Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities.

We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).

We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.

Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%).

Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

This observational study compares the effectiveness of baricitinib (BARI), a targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD), with alternative biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from a prospective, longitudinal cohort.

We compared patients initiating a treatment course (TC) of BARI, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA), during a period when all these DMARDs were available in Switzerland. The primary outcome was drug maintenance; secondary outcomes included discontinuation rates related specifically to ineffectiveness and adverse events. We further analysed rates of low disease activity (LDA) and remission (REM) at 12 months and drug maintenance in bDMARD-naïve and tsDMARD-naïve population.

A total of 1053 TCs were included: 273 on BARI, 473 on TNFi and 307 on OMA. BARI was prescribed to older patients with longer disease duration and more previous treatment failures than TNFi. Compared with BARI, the adjusted drug maintenance was significantly shorter for TNFi (HR for discontinuation: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.35) but not compared with OMA (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.72). These results were similar in the b/tsDMARD-naïve population. The higher discontinuation of TNFi was mostly due to increased discontinuation for ineffectiveness (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.15), with no significant differences in drug discontinuation for adverse events (HR 1.46; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.57). The LDA and REM rates at 12 months did not differ significantly between the three groups.

BARI demonstrated a significantly higher drug maintenance compared with TNFi, mainly due to lower drug discontinuations for ineffectiveness. We found no difference in drug maintenance between BARI and OMA. Clinical outcomes did not differ between the three groups. Our results suggest that BARI is an appropriate therapeutic alternative to bDMARDs in the management of RA.

Cancer is a leading cause of death and has a significant impact on individuals, families and society. Emerging evidence shows that people with disability face challenges in accessing services which could assist in early cancer diagnosis and optimal treatment, like cancer screening. Consequently, cancer patients with disabilities may present with later-stage disease, have reduced treatment options and experience lower survival rates compared with people without disability.

This systematic review aims to summarise and evaluate the existing evidence on (a) inequalities in cancer survival and mortality between people with and without disability, (b) the inequalities in cancer screening and (c) stage at diagnosis that may contribute to the survival/mortality gap.

A literature search will be performed on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus up to May 2023. The review will include quantitative studies that reported inequalities in cancer survival and mortality, screening and stage at diagnosis between adults with and without disability. A summary of the characteristics and findings of the included studies will be provided. We will assess the quality of each study using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies—of Exposure tool. Depending on the heterogeneity of studies, we will assess whether meta-analysis is appropriate.

Ethics approval is not applicable for this study since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

CRD42023427288.

Acute heart failure (HF) is a major cause of unplanned hospitalisation characterised by excess body water. A restriction in oral fluid intake is commonly imposed on patients as an adjunct to pharmacological therapy with loop diuretics, but there is a lack of evidence from traditional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support the safety and effectiveness of this intervention in the acute setting.

This study aims to explore the feasibility of using computer alerts within the electronic health record (EHR) system to invite clinical care teams to enrol patients into a pragmatic RCT at the time of clinical decision-making. It will additionally assess the effectiveness of using an alert to help address the clinical research question of whether oral fluid restriction is a safe and effective adjunct to pharmacological therapy for patients admitted with fluid overload.

THIRST (Randomised Controlled Trial within the electronic Health record of an Interruptive alert displaying a fluid Restriction Suggestion in patients with the treatable Trait of congestion) Alert is a single-centre, parallel-group, open-label pragmatic RCT embedded in the EHR system that will be conducted as a feasibility study at an National Health Service (NHS) hospital in London. The clinical care team will be invited to enrol suitable patients in the study using a point-of-care alert with a target sample size of 50 patients. Enrolled patients will then be randomised to either restricted or unrestricted oral fluid intake. Two primary outcomes will be explored (1) the proportion of eligible patients enrolled in the study and (2) the mean difference in oral fluid intake between randomised groups. A series of secondary outcomes are specified to evaluate the effectiveness of the alert, adherence to the randomised treatment allocation and the quality of data generated from routine care, relevant to the outcomes of interest.

This study was approved by Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 22/LO/0889) and will be published on completion.

NCT05869656.

Fatigue is one of the most disabling symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), and effective treatments are lacking. Amantadine is one of the most used treatments, although its efficacy is under debate. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a promising intervention that has shown positive effects in some preliminary investigations. We aim to investigate the effect of 6 weeks of amantadine and/or TMS in fatigue due to MS.

The study is a national, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled and sham-controlled clinical trial. Adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 1.5–4.5 and Fatigue Severity Score>4 are eligible for the trial. Participants will be randomised to one of the sequences of the study. Each sequence consists of four periods of 6 weeks of treatment and three washout periods of 12–18 weeks. All patients will receive all the combinations of therapies. The primary outcome is the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale. The secondary outcomes are the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (cognition), Beck Depression Inventory-II (depressive symptoms) and Short-Survey 12 (quality of life). Safety and cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated. An exploratory substudy including MRI and blood biomarkers will be conducted.

