In recent decades, all-cause mortality has increased among individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), influenced by factors such as aetiology, standards of care and access to kidney replacement therapies (dialysis and transplantation). The recent COVID-19 pandemic also affected mortality over the past few years. Here, we outline the protocol for a systematic review to investigate global temporal trends in all-cause mortality among patients with CKD at any stage from 1990 to current. We also aim to assess temporal trends in the mortality rate associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

We will conduct a systematic review of studies reporting mortality for patients with CKD following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We will search electronic databases, national and multiregional kidney registries and grey literature to identify observational studies that reported on mortality associated with any cause for patients with CKD of all ages with any stage of the disease. We will collect data between April and August 2023 to include all studies published from 1990 to August 2023. There will be no language restriction, and clinical trials will be excluded. Primary outcome will be temporal trends in CKD-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include assessing mortality differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring causes of death and examining trends across CKD stages, country classifications, income levels and demographics.

A systematic review will analyse existing data from previously published studies and have no direct involvement with patient data. Thus, ethical approval is not required. Our findings will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

CRD42023416084.

Rapid population ageing is a demographic trend being experienced and documented worldwide. While increased health screening and assessment may help mitigate the burden of illness in older people, issues such as misdiagnosis may affect access to interventions. This study aims to elicit the values and preferences of evidence-informed older people living in the community on early screening for common health conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia and frailty). The study will proceed in three Phases: (1) generating recommendations of older people through a series of Citizens’ Juries; (2) obtaining feedback from a diverse range of stakeholder groups on the jury findings; and (3) co-designing a set of Knowledge Translation resources to facilitate implementation into research, policy and practice. Conditions were chosen to reflect common health conditions characterised by increasing prevalence with age, but which have been underexamined through a Citizens’ Jury methodology.

This study will be conducted in three Phases—(1) Citizens’ Juries, (2) Policy Roundtables and (3) Production of Knowledge Translation resources. First, older people aged 50+ (n=80), including those from traditionally hard-to-reach and diverse groups, will be purposively recruited to four Citizen Juries. Second, representatives from a range of key stakeholder groups, including consumers and carers, health and aged care policymakers, general practitioners, practice nurses, geriatricians, allied health practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers and community and aged care providers (n=40) will be purposively recruited for two Policy Roundtables. Finally, two researchers and six purposively recruited consumers will co-design Knowledge Translation resources. Thematic analysis will be performed on documentation and transcripts.

Ethical approval has been obtained through the Torrens University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants will give written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through development of a policy brief and lay summary, peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and seminars.

Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) refers to the intravenous administration of macronutrients, micronutrients and fluid. The aims of treatment are to increase survival and improve quality of life (QoL). However, patients struggle with physiological symptoms, time-consuming invasive therapy and an increased occurrence of depression and social isolation. Our aim is to understand how HPN impacts the QoL of patients, and the contribution played by the complications of treatment, for example, liver disease.

A multicentre, longitudinal, observational study will be conducted using routinely collected clinical data. Participants will also be asked to complete three QoL questionnaires (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form 36 and HPN-QoL) at baseline and 12 months. The primary outcome is mean change in QoL scores over 12 months. Secondary outcomes include how factors including liver function, gut microbiota, number of infusions of PN per week, nutritional composition of PN and nutritional status impact on QoL scores.

Ethical approval was obtained from HRA and Health and Care Research Wales Research Ethics Committee (21/SC/0316). The study was eligible for portfolio adoption, Central Portfolio Management System ID 50506. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at national and international meetings.

This study was conducted to evaluate the ability of risk assessment to predict healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), costs, treatments, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival in patients diagnosed with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).

Retrospective observational study.

Pulmonary hypertension referral centre in the UK.

Adults diagnosed with CTEPH between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2019 were included. Cohorts were retrospectively defined for operated patients (received pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA)) and not operated; further subgroups were defined based on risk score (low, intermediate or high risk for 1-year mortality) at diagnosis.

Demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, treatment patterns, HRQoL, HCRU, costs and survival outcomes were analysed.

Overall, 683 patients were analysed (268 (39%) operated; 415 (61%) not operated). Most patients in the operated and not-operated cohorts were intermediate risk (63%; 53%) or high risk (23%; 31%) at diagnosis. Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients had higher HCRU and costs than low-risk patients. Outpatient and accident and emergency visits were lower postdiagnosis for both cohorts and all risk groups versus prediagnosis. HRQoL scores noticeably improved in the operated cohort post-PEA, and less so in the not-operated cohort at 6–18 months postdiagnosis. Survival at 5 years was 83% (operated) and 49% (not operated) and was lower for intermediate-risk and high-risk patients compared with low-risk patients.

