Gonorrhoea, the sexually transmissible infection caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, has a substantial impact on sexual and reproductive health globally with an estimated 82 million new infections each year worldwide. N. gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance continues to escalate, and disease control is largely reliant on effective therapy as there is no proven effective gonococcal vaccine available. However, there is increasing evidence from observational cohort studies that the serogroup B meningococcal vaccine four-component meningitis B vaccine (4CMenB) (Bexsero), licensed to prevent invasive disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis, may provide cross-protection against the closely related bacterium N. gonorrhoeae. This study will evaluate the efficacy of 4CMenB against N. gonorrhoeae infection in men (cis and trans), transwomen and non-binary people who have sex with men (hereafter referred to as GBM+).
This is a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in GBM+, either HIV-negative on pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV or living with HIV (CD4 count >350 cells/mm3), who have had a diagnosis of gonorrhoea or infectious syphilis in the last 18 months (a key characteristic associated with a high risk of N. gonorrhoeae infection). Participants are randomised 1:1 to receive two doses of 4CMenB or placebo 3 months apart. Participants have 3-monthly visits over 24 months, which include testing for N. gonorrhoeae and other sexually transmissible infections, collection of demographics, sexual behaviour risks and antibiotic use, and collection of research samples for analysis of N. gonorrhoeae-specific systemic and mucosal immune responses. The primary outcome is the incidence of the first episode of N. gonorrhoeae infection, as determined by nucleic acid amplification tests, post month 4. Additional outcomes consider the incidence of symptomatic or asymptomatic N. gonorrhoeae infection at different anatomical sites (ie, urogenital, anorectum or oropharynx), incidence by N. gonorrhoeae genotype and antimicrobial resistance phenotype, and level and functional activity of N. gonorrhoeae-specific antibodies.
Ethical approval was obtained from the St Vincent’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee, St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, NSW, Australia (ref: 2020/ETH01084). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and via presentation at national and international conferences.
The paediatric population represents a quarter of the world’s population, and like adult patients, they have also suffered immeasurably from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Immunisation is an effective strategy for reducing the number of COVID-19 cases. With the advancements in vaccination for younger age groups, parents or guardians have raised doubts and questions about adverse effects and the number of doses required. Therefore, systematic reviews focusing on this population are needed to consolidate evidence that can help in decision-making and clinical practice. This protocol aims to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in paediatric patients and evaluate the correlation between the number of vaccine doses and side effects.
We will search the PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus and Cochrane databases for randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials that list the adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine and assess its correlation with the number of doses, without any language restrictions. Two reviewers will select the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data and asses for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The Review Software Manager (RevMan V.5.4.1) will be used to synthesise the data. We will use the Working Group’s Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations to grade the strength of the evidence of the results.
Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.
CRD42023390077.
Sickle cell disease (SCD) poses a significant global health burden, particularly affecting individuals in developing countries with constrained healthcare resources. While research on self-management in the context of SCD is emerging, it has predominantly focused on primary studies, and there is a notable dearth of evidence synthesis on SCD self-management in developing countries. This scoping review aims to identify and map self-management needs of individuals living with SCD, the strategies they employed to meet those needs, and the support systems available to them.
The review will be conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) 29 framework to comprehensively examine the landscape of SCD self-management research. Searches will be performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Dimensions AI, with additional searches in other databases and grey literature. Indexed literature published in English from inception to January 2024 will be included. Reference list from included studies will also be searched manually. Two teams will be constituted to independently screen titles, abstracts and full text against the eligible criteria. Data will be extracted from included studies onto a customised data extraction form.
Ethical approval is not required for this review due to the fact that it synthesises information from available publications. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Also, the findings will possibly be presented at relevant international and national conferences. This protocol has already been registered with the Open Science Framework. The study characteristics such as design and setting will be descriptively analysed and presented as graphs, tables and figures. Thematic analysis will also be conducted based on the study objectives and presented as a narrative summary.
Breast cancer survivors (BCSs) experience more severe symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) than healthy postmenopausal women. As hormonal therapy with oestrogen should be avoided in BCSs, finding an effective and safe therapy to address vaginal symptoms and sexual dysfunction is urgently needed. Physical methods may be promising alternatives for the specificities of this group of women. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of physical methods (laser and radiofrequency) for treating GSM in BCSs.
The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SciELO, LILACS, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov databases will be searched. A search strategy was developed to retrieve clinical trials that evaluate the efficacy and safety of any physical method (laser or radiofrequency) used for GSM in BCSs. No date or language restrictions will be imposed. Two authors will independently select studies by title, abstract and full text to meet the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted, and the risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Review Manager 5.4.1 will be used for data synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess the strength of the evidence.
This study reviews the published data; thus, obtaining ethical approval is unnecessary. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
CRD42023387680.
Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.