The study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital Clinico San Carlos and the Spanish Agency of Medications and Medical Devices. All study findings will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences.

EudraCT 2021-004868-95; NCT05809414.

Middle-aged multidomain risk reduction interventions targeting modifiable risk factors for dementia may delay or prevent a third of dementia cases in later life. We describe the protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), HAPPI MIND (Holistic Approach in Primary care for PreventIng Memory Impairment aNd Dementia). HAPPI MIND will evaluate the efficacy of a multidomain, nurse-led, mHealth supported intervention for assessing dementia risk and reducing associated risk factors in middle-aged adults in the Australian primary care setting.

General practice clinics (n≥26) across Victoria and New South Wales, Australia, will be recruited and randomised. Practice nurses will be trained to implement the HAPPI MIND intervention or a brief intervention. Patients of participating practices aged 45–65 years with ≥2 potential dementia risk factors will be identified and recruited (approximately 15 patients/clinic). Brief intervention participants receive a personalised report outlining their risk factors for dementia based on Australian National University Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI) scores, education booklet and referral to their general practitioner as appropriate. HAPPI MIND participants receive the brief intervention as well as six individualised dementia risk reduction sessions with a nurse trained in motivational interviewing and principles of behaviour change, a personalised risk reduction action plan and access to the purpose-built HAPPI MIND smartphone app for risk factor self-management. Follow-up data collection will occur at 12, 24 and 36 months. Primary outcome is ANU-ADRI score change at 12 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include change in cognition, quality of life and individual risk factors of dementia.

Project approved by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 28273). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at healthcare conferences. If effective in reducing dementia risk, the HAPPI MIND intervention could be integrated into primary care, scaled up nationally and sustained over time.

ACTRN12621001168842.

Many Canadians struggle to access the primary care they need while at the same time primary care providers report record levels of stress and overwork. There is an urgent need to understand factors contributing to the gap between a growing per-capita supply of primary care providers and declines in the availability of primary care services. The assumption of responsibility by primary care teams for services previously delivered on an in-patient basis, along with a rise in administrative responsibilities may be factors influencing reduced access to care.

In this mixed-methods study, our first objective is to determine how the volume of services requiring primary care coordination has changed over time in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We will collect quantitative administrative data to investigate how services have shifted in ways that may impact administrative workload in primary care. Our second objective is to use qualitative interviews with family physicians, nurse practitioners and administrative team members providing primary care to understand how administrative workload has changed over time. We will then identify priority issues and practical response strategies using two deliberative dialogue events convened with primary care providers, clinical and system leaders, and policy-makers.

We will analyse changes in service use data between 2001/2002 and 2021/2022 using annual total counts, rates per capita, rates per primary care provider and per primary care service. We will conduct reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes and to compare and contrast participant responses reflecting differences across disciplines, payment and practice models, and practice settings. Areas of concern and potential solutions raised during interviews will inform deliberative dialogue events.

We received research ethics approval from Nova Scotia Health (#1028815). Knowledge translation will occur through dialogue events, academic papers and presentations at national and international conferences.

Lyme disease (LD) is the most frequent tick-borne disease in the moderate climates of Europe. This study will inform the phase III efficacy study for Pfizer and Valneva’s investigational Lyme disease vaccine, VLA15. VLA15 phase III will be conducted in the USA and Europe due to the vaccine’s serotype coverage and public health burden of LD. In Europe, the existence and location of sites that have access to populations with high LD annual incidence is uncertain. This active, prospective surveillance study assesses annual LD incidence at general practice (GP)/primary care sites, allowing for phase III site vetting and better characterisation of LD burden in selected regions for study size calculations.

This burden of Lyme disease (BOLD) study will assess LD incidence overall and by site at 15 GP/primary care practices in endemic areas of 6 European countries from Spring 2021 to December 2022 and will be summarised with counts (n), percentages (%) and associated 95% CIs. Suspected LD cases identified from site’s practice panels are documented on screening logs, where clinical LD manifestations, diagnoses and standard of care diagnostic results are recorded. In the initial 12-month enrolment phase, suspected LD cases are offered enrolment. Participants undergo interview and clinical assessments to establish medical history, final clinical diagnosis, clinical manifestations and quality of life impact. Study-specific procedures include LD serology, skin punch biopsies and Lyme manifestation photographs. For every enrolled participant diagnosed with LD, 6–10 age-matched controls are randomly selected and offered enrolment for an embedded LD risk factor analysis. Persistent symptoms or post-treatment LD will be assessed at follow-up visits up to 2 years after initial diagnosis, while patients remain symptomatic.

This study has been approved by all sites’ local ethics committees. The results will be presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.