OBJECTIVE: To identify the optimal CD4 cell count at which cART should be initiated.

DESIGN: Prospective observational data from the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration and dynamic marginal structural models were used to compare cART initiation strategies for CD4 thresholds between 0.200 and 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L.

SETTING: HIV clinics in Europe and the Veterans Health Administration system in the United States.

PATIENTS: 20, 971 HIV-infected, therapy-naive persons with baseline CD4 cell counts at or above 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L and no previous AIDS-defining illnesses, of whom 8392 had a CD4 cell count that decreased into the range of 0.200 to 0.499 × 10(9) cells/L and were included in the analysis.

MEASUREMENTS: Hazard ratios and survival proportions for all-cause mortality and a combined end point of AIDS-defining illness or death.

RESULTS: Compared with initiating cART at the CD4 cell count threshold of 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L, the mortality hazard ratio was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.22) for the 0.350 threshold and 1.20 (CI, 0.97 to 1.48) for the 0.200 threshold. The corresponding hazard ratios were 1.38 (CI, 1.23 to 1.56) and 1.90 (CI, 1.67 to 2.15), respectively, for the combined end point of AIDS-defining illness or death.

LIMITATIONS: CD4 cell count at cART initiation was not randomized. Residual confounding may exist.

METHODS: Patients from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (TAHOD) and Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD) receiving cART between 1999 and 2017 were included. Causes of death verification were based on review of the standardized Cause of Death (CoDe) form designed by the D:A:D group. Cohorts were grouped as AHOD (all high-income sites), TAHOD-high (high/upper-middle income countries) and TAHOD-low (lower-middle income countries). TAHOD sites were split into high/upper-middle income and lower-middle income country settings based on World Bank classifications. Competing risk regression was used to analyse factors associated with AIDS and non-AIDS-related mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.

SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who were treated with adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy for early breast cancer stages I, II or III from 2007-2011 in UMMC were identified from our UMMC Breast Cancer Registry. The TRD and FN rates were then determined retrospectively from medical records. TRD was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of completing chemotherapy as a consequence of the chemotherapy treatment. FN was defined as an oral temperature >38.5°C or two consecutive readings of >38.0°C for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5x109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5x109/L.

RESULTS: A total of 622 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy during this period. Of these patients 209 (33.6%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. 4 taxane-based regimens were used namely the FEC-D, TC, TAC and AC-PCX regimens. The commonest regimen employed was the FEC-D regimen accounting for 79.9% of the patients. The FN rate was 10% and there was no TRD.