Global migration has steadily risen, with 16% of the UK population born abroad. Migrants (defined here as foreign-born individuals) face unique health risks, including potential higher rates and delays in diagnosis of infectious and non-communicable diseases, compounded by significant barriers to healthcare. UK Public Health guidelines recommend screening at-risk migrants, but primary care often faces significant challenges in achieving this, exacerbating health disparities. The Health Catch-UP! tool was developed as a novel digital, multidisease screening and catch-up vaccination solution to support primary care to identify at-risk adult migrants and offer individualised care. The tool has been shown to be acceptable and feasible and to increase migrant health screening in previous studies, but to facilitate use in routine care requires the development of an implementation package. This protocol describes the development and optimisation of an implementation package for Health Catch-UP! following the person-based approach (PBA), a participatory intervention development methodology, and evaluates our use of this methodological approach for migrant participants.

Through engagement with both migrants and primary healthcare professionals (approximately 80–100 participants) via participatory workshops, focus groups and think-aloud interviews, the study aims to cocreate a comprehensive Health Catch-UP! implementation package. This package will encompass healthcare professional support materials, patient resources and potential Health Catch-UP! care pathways (delivery models), developed through iterative refinement based on user feedback and behavioural theory. The study will involve three linked phases (1) planning: formation of an academic–community coalition and cocreation of guiding principles, logic model and intervention planning table, (2) intervention development: focus groups and participatory workshops to coproduce prototype implementation materials and (3) intervention optimisation: think-aloud interviews to iteratively refine the final implementation package. An embedded mixed-methods evaluation of how we used the PBA will allow shared learning from the use of this methodology within the migrant health context.

Ethics approval granted by the St George’s University Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 2024.0191). A community celebration event will be held to recognise contributions and to demonstrate impact.

Dysregulated immunity may account for an increased risk of infection and other adverse outcomes among frail hospitalised persons. The primary objective of this study is to examine whether baseline frailty is associated with the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) or other intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections among invasively ventilated adults. Additional objectives are to examine the relationship between frailty and hospital length of stay, discharge to a long-term care facility and vital status. We hypothesise that persons with frailty compared with others would have an increased risk of VAP and other infections, a longer hospital stay, higher probability of discharge to a long-term care facility and higher mortality.

This is a preplanned secondary analysis of the PROSPECT trial (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial) which enrolled patients across 44 ICUs in three countries. We will use Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to assess the association of frailty with the clinical outcomes of interest, adjusting for other baseline variables. Baseline demographic and descriptive outcome data will be reported using descriptive statistics. Regression results will be presented as adjusted HRs or ORs with 95% CIs for the associations of each independent variable with the primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes.

Participating hospital research ethics board approved the PROSPECT trial and data collection. The protocol for this study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board on 20 August 2015 (Project ID:19128). This study will identify whether frailty is associated with risk of VAP and other healthcare-associated infections in invasively ventilated patients, adjusted for other baseline factors. Results may be useful to patients, their caregivers, clinicians and the design of future research. Findings will be disseminated to investigators at a meeting of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. We will present study results at an international conference in the fields of critical care and infectious diseases, to coincide with or precede open-access peer-review publication. To aid knowledge dissemination, we will use a variety of formats. For example, for traditional and social media, we will create two different visual abstracts and infographics of our results suitable to share on clinician-facing and public-facing platforms.

NCT02462590.

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in critically ill patients is often undetected. However, it is unclear whether ultrasound surveillance for early detection of DVT in high-risk medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients improves patients’ outcomes. The DETECT trial (Diagnosing deep-vein thrombosis early in critically ill patients) evaluates the effect of twice-weekly bilateral lower limb ultrasound compared to usual care on 90-day mortality of critically ill adult patients admitted to medical, surgical and trauma ICUs.

The DETECT trial is an international, parallel-group, open-label, randomised trial, which will recruit 1800 critically ill adults from over 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Eligible patients will be allocated to twice-weekly bilateral lower limb ultrasound or usual care. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include lower limb proximal DVT, pulmonary embolism and clinically important bleeding. The first patient was enrolled on 21 March 2023. As of 8 April 2025, 711 patients have been enrolled from 14 centres in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The first interim analysis was conducted on 14 May 2025. We expect to complete recruitment by December 2026.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) of each participating institution approved the study. We plan to publish the results in peer-reviewed journals and present the findings at international critical care conferences.

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05112705, registered on 9-11-2021.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication in patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Letermovir (LTV) prophylaxis during the first 100 days post-SCT is effective and safe in preventing this infection, although it may be associated with a delay in CMV-specific immune reconstitution. Hence, a study is needed to evaluate whether the absence of CMV-specific immune reconstitution at the end of LTV prophylaxis is associated with the development of late infection. This could facilitate the individualisation of CMV prophylaxis duration in these patients.

INMUNOEND is a multicentre, prospective, observational, non-interventional study including CMV seropositive patients undergoing allo-SCT who receive LTV prophylaxis during the first 100 days post SCT. Immunological and virological monitoring will be conducted until day+200 post-SCT. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who develop clinically significant CMV infection up to day+200 post-SCT after completing LTV prophylaxis. Data collected will include baseline characteristics of the haematological diseases and comorbidities, variables related to SCT (ie, engrafment, graft-versus-host disease, use of LTV and CMV replication) and variables related to CMV-specific immune reconstitution.

