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.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common and causes functional limitation, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and impairs prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is a promising intervention for HFpEF, but there is currently insufficient evidence to support its routine use. This trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a 12-week health professional-facilitated, home-based rehabilitation intervention (REACH-HF), in people with HFpEF, for participants and their caregivers.

REACH-HFpEF is a parallel two group multicentre randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group) with a target sample size of 372 participants with HFpEF and their caregivers recruited from secondary care centres in United Kingdom. Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blinded; outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 4-month and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure will be patients’ disease-specific HRQoL, measured using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include patient's exercise capacity, psychological well-being, level of physical activity, generic HRQoL, self-management, frailty, blood biomarkers, mortality, hospitalisations, and serious adverse events, and caregiver's HRQoL and burden. A process evaluation and substudy will assess the fidelity of intervention delivery and adherence to the home-based exercise regime and explore potential mediators and moderators of changes in HRQoL with the intervention. Qualitative studies will describe facilitators’ experiences of delivery of the intervention. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the REACH-HF intervention in participants with HFpEF will estimate incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year at 12 months. The CEA will be conducted from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and a wider societal perspective. The adequacy of trial recruitment in an initial 6-month internal pilot period will also be checked.

The study is approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (ref 21/WS/0085). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publication and conference presentations to researchers, service users and policymakers.

ISRCTN47894539.