Patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe acute respiratory failure (SARF) often experience significant challenges with airway clearance due to disease severity, ultra-protective ventilation strategies and suppression of mucociliary and cough mechanisms. Extremely low tidal volumes and minimal flow rates further hinder secretion mobilisation. Despite increasing global use of ECMO, there is currently no synthesis of evidence describing airway clearance practices, their physiological rationale or outcomes in this population.
This scoping review aims to explore the extent and nature of evidence on airway clearance interventions in invasively ventilated adult patients receiving ECMO for SARF. Specific objectives include mapping the types of interventions described and specific parameters, their intended physiological effects, reported outcomes and safety considerations.
This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search will be undertaken across Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid Medline, CINAHL and grey literature sources including TRIP and Google Scholar. Eligible studies will include original data on airway clearance interventions in adult patients (≥16 years) receiving ECMO for SARF. Studies focused on paediatric populations, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal, or solely cardiac ECMO will be excluded.
Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts, extract data using a piloted tool and summarise findings using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. Basic qualitative content analysis will support mapping of interventions including parameters, their physiological and clinical rationale, and reported outcomes including adverse effects.
As this study involves a review of existing literature and does not include collection of primary data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant academic and professional meetings. The results are expected to highlight variations in practice and provide a foundation for future research aimed at optimising respiratory care and improving outcomes for patients receiving ECMO for SARF.
osf.io/ptfr7.
Digital health interventions (DHIs) are prevalent and have been shown to help some people with long-term conditions (LTCs) to manage their condition. There are myriad options for digital delivery yet limited understanding of what modes of delivery are acceptable to people with LTCs. It is important to understand the acceptability of delivery methods of DHIs to inform future DHI development and promote engagement. This scoping review aims to explore the acceptability of the delivery of DHIs for people with LTCs.
This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping reviews extension checklist. Databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, AHMED and PsycINFO will be searched for primary studies that provide data on preferences for delivery methods of DHIs by people with LTCs. Narrative analysis is anticipated, and a summary of the findings will be presented in a tabulated format.
Ethical approval will not be required for this scoping review. The findings will be disseminated via appropriate peer-reviewed journals and conferences and PhD theses.
SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic and expected to remain a health threat, with new variants continuing to emerge and the potential for vaccines to become less effective. While effective vaccines and natural immunity have significantly reduced hospitalisations and the need for critical care, outpatient treatment options remain limited, and real-world evidence on their clinical and cost-effectiveness is lacking. In this paper, we present the design of the Canadian Adaptive Platform Trial of Treatments for COVID in Community Settings (CanTreatCOVID). By evaluating multiple treatment options in a pragmatic adaptive platform trial, this study will generate high-quality, generalisable evidence to inform clinical guidelines and healthcare decision-making.
CanTreatCOVID is an open-label, individually randomised, multicentre, national adaptive platform trial designed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for non-hospitalised SARS-CoV-2 patients across Canada. Eligible participants must present with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by PCR or rapid antigen testing (RAT), within 5 days of symptom onset. The trial targets two groups that are expected to be at higher risk of more severe disease: (1) individuals aged 50 years and older and (2) those aged 18–49 years with one or more comorbidities. CanTreatCOVID uses numerous approaches to recruit participants to the study, including a multifaceted public communication strategy and outreach through primary care, outpatient clinics and emergency departments. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care, including supportive and symptom-based management, or an investigational therapeutic selected by the Canadian COVID-19 Outpatient Therapeutics Committee. The first therapeutic arm evaluates nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), administered two times per day for 5 days. The second therapeutic arm investigates a combination antioxidant therapy (selenium 300 µg, zinc 40 mg, lycopene 45 mg and vitamin C 1.5 g), administered for 10 days. The primary outcome is all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation.
The CanTreatCOVID master protocol and subprotocols have been approved by Health Canada and local research ethics boards in the participating provinces across Canada. The results of the study will be disseminated to policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals to ensure that findings are accessible to the broader scientific and medical communities. This study was approved by the Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board (#22-179) and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID 4133).