Findings from this study support that risk assessment at diagnosis is prognostic for mortality in patients with CTEPH. Low-risk patients have better survival and HRQoL and lower HCRU and costs compared with intermediate-risk and high-risk patients.

Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for severe obesity that leads to significant physical health improvements. Few studies have prospectively described the short-term impact of surgery on mental health using standardised case-finding measures for anxiety or depressive disorders. This study describes the prevalence and short-term course of these conditions following surgery.

Prospective observational cohort study.

12 National Health Service centres in England.

Participants studied took part in the By-Band-Sleeve study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the surgical management of severe obesity. We included participants who had undergone surgery (gastric bypass, gastric band or sleeve gastrectomy) within 6 months of randomisation.

Anxiety and depression were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline and 12 months post-randomisation. Sociodemographic variables collected at prerandomisation included body mass index, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, tobacco use, employment status and income band.

In our sample of 758 participants, 94.5% (n 716) and 93.9% (n 712) had completed baseline anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) subscales. At pre-randomisation 46.1% (n 330/716, 95% CI 42.4% to 49.7%) met clinical case criteria for anxiety and 48.2% (n 343/712, 95% CI 44.5% to 51.8%) for depression. Among participants returning completed 12 months post-randomisation questionnaires (HADS-A n 503/716, HADS-D n 498/712), there was a significant reduction in the proportion of clinical cases with anxiety (–9.5%, 95% CI –14.3% to -4.8% p

Almost half of people undergoing bariatric surgery had underlying anxiety or depressive symptoms. In the short term, these symptoms appear to substantially improve. Future work must identify whether these effects are sustained beyond the first post-randomisation year.

NCT02841527 and ISRCTN00786323.

Patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease (CAD) are currently treated with medications and lifestyle advice to reduce the likelihood of disease progression and risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Where obstructive disease is diagnosed, revascularisation may be considered to treat refractory symptoms. However, many patients with coexistent cardiovascular risk factors, particularly those with metabolic syndrome (MetS), remain at heightened risk of future MACE despite current management.

Cardiac rehabilitation is offered to patients post-revascularisation, however, there is no definitive evidence demonstrating its benefit in a primary prevention setting. We propose that an intensive lifestyle intervention (Super Rehab, SR) incorporating high-intensity exercise, diet and behavioural change techniques may improve symptoms, outcomes, and enable CAD regression.

This study aims to examine the feasibility of delivering a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing SR for patients with CAD, in a primary prevention setting.

This is a multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study of SR versus usual care in patients with CAD. The study aims to recruit 50 participants aged 18–75 across two centres. Feasibility will be assessed against rates of recruitment, retention and, in the intervention arm, attendance and adherence to SR. Qualitative interviews will explore trial experiences of study participants and practitioners. Variance of change in CAD across both arms of the study (assessed with serial CT coronary angiography) will inform the design and power of a future, multi-centre RCT.

Ethics approval was granted by South West—Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/SW/0153, 18 January 2022). Study findings will be disseminated via presentations to relevant stakeholders, national and international conferences and open-access peer-reviewed research publications.

ISRCTN14603929.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing field in healthcare, with tools being developed across various specialties to support healthcare professionals and reduce workloads. It is important to understand the experiences of professionals working in healthcare to ensure that future AI tools are acceptable and effectively implemented. The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of UK healthcare workers and other key stakeholders about the use of AI in the National Health Service (NHS).

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted remotely via MS Teams. Thematic analysis was carried out.

NHS and UK higher education institutes.

Thirteen participants were recruited, including clinical and non-clinical participants working for the NHS and researchers working to develop AI tools for healthcare settings.

Four core themes were identified: positive perceptions of AI; potential barriers to using AI in healthcare; concerns regarding AI use and steps needed to ensure the acceptability of future AI tools. Overall, we found that those working in healthcare were generally open to the use of AI and expected it to have many benefits for patients and facilitate access to care. However, concerns were raised regarding the security of patient data, the potential for misdiagnosis and that AI could increase the burden on already strained healthcare staff.

This study found that healthcare staff are willing to engage with AI research and incorporate AI tools into care pathways. Going forward, the NHS and AI developers will need to collaborate closely to ensure that future tools are suitable for their intended use and do not negatively impact workloads or patient trust. Future AI studies should continue to incorporate the views of key stakeholders to improve tool acceptability.