Ethical approval has been obtained from the institutional review board (Comité de Ética de la Investigación de Córdoba; SICEIA-2024–0 01 762). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences.

NCT06814301.

This study aims to review whether both clinical and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty have improved over time using the National Joint Registry (NJR).

This study is a population-based cohort study using the NJR and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

Publicly funded hospitals and procedures in England from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2021.

All patients that received a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in the specified time period. Patients were excluded if they had less than 1 year of follow-up.

Primary outcome was revision at one year. Secondary outcomes were non-revision re-operation and mortality at one year, length of stay (LOS) and mean change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) from pre-operatively to 6 months post-operatively.

There were 24 411 RSA cases available for analysis. There was no significant improvement in revision rates over time; however, there was a significant reduction in non-revision re-operations (OR 0.93 (0.86–0.99) p=0.03) and mortality (0.96 (0.92–1.00) p=0.04). LOS over time improved with an average reduction of 0.24 days per year, ranging from a mean of 3.94 days in 2013 to 2.44 days in 2021 (p

Over the 9-year period recorded in the NJR, revision rates were low and remained similar. There has, however, been an improvement in other clinical outcomes such as non-revision reoperation and mortality as well as functional outcomes and reduced LOS, which demonstrates progress in the quality of care provided to shoulder replacement patients and is suggestive of advancements in surgical techniques, perioperative management and rehabilitation strategies.

To compare in-hospital and long-term outcomes between culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and multivessel PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicentre Gulf-Cardiogenic Shock registry.

13 tertiary care centres across six Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain) between January 2020 and December 2022.

961 patients with angiographically confirmed multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent PCI were included from the Gulf-Cardiogenic Shock registry. Patients were divided into culprit-only PCI group (n=792, 82.4%) and multivessel PCI group (n=169, 17.6%). Patients with single-vessel disease were excluded.

Patients underwent either culprit-only PCI (intervention limited to the culprit artery) or multivessel PCI (immediate intervention to both culprit and non-culprit arteries during the same procedure).

The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included reinfarction, cerebrovascular accident, major and minor bleeding events, target lesion revascularisation, target vessel revascularisation, hospital stay duration and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) at 6 and 12 months.

Hospital mortality was comparable between multivessel PCI and culprit-only PCI groups (43.2% vs 46.1%; p=0.493). Freedom from MACCE rates at 6 and 12 months were 62% and 46% for multivessel PCI versus 70% and 49% for culprit-only PCI, respectively (log-rank p=0.711). Subgroup analysis revealed that culprit-only PCI was associated with increased hospital mortality in patients older than 70 years (OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.39). Multivariable analysis of the interaction between revascularisation strategy and the subgroups revealed that culprit vessel revascularisation was associated with increased mortality in patients with left main disease (OR: 1.99 (95% CI: 1.22 to 3.27), p=0.006) and left anterior descending lesions (OR: 1.54 (95% CI: 1.06 to 2.25), p=0.025).

No statistically significant differences in hospital mortality or long-term MACCE-free survival were observed between culprit-only PCI and multivessel PCI strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, patients older than 70 years may benefit from a multivessel PCI approach. These findings support current guideline recommendations favouring culprit-only PCI due to reduced procedural complexity while highlighting the need for individualised treatment strategies based on patient age and clinical factors. Further prospective randomised studies are needed to validate these age-specific findings and identify optimal patient selection criteria for each revascularisation strategy.

School environments that encourage children to be physically active can embed lifelong positive health behaviours and contribute towards reducing health inequalities. The Health and Activity of Pupils in the Primary Years (HAPPY) study aims to: (1) explore the extent to which the WHO criteria for creating active school environments are implemented by primary schools and (2) examine associations between active school environments and children’s physical activity, mental health and educational performance.

The HAPPY study is a quasi-experimental study comprising: (1) a survey of state-funded Greater London primary schools to identify implementation of the WHO’s six criteria and (2) a cross-sectional study to examine associations between schools’ active environment score (derived from the school survey) and pupils’ physical activity, mental health and educational performance. For our cross-sectional study, we will recruit up to 1000 year-three children (aged 7–8 years). Our primary outcome is accelerometer (GENEActiv) assessed physical activity, our secondary outcomes are parent-reported child mental health (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) and teacher-reported educational performance (age-related expectations). Using multilevel mixed-effects regression models, we will examine associations between the active environment score and physical activity. Physical activity will be included as a measure of acceleration and also different intensities (light, moderate, vigorous). We will repeat this analysis to examine associations between the active environment score and mental health and educational performance. We will adjust for school characteristics and area-level deprivation and include pupil characteristics (eg, sex, ethnic group) as covariates. Clustering at the school level will be included as a random effect.

Ethical approval has been obtained from Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (ref: 6800895). Findings will be disseminated through a summary report to all participating schools, peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences and National Institute for Health and Care Research policy briefings.