To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.

Systematic review.

We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.

Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.

4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.

We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).

Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.

CRD42022282565.

Decisions about nurse staffing models are a concern for health systems globally due to workforce retention and well-being challenges. Nurse staffing models range from all Registered Nurse workforce to a mix of differentially educated nurses and aides (regulated and unregulated), such as Licensed Practical or Vocational Nurses and Health Care Aides. Systematic reviews have examined relationships between specific nurse staffing models and client, staff and health system outcomes (eg, mortality, adverse events, retention, healthcare costs), with inconclusive or contradictory results. No evidence has been synthesised and consolidated on how, why and under what contexts certain staffing models produce different outcomes. We aim to describe how we will (1) conduct a realist review to determine how nurse staffing models produce different client, staff and health system outcomes, in which contexts and through what mechanisms and (2) coproduce recommendations with decision-makers to guide future research and implementation of nurse staffing models.

Using an integrated knowledge translation approach with researchers and decision-makers as partners, we are conducting a three-phase realist review. In this protocol, we report on the final two phases of this realist review. We will use Citation tracking, tracing Lead authors, identifying Unpublished materials, Google Scholar searching, Theory tracking, ancestry searching for Early examples, and follow-up of Related projects (CLUSTER) searching, specifically designed for realist searches as the review progresses. We will search empirical evidence to test identified programme theories and engage stakeholders to contextualise findings, finalise programme theories document our search processes as per established realist review methods.

Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (Study ID Pro00100425). We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations, regional briefing sessions, webinars and lay summary.

Opioid overdoses in the USA have increased to unprecedented levels. Administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can prevent overdoses.

This study was conducted to reveal the pharmacoepidemiologic patterns in naloxone prescribing to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 as well as Medicare in 2019.

Observational pharmacoepidemiologic study

US Medicare and Medicaid naloxone claims

The Medicaid State Drug Utilisation Data File was utilised to extract information on the number of prescriptions and the amount prescribed of naloxone at a national and state level. The Medicare Provider Utilisation and Payment was also utilised to analyse prescription data from 2019.

States with naloxone prescription rates that were outliers of quartile analysis were noted.

The number of generic naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 Medicaid enrollees decreased by 5.3%, whereas brand naloxone prescriptions increased by 245.1% from 2018 to 2021. There was a 33.1-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico=1809.5) and lowest (South Dakota=54.6) states in 2019. Medicare saw a 30.4-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico) and lowest states (also South Dakota) after correcting per 100 000 enrollees.

This pronounced increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 indicates a national response to this widespread public health emergency. Further research into the origins of the pronounced state-level disparities is warranted.

To evaluate whether a focused, expert medication management intervention is feasible and potentially effective in preventing anticoagulation-related adverse events for patients transitioning from hospital to home.

Randomised, parallel design.

Medical wards at six hospital sites in southern Ontario, Canada.

Adults 18 years of age or older being discharged to home on an oral anticoagulant (OAC) to be taken for at least 4 weeks.

Clinical pharmacologist-led intervention, including a detailed discharge medication management plan, a circle of care handover and early postdischarge virtual check-up visits to 1 month with 3-month follow-up. The control group received the usual care.

Primary outcomes were study feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention and cost per patient). Secondary outcomes included adverse anticoagulant safety events composite, quality of transitional care, quality of life, anticoagulant knowledge, satisfaction with care, problems with medications and health resource utilisation.

Extensive periods of restriction of recruitment plus difficulties accessing patients at the time of discharge negatively impacted feasibility, especially cost per patient recruited. Of 845 patients screened, 167 were eligible and 56 were randomised. The mean age (±SD) was 71.2±12.5 years, 42.9% females, with two lost to follow-up. Intervention patients were more likely to rate their ability to manage their OAC as improved (17/27 (63.0%) vs 7/22 (31.8%), OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.0)) and their continuity of care as improved (21/27 (77.8%) vs 2/22 (9.1%), OR 35.0 (95% CI 6.3 to 194.2)). Fewer intervention patients were taking one or more inappropriate medications (7 (22.5%) vs 15 (60%), OR 0.19 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.62)).