NCT05028179; ISRCTN15113915; IRAS ref: 293515.

Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines.

This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient–participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient–participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned.

The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations.

ACTRN12622001505796.

In older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), overtreatment with hypoglycaemic drugs (HDs: sulfonylureas, glinides and/or insulins) is frequent and associated with increased 1-year mortality. Deintensification of HD is thus a key issue, for which evidence is though limited. The primary objective of this study will be to estimate the effect of deintensifying HD on clinical outcomes (hospital admission or death) within 3 months in older adults (≥75 years) with T2D.

We will emulate with real-world data a target trial, within The Health Improvement Network cohort, a large-scale database of data collected from electronic medical records of 2000 general practitioners in France. From 1 January 2010 to 28 February 2019, we will include eligible patients ≥75 years who will have T2D, a stable dose of HDs, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) value 75 mmol/mol within 1 year. Participants will be followed from baseline to 12 months after randomisation, administrative censoring, or death, whichever occurs first. A pooled logistic regression will be used to estimate the treatment effect on the incidence of the outcomes.

No ethical approval is needed for using retrospectively this fully anonymised database. The results will be disseminated during conferences and through publications in scientific journals.

The objective of this study is to investigate early-to-late postdoctoral clinical academic progression and the experiences of NIHR Clinical Lectureship (CL) fellows, considering enablers and barriers to success, and identifying the factors associated with immediate progression to a clinical academic role following completion of the award.

Datasets of CL awardees across the UK.

For semistructured interviews, n=40 CL awardees that had finished their award within the previous 5 years. For quantitative analysis, n=1226 completed or currently active CL awardees.

The responses from the semistructured interviews to the defined questions on experiences during the award, postaward progression, and enablers and barriers to academic progression. Other primary outcome measures were quantitative data on first destinations postaward, demographic data, and whether an awardee had previously held an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship (ACF) or was a recipient of the Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) Starter Grant.

CL awardees identified numerous benefits to the award, with the majority achieving their aims. Most awardees progressed to a clinical academic role; however, some returned to a clinical only position, citing concerns around the time pressure associated with balancing clinical and academic responsibilities, and the competition to attain further postdoctoral awards. The region of the award partnership, year of award end and success in applying for an AMS Starter Grant were associated with progression to a clinical academic role. Gender, holding an ACF and having a craft or non-craft specialty had no independent statistical association with clinical academic progression.

The CL is a valued element of the Integrated Academic Pathway. By addressing issues around later postdoctoral progression opportunities, responding to challenges experienced by CLs, and by understanding the factors identified in this study associated with clinical academic progression, it should be possible to increase the proportion of CLs that become fully independent clinical academic research leaders.

1226 NIHR CLs active or completed on the award between 2006 and 2020.

In population-based research, disease ascertainment algorithms can be as accurate as, and less costly than, performing supplementary clinical examinations on selected participants to confirm a diagnosis of a neurocognitive disorder (NCD), but they require cohort-specific validation. To optimise the use of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) to understand the epidemiology and burden of NCDs, the CLSA Memory Study will validate an NCD ascertainment algorithm to identify CLSA participants with these disorders using routinely acquired study data.

Up to 600 CLSA participants with equal numbers of those likely to have no NCD, mild NCD or major NCD based on prior self-reported physician diagnosis of a memory problem or dementia, medication consumption (ie, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine) and/or self-reported function will be recruited during the follow-up 3 CLSA evaluations (started August 2021). Participants will undergo an assessment by a study clinician who will also review an informant interview and make a preliminary determination of the presence or absence of an NCD. The clinical assessment and available CLSA data will be reviewed by a Central Review Panel who will make a final categorisation of participants as having (1) no NCD, (2) mild NCD or, (3) major NCD (according to fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria). These will be used as our gold standard diagnosis to determine if the NCD ascertainment algorithm accurately identifies CLSA participants with an NCD. Weighted Kappa statistics will be the primary measure of agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, the C-statistic and the phi coefficient will also be estimated.

Ethics approval has been received from the institutional research ethics boards for each CLSA Data Collection Site (Université de Sherbrooke, Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, University of Manitoba, McGill University, McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, University of Victoria, Élisabeth Bruyère Research Institute of Ottawa, University of British Columbia, Island Health (Formerly the Vancouver Island Health Authority, Simon Fraser University, Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board).

The results of this work will be disseminated to public health professionals, researchers, health professionals, administrators and policy-makers through journal publications, conference presentations, publicly available reports and presentations to stakeholder groups.