Coexisting multiple health conditions is common among older people, a population that is increasing globally. The potential for polypharmacy, adverse events, drug interactions and development of additional health conditions complicates prescribing decisions for these patients. Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated decision-making tools may help guide clinical decisions in the context of multiple health conditions, by determining which of the multiple medication options is best. This study aims to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of AI in the management of multiple health conditions.

A qualitative study will be conducted using semistructured interviews. Adults (≥18 years) with multiple health conditions living in the West Midlands of England and HCPs with experience in caring for patients with multiple health conditions will be eligible and purposively sampled. Patients will be identified from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum; CPRD will contact general practitioners who will in turn, send a letter to patients inviting them to take part. Eligible HCPs will be recruited through British HCP bodies and known contacts. Up to 30 patients and 30 HCPs will be recruited, until data saturation is achieved. Interviews will be in-person or virtual, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The topic guide is designed to explore participants’ attitudes towards AI-informed clinical decision-making to augment clinician-directed decision-making, the perceived advantages and disadvantages of both methods and attitudes towards risk management. Case vignettes comprising a common decision pathway for patients with multiple health conditions will be presented during each interview to invite participants’ opinions on how their experiences compare. Data will be analysed thematically using the Framework Method.

This study has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 22/SC/0210). Written informed consent or verbal consent will be obtained prior to each interview. The findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and lay summaries.

A non-contrast CT head scan (NCCTH) is the most common cross-sectional imaging investigation requested in the emergency department. Advances in computer vision have led to development of several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to detect abnormalities on NCCTH. These tools are intended to provide clinical decision support for clinicians, rather than stand-alone diagnostic devices. However, validation studies mostly compare AI performance against radiologists, and there is relative paucity of evidence on the impact of AI assistance on other healthcare staff who review NCCTH in their daily clinical practice.

A retrospective data set of 150 NCCTH will be compiled, to include 60 control cases and 90 cases with intracranial haemorrhage, hypodensities suggestive of infarct, midline shift, mass effect or skull fracture. The intracranial haemorrhage cases will be subclassified into extradural, subdural, subarachnoid, intraparenchymal and intraventricular. 30 readers will be recruited across four National Health Service (NHS) trusts including 10 general radiologists, 15 emergency medicine clinicians and 5 CT radiographers of varying experience. Readers will interpret each scan first without, then with, the assistance of the qER EU 2.0 AI tool, with an intervening 2-week washout period. Using a panel of neuroradiologists as ground truth, the stand-alone performance of qER will be assessed, and its impact on the readers’ performance will be analysed as change in accuracy (area under the curve), median review time per scan and self-reported diagnostic confidence. Subgroup analyses will be performed by reader professional group, reader seniority, pathological finding, and neuroradiologist-rated difficulty.

The study has been approved by the UK Healthcare Research Authority (IRAS 310995, approved 13 December 2022). The use of anonymised retrospective NCCTH has been authorised by Oxford University Hospitals. The results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

NCT06018545.

Being on a waiting list for elective (planned) cardiac surgery can be physically and psychologically challenging for patients. Research suggests that stress associated with waiting for surgery is dependent on different individual and contextual factors. However, most data on patients’ experiences of waiting for surgery and preferences for waiting list management derives from non-cardiac clinical populations. The aim of the current study is to explore patients’ experiences of being on a waiting list for elective cardiac surgery, and their views on how the waiting experience could be improved in the future. This work will inform the patient management strategy during the waiting period for surgery across the four major hospitals in London directly involved in this study, and potentially beyond by transferring learning to other services.

This is a mixed-methods study that will collect quantitative and qualitative data using a cross-sectional online survey. Patients who are on waiting lists for elective surgery across four major cardiac surgery departments in London hospitals, and are at least 18 years old, will be invited by their healthcare team via text message or letter to complete the survey. The target sample size of non-randomly selected participants will be 268. Bivariable and multivariable regression models will be used to assess associations between survey items measuring the impact of the cardiac condition on specific life domains (eg, daily activities, social and family relationships, hobbies, sexual life), anxiety and depression symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 and survey items evaluating experiences of health services. Data on experience and preferences for improvements to the waiting experience will be analysed with qualitative content analysis using an inductive approach.