This pilot randomised controlled trial suggests that a transitional care intervention at hospital discharge for older adults taking OACs was well received and potentially effective for some surrogate outcomes, but overly costly to proceed to a definitive large trial.

NCT02777047.

Characterised by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fatigue can significantly impact patient’s quality of life. Therapeutic developments in the last 20 years have revolutionised treatment. However, clinical trials and real-world data show primary non-response rates up to 40%. A significant challenge is an inability to predict which treatment will benefit individual patients.

Current understanding of IBD pathogenesis implicates complex interactions between host genetics and the gut microbiome. Most cohorts studying the gut microbiota to date have been underpowered, examined single treatments and produced heterogeneous results. Lack of cross-treatment comparisons and well-powered independent replication cohorts hampers the ability to infer real-world utility of predictive signatures.

IBD-RESPONSE will use multi-omic data to create a predictive tool for treatment response. Future patient benefit may include development of biomarker-based treatment stratification or manipulation of intestinal microbial targets. IBD-RESPONSE and downstream studies have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce patient risk and reduce expenditure on ineffective treatments.

This prospective, multicentre, observational study will identify and validate a predictive model for response to advanced IBD therapies, incorporating gut microbiome, metabolome, single-cell transcriptome, human genome, dietary and clinical data. 1325 participants commencing advanced therapies will be recruited from ~40 UK sites. Data will be collected at baseline, week 14 and week 54. The primary outcome is week 14 clinical response. Secondary outcomes include clinical remission, loss of response in week 14 responders, corticosteroid-free response/remission, time to treatment escalation and change in patient-reported outcome measures.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 21/WA/0228). Recruitment is ongoing. Following study completion, results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Publications will be summarised at www.ibd-response.co.uk.

ISRCTN96296121.

EndoTrac is a line-attached sheath-type traction device that enables us to control the direction and the force of traction during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The efficacy of EndoTrac for gastric ESD has not been fully verified.

The G-Trac study is a multicentre (nine general hospitals and two university hospitals in Japan) collaborative trial assessing the efficacy of EndoTrac for gastric ESDs. Patients with superficial gastric neoplasms will be enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo either conventional ESD or EndoTrac ESD. Allocation will be stratified according to tumour location, operator experience and tumour diameter at an allocation rate of 1:1. The type of endoknife used will be confirmed before randomisation. The primary outcome, procedure time, will be compared between the groups in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The efficacy-related, safety-related and device-related outcomes will be assessed in the secondary analysis. The planned sample size of the 142 patients in the two groups will enable us to detect a difference with a power of 80% by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, assuming an effect size of 0.54, asymptotic relative efficiency of 0.864 and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 5%.

This trial was approved by the certified review board of Kobe University (22 December 2022). The results from this trial will be disseminated through peer-review journals, presentations at national and international conferences, and data sharing with other researchers.

jRCT1052220166.

An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes.

This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored.

All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement.

NCT03653832.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a significant public health threat. Without any interventions, it has been modelled that AMR will account for an estimated 10 million deaths annually by 2050, this mainly affects low/middle-income countries. AMR has a systemic negative perspective affecting the overall healthcare system down to the patient’s personal outcome. In response to this issue, the WHO urged countries to provide antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs). ASPs in hospitals are a vital component of national action plans for AMR, and have been shown to significantly reduce AMR, in particular in low-income countries such as Madagascar.

As part of an ASP, AMR surveillance provides essential information needed to guide medical practice. We developed an AMR surveillance tool—Technique de Surveillance Actualisée de la Résistance aux Antimicrobiens (TSARA)—with the support of the Mérieux Foundation. TSARA combines bacteriological and clinical information to provide a better understanding of the scope and the effects of AMR in Madagascar, where no such surveillance tool exists.

