Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are considered to have a symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk of 1.0%–1.5% despite thromboprophylaxis. Fast-track treatment protocols have substantially lowered the VTE risk in most patients. Hence, the majority of patients may be unnecessarily exposed to the burden and risk of thromboprophylaxis. On the contrary, there are still patients with a high VTE risk who develop VTE despite thromboprophylaxis. Thus, tailored thromboprophylaxis treatment may potentially reduce both VTE and bleeding risk.

The DISTINCT (inDividual, targeted thrombosIS prophylaxis versus the standard ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach in patients undergoing Total hIp or total kNee replaCemenT) trial is a national, multicentre, randomised, multiarm, open-label trial. The main objective is to study whether tailored thromboprophylaxis reduces the occurrence of symptomatic VTE (primary outcome) and major bleeding (primary safety outcome) within 90 days after THA/TKA in comparison with standard thromboprophylaxis. Patients with a low, intermediate or high predicted VTE risk (based on the Thrombosis Risk Prediction following total hip and knee arthroplasty score (TRiP(plasty) score)) will be included in the DISTINCT-1, DISTINCT-2 or DISTINCT-3 studies, respectively. In the DISTINCT-1 trial, 3478 patients will be randomly allocated to receive either in-hospital thromboprophylaxis or standard prophylaxis. In the DISTINCT-2 cohort study, 2500 patients will receive standard prophylaxis. In the DISTINCT-3 trial, 4100 patients will be randomly allocated to receive either 6 weeks of high-dose thromboprophylaxis or standard prophylaxis. Standard prophylaxis consists of a low dose of any approved thromboprophylactic agent for 4 weeks. We hypothesise that (1) the efficacy of in-hospital only thromboprophylaxis is non-inferior in preventing VTE and equally safe compared with standard prophylaxis in patients with a low VTE risk (DISTINCT-1) and (2) prolonged high-dose thromboprophylaxis is superior in preventing VTE as compared with standard prophylaxis in patients with a high VTE risk (DISTINCT-3). Patients with intermediate VTE risk will be observed to evaluate VTE and bleeding rates (DISTINCT-2).

The protocol has been approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft, EU-trial-number 2023-510186-98. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and during international conferences.

NCT06581965.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women globally. While the impact of lifestyle factors like smoking and obesity on breast cancer risk and survival is well documented, the effect of working conditions is not fully understood. Moreover, breast cancer can reduce employability, making it crucial to identify factors that facilitate return to work and improve life satisfaction. Since breast cancer is affected by sleep and lifestyle, which are related to working conditions, understanding how they affect breast cancer outcomes is key. This study aims to explore the relationship between working conditions and breast cancer outcomes, including incidence, mortality and survival within a causal framework. Our specific aims are to understand the relationship between (1) working conditions and occupational groups and breast cancer outcomes, including the extent to which sleep, lifestyle and breast cancer screening uptake explain these relationships and (2) prediagnosis working conditions, sleep and lifestyle and their effect on return to work and life satisfaction among breast cancer survivors.

We will use data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale cohort study with data on 273 825 women between 40 and 69 years old at baseline, followed from 2006 to 2022. The data has been linked with death and cancer registries and includes 8309 incident breast cancer cases. To quantify the effect of working conditions on breast cancer outcomes (aim 1) and their effect on return to work and life satisfaction (aim 2), we will implement g-methods to estimate the average causal effect and employ counterfactual-based mediation analysis to quantify how much mediating factors, such as sleep and lifestyle, explain this effect.

UK Biobank received ethical approval from the North West Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee. No further ethical approval was required for the proposed research project. In line with the two aims, four original research manuscripts will be published in open-access peer-reviewed journals to disseminate the findings. In addition, findings will be disseminated at international conferences and scientific meetings.

As the opioid crisis continues, people who use drugs (PWUD) experience a disproportionate burden of both HIV and overdose, driven by increased injection-related HIV outbreaks and an opaque and rapidly evolving drug market, respectively. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV and point-of-care drug checking services are underused yet potentially impactful interventions to address the harms of the opioid crisis. Implementing such interventions using known strategies to enhance client engagement and reduce access barriers, such as street outreach, mobile services and peer navigation, can optimise intervention and maximise their impact.

The Substance Checking Outreach and PrEP Engagement (SCOPE) Study is a non-randomised clinical trial evaluating the impact of the Check It intervention, a mobile community PrEP and drug checking intervention in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. SCOPE will recruit a cohort of 500 PWUD at risk for HIV through street-based recruitment methods. Cohort members will be followed semi-annually for 18 months. The primary study outcomes are engagement with the PrEP continuum of care and the number of non-fatal overdoses. We will use both random effects models and marginal structural models to estimate the effects of Check It on participant engagement on the PrEP continuum and the number of non-fatal overdoses over time.

Study procedures have been approved by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board. Risks to participants are low, with the most serious risk being potential data confidentiality breaches. This risk was minimised through the use of secure data storage platforms with limited user access. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts, academic presentations, and reports and fact sheets designed for lay audiences.

This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (study ID: NCT05977881; Protocol ID: 00017498).