This study was reviewed and granted ethical approval by the East of England—East Cambridge Research Ethics Committee. Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, a research website and social media and with an online event engaging patients, members of the public, healthcare professionals and other relevant stakeholders.

NCT05996640

Management controversy and clinical equipoise exist in treatments of long bone fractures and traumatic hip dislocation in paediatric patients due to the lack of high-quality clinical evidence. This protocol describes the effort of a large prospective global multicentre cohort study (registry) aiming at providing quality data to assist evidence-based treatment decision-making.

Eligible paediatric patients (N=750–1000) with open physes suffering from proximal humerus fractures, distal humerus fractures, proximal radius fractures, forearm shaft fractures, traumatic hip dislocations, femoral neck fractures or tibial shaft fractures will be recruited over a period of 24–36 months. Hospitalisation and treatment details (including materials and implants) will be captured in a cloud-based, searchable database. Outcome measures include radiographic assessments, clinical outcomes (such as range of motion, limb length discrepancies and implant removal), patient-reported outcomes (Patient Reported Outcomes Of Fracture, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-Y)) and adverse events.

Aside from descriptive statistics on patient demographics, baseline characteristics, types of fractures and adverse event rates, research questions will be formulated based on data availability and quality. A statistical analysis plan will be prepared before the statistical analysis.

Ethics approval will be obtained before patients are enrolled at each participating site. Patient enrolment will follow an informed consent process approved by the responsible ethics committee. Peer-reviewed publication is planned to disseminate the study results.

NCT04207892.

Dipeptidase-1 (DPEP-1) is a recently discovered leucocyte adhesion receptor for neutrophils and monocytes in the lungs and kidneys and serves as a potential therapeutic target to attenuate inflammation in moderate-to-severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the DPEP-1 inhibitor, LSALT peptide, to prevent specific organ dysfunction in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

Phase 2a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, trial.

Hospitals in Canada, Turkey and the USA.

A total of 61 subjects with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

Randomisation to LSALT peptide 5 mg intravenously daily or placebo for up to 14 days.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects alive and free of respiratory failure and/or the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Numerous secondary and exploratory endpoints were assessed including ventilation-free days, and changes in kidney function or serum biomarkers.

At 28 days, 27 (90.3%) and 28 (93.3%) of subjects in the placebo and LSALT groups were free of respiratory failure and the need for RRT (p=0.86). On days 14 and 28, the number of patients still requiring more intensive respiratory support (O₂ ≥6 L/minute, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) was 6 (19.4%) and 3 (9.7%) in the placebo group versus 2 (6.7%) and 2 (6.7%) in the LSALT group, respectively (p=0.14; p=0.67). Unadjusted analysis of ventilation-free days demonstrated 22.8 days for the LSALT group compared with 20.9 in the placebo group (p=0.4). LSALT-treated subjects had a significant reduction in the fold expression from baseline to end of treatment of serum CXCL10 compared with placebo (p=0.02). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups.

In a Phase 2 study, LSALT peptide was demonstrated to be safe and tolerated in patients hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

NCT04402957.

This study was conducted to establish the association between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in non-hypertensive patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and determine the cut-off value of HbA1c for detecting LVDD.

Cross-sectional study.

This study was conducted in General Medicine Department in collaboration with the Cardiology Department at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna.

The study population comprised patients with newly diagnosed type 2 DM within the past 3 months, aged between 18 years and 80 years, who were not hypertensive and without any systemic diseases and who presented to the General Medicine Department.

The presence of LVDD was the primary outcome measure.

Among the total of 60 participants, it was observed that age (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.169, 95% CI: 1.066 to 1.283) and HbA1c (AOR: 2.625, 95% CI: 1.264 to 5.450) were found to be independent predictors for the presence of LVDD. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified a cut-off value of HbA1c at 9.5% (80 mmol/mol) for detecting LVDD, with a specificity of 96.43%, a sensitivity of 37.5% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 91.62%.