A prospective, observational, hospital-based study was carried out for data collection using a standardised data collection tool, called TSARA deployed in 2023 in 10 hospitals in Madagascar participating in the national Malagasy laboratory network (Réseau des Laboratoires à Madagascar (RESAMAD)). Any hospitalised patient where the clinician decided to take a bacterial sample is included. As a prospective study, individual isolate-level data and antimicrobial susceptibility information on pathogens were collected routinely from the bacteriology laboratory and compiled with clinical information retrieved from face-to-face interviews with the patient and completed using medical records where necessary. Analysis of the local ecology, resistance rates and antibiotic prescription patterns were collected.

This protocol obtained ethical approval from the Malagasy Ethical Committee n°07-MSANP/SG/AGMED/CNPV/CERBM on 24 January 2023. Findings generated were shared with national health stakeholders, microbiologists, members of the RESAMAD network and the Malagasy academic society of infectious diseases.

Satisfactory management of acute pain remains a major medical challenge despite the availability of multiple therapeutic options including the fixed-dose combination (FDC) drugs. Tramadol and dexketoprofen trometamol (TRAM/DKP) 75/25 mg FDC was launched in 2018 in Asia and is widely used in the management of moderate to severe acute pain. There are limited data on its effectiveness and safety in Asian patients, and therefore, a need to better understand its usage patterns in clinical practice. We aim to understand the usage pattern of TRAM/DKP FDC, its effectiveness and tolerability in patients with moderate to severe acute pain in Asia.

REKOVER is a phase-IV, multicountry, multicentre, prospective, real-world observational study. A total of 750 postsurgical and non-surgical patients (male and female, aged 18–80 years) will be recruited from 13 tertiary-care hospitals (15 sites) in Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. All patients prescribed with TRAM/DKP FDC and willing to participate in the study will be enrolled. The recruitment duration for each site will be 6 months. The severity of pain will be collected using Numeric Pain Rating Scale through the treatment period from day 1 to day 5, while satisfaction with the treatment will be evaluated using Patient Global Evaluation Scale at the end of treatment. Any adverse event reported during the study duration will be recorded for safety analysis (up to day 6). The study data will be entered into the ClaimIt portal and mobile application (app) (ObvioHealth, USA). All the inpatient data will be entered into the portal by the study site and for outpatient it will be done by patients through an app.

The study has been approved by the local ethics committee from each study sites in Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. Findings will be disseminated through local and global conference presentations, publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and continuing medical education.

There are substantial variations in entry criteria for heart failure (HF) clinics, leading to variations in whom providers refer for these life-saving services. This study investigated actual versus ideal HF clinic inclusion or exclusion criteria and how that related to referring providers' perspectives of ideal criteria.

Two cross-sectional surveys were administered via research electronic data capture to clinic providers and referrers (eg, cardiologists, family physicians and nurse practitioners) across Canada.

Twenty-seven criteria selected based on the literature and HF guidelines were tested. Respondents were asked to list any additional criteria. The degree of agreement was assessed (eg, Kappa).

Responses were received from providers at 48 clinics (37.5% response rate). The most common actual inclusion criteria were newly diagnosed HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class IIIB/IV and recent hospitalisation (each endorsed by >74% of respondents). Exclusion criteria included congenital aetiology, intravenous inotropes, a lack of specialists, some non-cardiac comorbidities and logistical factors (eg, rurality and technology access). There was the greatest discordance between actual and ideal criteria for the following: inpatient at the same institution (=0.14), congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension or genetic cardiomyopathies (all =0.36). One-third (n=16) of clinics had changed criteria, often for non-clinical reasons. Seventy-three referring providers completed the survey. Criteria endorsed more by referrers than clinics included low blood pressure with a high heart rate, recurrent defibrillator shocks and intravenous inotropes—criteria also consistent with guidelines.

There is considerable agreement on the main clinic entry criteria, but given some discordance, two levels of clinics may be warranted. Publicising evidence-based criteria and applying them systematically at referral sources could support improved HF patient care journeys and outcomes.