Since 2018, WHO has endorsed the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex isolates to detect drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). This endorsement was based on the assumption that a faster and more detailed description of the resistance profile would improve treatment prescription for DR-TB by healthcare providers, and hence the treatment outcomes of patients. Nonetheless, this assumption has not been tested in routine clinical practice and different scenarios. In Brazil, WGS is not routinely used for the diagnosis of DR-TB, having been carried out in only a few centres for research purposes. With this trial, we will evaluate whether a WGS-based drug-resistance report improves treatment adequacy in patients with pulmonary DR-TB, compared with the current standard-of-care diagnostic methods used in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

We will conduct a non-randomised controlled clinical trial with two arms to compare the intervention group (ie, individuals receiving a WGS-based report) with a historical control group (i.e., individuals who received resistance diagnostics based on the standard of care of conventional genotyping and phenotyping techniques). The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients whose treatment scheme was adequate based on complete resistance profile determined by WGS and/or phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing (pDST). Other secondary outcomes will also be considered. The target sample size is 88 eligible patients per group. The intervention group will be prospectively recruited over 18 months and the control group will be composed of patients diagnosed with pulmonary DR-TB up to 2 years before the start of the trial. To ensure comparability, isolates from the control group will undergo WGS retrospectively, and pDST will be performed retrospectively in both groups. This clinical trial will take place in six medical centres for the treatment of DR-TB in the state of São Paulo. This study is intended to support the implementation of the WGS in the routine diagnosis of DR-TB in the state of São Paulo.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Committee of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil (CAAE: 79497924.1.1001.5467). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to policymakers and stakeholders.

U1111-1308-4669.

The rapidly growing population of older adults (individuals aged 65 years and older) presents a new set of challenges for healthcare providers in the emergency department (ED), given the prevalence of severe and life-threatening conditions among this group, such as chronic cancer, Alzheimer’s disease/dementia and congestive heart failure. ED encounters often represent a critical point in an older patient’s trajectory of care and can thus be an important opportunity for various interventions such as palliative care consultation. Therefore, identifying those who will benefit most from palliative care is of high importance, especially in determining the course of future treatment. Thus, we aim to conduct a systematic review assessing the efficacy of palliative care screening in the ED by assessing inpatient length of stay as the primary outcome and quality of life, percentage of hospitalisation and cost of care as secondary outcomes.

This study will use Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane as databases. The study population comprises adults aged 60 years and older, with no focus on any specific clinical specialty or disease. Patients who have not received palliative care screening will serve as the comparator. Only studies with an applicable comparator will be considered. Studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2025 will be included.

All articles will be reviewed independently and in duplicate, and every author will participate in the review, data abstraction and conflict resolution process.

Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

CRD42024562389.

The combination with corticosteroids as immunomodulators has been the subject of debate in different infectious syndromes. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy (the percentage of patients hospitalised with influenza with a status of 3 or higher according to the Hospital Recovery Scale (HRS) on day 7 after the start of treatment) and safety of dexamethasone.

Investigator-initiated multicentre, blinded, randomised placebo-controlled trial with two parallel treatment arms. The study population will consist of adult patients (over 18 years of age) hospitalised with severe influenza. One arm will receive one capsule of 6 mg of dexamethasone for 7 days, and the other arm will receive one capsule of placebo for 7 days of antibiotic treatment for 7 days or longer. Both groups will receive oseltamivir (75 mg/12 hours orally) for 5 days, extendable to 10 days depending on the investigator decision. Randomisation will occur in equal proportion (1:1). Patients with bronchial hyper-responsiveness that requires systemic corticosteroids for more than 24 hours, preinclusion treatment with corticosteroids for more than 24 hours at a dose equal to or higher than 1 mg/kg methylprednisolone (0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone or 1.25 mg/kg prednisone), inability to administer oral oseltamivir, patients with severe comorbidity with a life expectancy of

The study is approved by the Institutional Review Board of Alicante Health Department—Dr. Balmis General University Hospital (LOC-100061146). The results of the main trial and each of the secondary endpoints will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal

NCT06528444.

Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia every year with either propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA). It is currently unknown which of these techniques is superior in relation to patient experience, safety and clinical outcomes. The primary aims of this trial are to determine (1) whether patients undergoing (a) major inpatient surgery, (b) minor inpatient surgery or (c) outpatient surgery have a superior quality of recovery after INVA or TIVA and (2) whether TIVA confers no more than a small (0.2%) increased risk of definite intraoperative awareness than INVA.

This protocol was co-created by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 13 000-patient, multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised, comparative effectiveness trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to one of two anaesthetic approaches, TIVA or INVA, using minimisation. The primary effectiveness endpoints are Quality of Recovery-15 (QOR-15) score on postoperative day (POD) 1 in patients undergoing (1) major inpatient surgery, (2) minor inpatient surgery or (3) outpatient surgery, and the primary safety endpoint is the incidence of unintended definite intraoperative awareness with recall in all patients, assessed on POD1 or POD30. Secondary endpoints include QOR-15 score on POD0, POD2 and POD7; incidence of delirium on POD0 and POD1; functional status on POD30 and POD90; health-related quality of life on POD30, POD90, POD180 and POD365; days alive and at home at POD30; patient satisfaction with anaesthesia at POD2; respiratory failure on POD0; kidney injury on POD7; all-cause mortality at POD30 and POD90; intraoperative hypotension; moderate-to-severe intraoperative movement; unplanned hospital admission after outpatient surgery in a free-standing ambulatory surgery centre setting; propofol-related infusion syndrome and malignant hyperthermia.

This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University, serving as the single Institutional Review Board for all participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2023. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.

NCT05991453.

To investigate the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with chronic health conditions (CHC) and their legal guardians (LG) living in Germany.

Qualitative interview study based on the transcripts of semistructured individual telephone interviews.

Data were collected from October to December 2021 and the time frame of reference was January–June 2021 with two interviewers. Discussed aspects were, for example, socioeconomic information, daily life, thoughts and feelings of both children and LG, as well as family communication, unmet needs and possible advantages. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The category system and subsequent coding schemes with anchor examples were based on interviews and the interview guide. It was tested for integrity and feasibility with one interview and finalised. To ensure classification reliability within all 11 interviews, 1 specifically trained rater (who did not participate in the interviewing to separate data collection and analysis) coded all transcripts.

11 LG of children with CHC participating in the ikidS (ich komme in die Schule) study.

The three aspects that were mentioned most often in the interviews were a psychological impact on children, a psychological impact on LG and an impact on the daily routines of LG. The majority of children and LG were burdened, had changed their activities and spent more time together, while having more conflicts. Children did not worry about becoming infected with COVID-19, but were worried about the health of their relatives. It was further reported that children had become more autonomous. LG additionally reported unmet needs such as opportunities for childcare or psychotherapy.

While the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact were often seen as negative, the LG in our study also perceived some opportunities for personal development both in their children and themselves, underlining that future research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic should focus not only on negative consequences but also on opportunities and positive change. Qualitative methods can be used on an exploratory basis to inform quantitative studies, as they are able to delve deeper into the area being examined and provide greater insight into which aspects interviewees focus on.