Poor chest health is the leading cause of early mortality in children with cerebral palsy (CP). It is also the most common reason to seek healthcare, accruing significant costs and reducing quality-of-life for children and families. Clinical trials examining chest health interventions in CP are characterised by inconsistent outcome measures, limiting the capacity for evidence synthesis to inform clinical application. The study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) and related measurement instruments to assess, monitor and evaluate chest health in children with CP, both in research and routine clinical practice. The COS will reflect the views of children, young people, parent/carers, clinicians and researchers, emphasising under-represented groups in research and those at risk of poorer chest health.

A 3-phase methodology will be conducted in line with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. (1) Candidate outcomes will be identified through a qualitative evidence synthesis and interviews with key stakeholders. Findings will be mapped to COMET-taxonomy, generating a list of candidate outcomes. (2) An international e-Delphi survey will invite stakeholders to rate the importance of each outcome, followed by a consensus meeting to ratify the COS. (3) A structured review, guided by health measurement taxonomy, will evaluate relevant instruments, with a final meeting to agree on recommended measures for each COS domain.

Ethical approval was provided by the University of Plymouth Research Ethics Committee for the qualitative interview study (ID5116), e-Delphi study and consensus meeting (ID5636). Study findings will be published open access in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant national and international conferences.

COMET registration: 2590 (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2590)

CRD42024562735.

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an important modifiable risk factor of major adverse cardiovascular events. Patients without prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke but with established risk factors and elevated LDL-C may benefit from intensive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT); however, the size and potential healthcare burden of this population globally are not known. The benefits of evolocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, in these patients, are currently being studied in the phase 3 Effect of Evolocumab in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk Without Prior Myocardial Infarction or Stroke (VESALIUS-CV) trial. To characterise the high-risk pre–CV-event (VESALIUS-CV–like) individuals in the real world, an observational study is being conducted across multiple countries.

This retrospective cohort study will use a common protocol and an analytical common data model approach to characterise VESALIUS-CV–like individuals in the real world across different geographical regions and healthcare settings. The study period will be from 2010 to 2022, subject to data availability in study sites. Patients aged 50 years and older at high risk of CV disease but without prior MI or stroke will be included in this study. VESALIUS-CV–like individuals are defined through a combination of the following: (1) one diagnosis of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease or diabetes with microvascular complications or chronic insulin use; (2) an elevated LDL-C measurement and (3) other high-risk factors. The objectives of this study are to estimate the prevalence of VESALIUS-CV–like individuals, describe their characteristics and care pathways and estimate their incidence rates of CV events and healthcare costs. The prevalence of VESALIUS-CV–like individuals will be expressed as annual prevalence; patient characteristics at index date will be presented using summary statistics; care pathways will be summarised as LLT prescription across time; and the incidence of defined CV events will be expressed as events per person-years as well as at certain time periods. Healthcare costs will be presented as CV-related costs in different time periods.

Approvals of the study protocol were obtained from relevant local ethics and regulatory frameworks for each participating database. The results of the study will be submitted to peer-reviewed scientific publications and presented at scientific conferences.

To evaluate whether remdesivir is associated with cardiac adverse events (CAEs), addressing concerns raised by basic experiments, clinical case reports and observational studies.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

MEDLINE and Embase, searched from January 2020 to December 2023.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remdesivir with placebo or standard care in patients with COVID-19, with a primary focus on cardiac safety.

We included RCTs that evaluated the safety of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 . Eligible studies were those that compared remdesivir with placebo or standard care in adult patientsCOVID-19 . Inclusion criteria emphasised safety outcomes, particularly CAEs, as primary endpoints.

Two reviewers independently extracted data. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Harms guidelines. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects model was used for data synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was the incidence of any CAEs, defined as a composite of all reported cardiac-related harms. Secondary outcomes included specific CAEs such as arrhythmias, heart failure and myocardial disorders.

We identified 1698 studies, of which seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 4566 participants. The RoB was assessed across multiple domains, with four RCTs showing low risk and three showing moderate risk in specific areas. Pooled analysis revealed no significant association between remdesivir use and CAEs (RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.04, p=0.118). Subgroup analyses showed consistent findings across different patient demographics and comorbidities. GRADE assessment indicated moderate certainty for overall CAEs, low certainty for arrhythmias and heart failure (due to imprecision and study-level bias), and very low certainty for myocardial disorders (due to small sample size and indirectness).

Contrary to preliminary concerns and case reports, our meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant association between remdesivir and CAEs among patients with COVID-19 . These findings provide reassurance to clinicians regarding the safety profile of remdesivir in this patient population, supporting its use as an antiviral therapy in the treatment of COVID-19. Further research is warranted to validate these findings and to clarify whether remdesivir may have a neutral or potentially protective effect on cardiac outcomes.

CRD42022383647.