen of glycolic acid, 10% to 20%, cream and a combination of lovastatin, 2%, with cholesterol, 2%, cream. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPercentage change in disease severity scores following 2 and 3 months of study treatment. RESULTSOf the 15 patients included in the study, 10 were male (mean age, 11.2 years; age range, 2-38 years). The average percentage reduction in the disease severity score was 33.7% at 2 months (from 60.8 to 40.2) and 57.5% at 3 months (from 60.8 to 21.9). Adverse effects were mild and consisted mainly of irritation and burning.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest a benefit from a treatment regimen consisting of glycolic acid, 10% to 20%, and a combination of lovastatin, 2%, with cholesterol, 2%, in the treatment of ARCI. This combination of creams might also prove to be beneficial in other types of ichthyoses and other dermatological diseases with a defective skin barrier.