This study demonstrated that age and HbA1c levels are independent predictors of LVDD in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 DM without hypertension. A cut-off value of 9.5% for HbA1c was identified with a high specificity and PPV for predicting LVDD in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. This underscores the importance of conducting echocardiography in patients with newly diagnosed asymptomatic type 2 diabetes with HbA1c 9.5% or more to assess LVDD, allowing for prompt interventions if necessary and to decelerate the progression towards heart failure.

Neoadjuvant therapy has become a standard treatment for patients with stage II/III HER2 positive and triple negative breast cancer, and in well-selected patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable high risk, luminal B breast cancer. Side effects of neoadjuvant therapy, such as fatigue, cardiotoxicity, neurotoxicity, anxiety, insomnia, vasomotor symptoms, gastrointestinal disturbance as well as a raft of immune-related adverse events, may impact treatment tolerance, long-term outcomes, and quality of life. Providing early supportive care prior to surgery (typically termed ‘prehabilitation’) may mitigate these side effects and improve quality of life.

During our codesign of the intervention, consumers and healthcare professionals expressed desire for a programme that ‘packaged’ care, was easy to access, and was embedded in their care pathway. We hypothesise that a multimodal supportive care programme including exercise and complementary therapies, underpinned by behavioural change theory will improve self-efficacy, quality of life, readiness for surgery and any additional treatment for women with breast cancer. We seek to explore cardiometabolic, residual cancer burden and surgical outcomes, along with chemotherapy completion (relative dose intensity). This article describes the protocol for a feasibility study of a multimodal prehabilitation programme.

This is a prospective, mixed-method, feasibility study of a multi-modal programme in a hospital setting for 20–30 women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Primary outcomes are recruitment rate, retention rate, adherence and acceptability. Secondary outcomes include patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), surgical outcomes, length of stay, satisfaction with surgery, chemotherapy completion rates, changes in metabolic markers and adverse events. Interviews and focus groups to understand the experience with prehabilitation and different factors that may affect feasibility of the intervention . The output of this study will be a codesigned, evidence-informed intervention assessed for feasibility and acceptability by women with breast cancer and the healthcare professionals that care for them.

The study received ethics approval from the St Vincents Hospital HREC (HREC/2021/ETH12198). Trial results will be communicated to participants, healthcare professionals, and the public via publication and conferences.

ACTRN12622000584730.

The transition from hospital to home treatment for patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the subject of a study by Zhang and colleagues. The authors attempt to comprehend the substance of this phenomenon a shift towards patient-centric healthcare research by using a phenomenological method.1 Such first-hand experiences may help to close the gap between patient demands and medical practise, laying the groundwork for personalised and emphathetic care strategies.

The descriptive phenomenology method was used to implement this...

Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MASLD) is the hepatic manifestation of metabolic syndrome and the leading cause of chronic liver disease worldwide. Given that there is no pharmacological treatment for MASLD, it is imperative to understand whether lifestyle modifications may improve biochemical and pathological outcomes. One commonly proposed dietary modification is the Mediterranean diet; however, vegetarianism may also be a promising intervention. Vegetarianism has been shown to be associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in metabolic syndrome outcomes in coronary artery disease and diabetes; however, the relationship between vegetarian diet and MASLD is less clear. In this scoping review, we will provide a comprehensive overview of the current body of evidence related to a vegetarian diet and MASLD.

The aim of this scoping review is to describe and summarise the current body of evidence related to MASLD and a vegetarian diet. This review will be conducted using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. The literature review will be conducted using the following databases: SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL-Plus, Cochrane Library and Medline. No restriction will be made on publication date. Included studies will encompass clinical trials and observational designs that examine effects or association of vegetarian diet in adults (≥16 years) and report on the incidence, prevalence or progression of MASLD. Grey literature, non-human studies and articles focusing on changes in a specific food or nutraceutical will be excluded. Articles must have an English-language abstract available to be considered for inclusion. Screening and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. The findings will be summarised with descriptive statistics.

Approval from a medical ethics committee is not required for this review. Once the review is complete, the findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.