Publications

BACKGROUND

Darunavir is a second-generation protease-inhibitor used with ritonavir (DRV/r) and two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors as an option in first-line antiretroviral treatment (ART).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DRV/r versus other regimens in patients initiating ART. We searched five bibliographic databases and other key resources. We had no language limitations. We assessed bias risk with the Cochrane tool and used GRADE to assess evidence quality. We report findings in terms of risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

FINDINGS

Three RCTs met inclusion criteria. In plasma viral load suppression, DRV/r outperformed ritonavir-boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), 96 weeks (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21), and 192 weeks (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.35). DRV/r was similar to dolutegravir at 48 weeks (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06) but less effective at 96 weeks (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.93). At 96 weeks, DRV/r underperformed raltegravir (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-0.99) but was similar to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.09). Overall bias risk was moderate. Evidence quality was also moderate.

INTERPRETATION

Initial ART regimens using DRV/r should be considered in future World Health Organization guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear explantation for purely elective (e.g. psychological and emotional) reasons is not well studied. Herein, we aim to provide data and expert commentary about elective cochlear implant (CI) removal that may help to guide clinical decision-making and formulate guidelines related to CI explantation.

DATA SOURCES

We address these objectives via three approaches: case report of a patient who desired elective CI removal; review of literature and expert discussion by surgeon, audiologist, bioethicist, CI user and member of Deaf community.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review using three scientific online databases was performed. Included articles addressed the benefits and/or complications of cochlear implantation in young children, CI explantation with or without revision surgery and the ethical debate between the medical and Deaf communities on cochlear implantation and explantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The medical and audiological perspectives identify a host of risks related to implant removal without reimplantation, including risk from surgery, general anaesthesia, cochlear ossification and poor audiometric outcomes. The member of the deaf community and bioethicist argue that physicians need to guide the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and patient autonomy. Taken together, patient desires should be seen as paramount, if the patient is otherwise fit for surgery and well informed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Similar to the case of device implantation, device explantation should be a multidisciplinary and collaborative decision with the patient and the family's desires at the centre. While every case is different, we offer a CI explantation discussion to assist in clinical decision-making, patient counselling and education.