Rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) in critically ill infants with suspected genetic disorders has high diagnostic and clinical utility. However, rGS has primarily been available at large referral centres with the resources and expertise to offer state-of-the-art genomic care. Critically ill infants from racial and ethnic minority and/or low-income populations disproportionately receive care in safety-net and/or community settings lacking access to state-of-the-art genomic care, contributing to unacceptable health equity gaps. VIrtual GenOme CenteR is a ‘proof-of-concept’ implementation science study of an innovative delivery model for genomic care in safety-net neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).

We developed a virtual genome centre at a referral centre to remotely support safety-net NICU sites predominantly serving racial and ethnic minority and/or low-income populations and have limited to no access to rGS. Neonatal providers at each site receive basic education about genomic medicine from the study team and identify eligible infants. The study team enrols eligible infants (goal n of 250) and their parents and follows families for 12 months. Enrolled infants receive rGS, the study team creates clinical interpretive reports to guide neonatal providers on interpreting results, and neonatal providers return results to families. Data is collected via (1) medical record abstraction, (2) surveys, interviews and focus groups with neonatal providers and (3) surveys and interviews with families. We aim to examine comprehensive implementation outcomes based on the Proctor Implementation Framework using a mixed methods approach.

This study is approved by the institutional review board of Boston Children’s Hospital (IRB-P00040496) and participating sites. Participating families are required to provide electronic written informed consent and neonatal provider consent is implied through the completion of surveys. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and data will be made accessible per National Institutes of Health (NIH) policies.

NCT05205356/clinicaltrials.gov.

The objective of this parallel group, randomised controlled trial is to evaluate a community health navigator (CHN) intervention provided to patients aged over 40 years and living with chronic health conditions to transition from hospital inpatient care to their homes. Unplanned hospital readmissions are costly for the health system and negatively impact patients.

Patients are randomised post hospital discharge to the CHN intervention or usual care. A comparison of outcomes between intervention and control groups will use multivariate regression techniques that adjust for age, sex and any independent variables that are significantly different between the two groups, using multiple imputation for missing values. Time-to-event analysis will examine the relationship between seeing a CHN following discharge from the index hospitalisation and reduced rehospitalisations in the subsequent 60 days and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include medication adherence, health literacy, quality of life, experience of healthcare and health service use (including the cost of care). We will also conduct a qualitative assessment of the implementation of the navigator role from the viewpoint of stakeholders including patients, health professionals and the navigators themselves.

Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics and Governance Office, Sydney Local Health District, on 21 January 2022 (Protocol no. X21-0438 and 2021/ETH12171). The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international conference presentations. Data will be deposited in an institutional data repository at the end of the trial. This is subject to Ethics Committee approval, and the metadata will be made available on request.

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12622000659707).

The objective of this trial is to evaluate a CHN intervention provided to patients aged over 40 years and living with chronic health conditions to transition from hospital inpatient care to their homes.

Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.

Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of –2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.

The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40–50 UK ICUs.

The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

External control arms (ECAs) provide useful comparisons in clinical trials when randomised control arms are limited or not feasible. We conducted a systematic review to summarise applications of ECAs in trials of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

Systematic review with an appraisal of ECA source quality rated across five domains (data collection, study populations, outcome definitions, reliability and comprehensiveness of the dataset, and other potential limitations) as high, low or unclear quality.

Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial were searched through to 12 September 2023.

Eligible studies were single-arm or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inflammatory bowel disease, pouchitis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in which an ECA was used as the comparator.

Two authors independently screened the search results in duplicate. The characteristics of included studies, external data source(s), outcomes and statistical methods were recorded, and the quality of the ECA data source was assessed by two independent authors.

Forty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (inflammatory bowel disease: 16, pouchitis: 1, rheumatoid arthritis: 12, juvenile idiopathic arthritis: 1, ankylosing spondylitis: 5, psoriasis: 3, multiple indications: 4). The majority of these trials were single-arm (33/43) and enrolled adult patients (34/43). All included studies used a historical control rather than a contemporaneous ECA. In RCTs, ECAs were most often derived from the placebo arm of another RCT (6/10). In single-arm trials, historical case series were the most common ECA source (19/33). Most studies (31/43) did not employ a statistical approach to generate the ECA from historical data.

Standardised ECA methodology and reporting conventions are lacking for IMIDs trials. The establishment of ECA reporting guidelines may enhance the rigour and transparency of future research.

Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards.

Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1).

Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting.

Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.

Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories.

Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider’s information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score.

Our study highlights the necessity that patients’ experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients’ information engagement into types.

NCT01399359.