Protease inhibitor (PI) therapy for patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus has been associated with lipid disorders and insulin resistance. We compared the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) among participants receiving treatment with PIs with or without nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nRTIs) to nRTI therapy alone in 30 phase II/III double-blind, randomized studies conducted before 1999 for the first 4 PI drugs. In most trials included in this analysis, participants could receive combination therapy with a PI plus nRTIs in open-label extensions after the blinded phase concluded. Person-years (PY) of follow-up were calculated from treatment initiation to the diagnosis of MI, or to the end of the randomized phases for nRTI-only therapy or to the conclusion of the studies for PI-containing regimens. Separate analyses were conducted for the randomized and the randomized-plus-extension phases. Among 10,986 participants, 7951 (72%) received PI drugs at some point for an average duration of 12 months. There were 10 MIs (1.31/1000 PY) in the randomized phases and 19 MIs (1.63/1000 PY) in the randomized-plus-extension phases. The overall stratified relative risk of MI for PI-containing (1.82 MI/1000 PY) versus nRTI-only (1.05 MI/1000 PY) regimens of 1.69 was not significantly increased (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 7.48). The absolute difference in MI risk was +0.77 (95% CI, -0.71 to +2.26) MIs/1000 PY. Compared with NRTI-only therapy, patients receiving PI-containing regimens for an average of 1 year did not have significantly more MIs, but the upper bound of the 95% CI indicates there may be up to 2.3 additional MIs per 1000 PY. Although studies with a longer duration of PI therapy are in progress to assess whether a later increase in MI incidence occurs, our analysis did not demonstrate a dramatic increase in MI risk during the first year of PI therapy.

No abstract

Background CervixCheck, Manitoba’s cervical cancer screening program, conducted a pilot study to assess whether screening participation could be improved in unscreened women by offering a mailed self-sampling kit for human papillomavirus (hpv) testing instead of a Pap test.Methods In a prospective cohort study design, a sample of unscreened women (n = 1052) who had been sent an invitation letter from CervixCheck in the past but who did not respond were randomized to either an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group received a mailed hpv self-sampling kit; the control group received no additional communication. Returned hpv self-sampling swabs were analyzed by a provincial laboratory. After 6 months, screening participation in the two study groups was compared using a logistic regression model adjusted for age and area of residence (urban or rural). Secondary outcomes included hpv positivity, specimen inadequacy, compliance with follow-up, and time to colposcopy.Results Screening participation was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (n = 51, 9.6%, vs. n = 13, 2.5%; odds ratio: 4.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.56 to 8.77). Geographic area of residence (urban or rural) and age were not statistically significant.Conclusions The study demonstrated that hpv self-sampling kits can enhance screening participation in unscreened non-responder women in the setting of an organized screening program. Next steps should include additional research to determine the best implementation strategy for hpv self-sampling in Manitoba.

No abstract

This study was a double blind comparison of three types of hearing aid circuits: Class A linear peak clipping, Class D compression limiting and K-Amp wide dynamic range compression. Subjective ratings, speech perception tests, real ear measurements and questionnaire data were obtained from a group of 17 new hearing aid users with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. The results indicate a similar performance for all three circuits. We saw no evidence of performance degradation due to saturation distortion, even in the presence of high levels of speech and noise. Our primary conclusions include recommending K-Amps to new hearing aid users with mild to moderate hearing loss, mostly on the basis of battery life, while cautioning about the use of compression knee-point controls and recognizing that Class A and Class D amplifiers are virtually equivalent in every performance measurement.