Nigeria has the highest number of maternal deaths globally, and maternal peripartum sepsis is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. A single oral dose of azithromycin (AZM; 2 g) is safe and effectively reduces 33%–60% of maternal sepsis during planned vaginal birth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral AZM during vaginal birth in Nigeria remains unknown in the context of poor antimicrobial stewardship practices, significant antimicrobial resistance and healthcare financing. Evidence is also lacking on the standard care for the prevention of maternal sepsis among pregnant women undergoing vaginal births in Nigeria. The AZIN-V trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial to determine the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of intrapartum oral AZM versus usual care in the prevention of peripartum maternal sepsis. The trial will also examine the impact of implementation strategies in enhancing adherence to the oral AZM protocol during planned vaginal births and identify effective strategies to improve adherence (fidelity) to the protocol in real-world LMIC settings.

This is a multicentre hybrid type 2 trial conducted in six Nigerian states: Ebonyi, Edo, Gombe, Kano, Kwara and Lagos. The study aims to simultaneously test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of AZM (clinical trial) and the impact of implementation strategies (implementation research) in Nigeria’s unique healthcare context. The clinical trial is a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial conducted across 48 health facilities, randomly assigned (1:1) to either intrapartum administration of oral AZM (intervention group) or usual care—the current routine practice (control group). A total of 5040 study participants (2520 in each group) will be enrolled in the clinical trial. The implementation trial is a two-arm cluster non-randomised controlled trial conducted in 12 health facilities (1:1) allocated to either a bottom-up approach using the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle or a usual top-down approach with a one-time training workshop and distribution of clinical guidelines, with both arms administering oral AZM during vaginal birth while assessing fidelity (primary outcome).

For the clinical trial, data will be analysed using intention-to-treat statistical methods. The cost-effectiveness outcome will be analysed using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Implementation outcomes will be analysed using descriptive statistics and a thematic approach.

This study has been approved by the National Health Research Ethics Committee, Nigeria (NHREC/01/01/2007-30/09/2024), the ethics committees of the participating health institutions (Lagos University Teaching Hospital Research Ethics Committee: ADM/DSCST/HREC/APP/6325; University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Health Research Ethics Committee: ERC/PAN/2025/03/0581; University of Benin Teaching Hospital Health Research Ethics Committee: ADM/E22/A/VOL. VII/483117141; Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital Research Ethics Committee: AKTH/MAC/SUB/12 A/P-3/VI/2509 and Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital Research Ethics Committee: ISTH/HREC/20241507/605), the Ministries of Health of the six states and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. Written informed consent will be obtained from all eligible study participants before enrolment. Results will be shared with communities and policy stakeholders and through peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at conferences.

ISRCTN16415327.

To evaluate the impact of public–private mix (PPM) models for tuberculosis (TB) on health, process and system outcomes, adopting the WHO’s definition of PPM, which is a strategic partnership between national TB programmes and healthcare providers, both public and private, to deliver high-quality TB diagnosis and treatment.

Systematic review without meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.

EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index, Emerging Sources Citation Index, CENTRAL, Database of Disability and Inclusion Information Resources, WHO Library Database and 3ie.

We included all primary studies examining PPM models delivering TB services in urban health sectors in least-developed, low-income and lower–middle-income countries and territories.

17 reviewers were involved in data extraction in COVIDENCE using a prepiloted template. All extractions were completed by a single reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal was carried out using the mixed-methods appraisal tool, covering mixed-methods, qualitative and quantitative study designs. Narrative synthesis was carried out by tabulating and summarising studies according to PPM models and reported in line with the synthesis without meta-analysis guidelines.

Of the 57 included studies, covering quantitative (n=41), qualitative (n=6) and mixed-method (n=10) designs, the majority were from Southeast Asia (n=37). PPM models had overall positive results on TB treatment outcomes, access and coverage and value for money. They are linked with improved TB health workers’ skills and service delivery. Most outcomes tended to favour interface models, although with considerable heterogeneity. Inconsistent implementation of national TB guidelines, uncoordinated referrals and lack of trust among partners were identified as areas of improvement. Evidence was lacking on the involvement of informal providers within PPM models.

PPM models can be effective and cost-effective for TB care in urban low- and middle-income countries contexts, particularly when levels of mistrust between public and private sectors are addressed through principles of equal partnership. The evidence indicates that this may be more achievable when an interface organisation manages the partnership.

CRD42021289509.

This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.

There is an absence of real-world evidence, especially from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), on the implementation successes and challenges of COVID-19 Test and Treat (T&T) programmes. In 2022, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was provided as standard of care for mild to moderate COVID-19 treatment in eight LMICs (Ghana, Kenya, Laos, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia). This manuscript describes a research protocol to study novel drug introduction during the COVID-19 health emergency, with implications and learnings for future pandemic preparedness. The goal of the study is to provide simultaneous programme learnings and improvements with programme rollout, to fill a gap in real-world implementation data on T&T programmes of oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19 and inform programme implementation and scale-up in other LMICs.

This multiple methods implementation research study is divided into three components to address key operational research objectives: (1) programme learnings, monitoring and evaluation; (2) patient-level programme impact; and (3) key stakeholder perspectives. Data collection will occur for a minimum of 6 months in each country up to the end of grant. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics for each country and then aggregated across the programme countries. Stakeholder perspectives will be examined using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research implementation science framework and semistructured interviews.

This study was approved by the Duke University Institutional Review Board (Pro00111388). The study was also approved by the local institutional review boards in each country participating in individual-level data collection (objectives 2 and 3): Ghana, Malawi, Rwanda, Nigeria and Zambia. The study’s findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through dialogue events, national and international conferences and through social media.

NCT06360783.