Gastrointestinal hospitalisations in the USA cause over US$130 billion in expenditures, and acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of these hospitalisations. Adequate pain control is one of the primary treatment goals for acute pancreatitis. Though opioids are commonly used for analgesia in these patients, there have been concerns about short-term and long-term side effects of using opioids. Recently, non-opioid medications have been studied to treat pain in patients with acute pancreatitis. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy of analgesic medication for non-severe, acute pancreatitis.

We will search multiple electronic databases for randomised controlled trials that study pain management in patients with non-severe, acute pancreatitis. The intervention will be any analgesic for acute pancreatitis in the hospital setting. The comparison group will be patients who received a placebo or other active interventions for pain management. The primary outcomes of interest include pain scores and the need for supplementary analgesia. The secondary outcomes will be serious adverse events, local complications, progression to severe pancreatitis, transfer to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalisation, time to start enteral feeds, 30-day all-cause mortality and Quality of Life Scale scores. If sufficient homogeneity exists among included studies, the findings will be pooled using a traditional pairwise and network meta-analysis. The risk of bias in randomised control trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to report the certainty of evidence.

This systematic review will not involve direct contact with human subjects. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. They will give healthcare providers a better awareness of the optimal analgesic medication for pain treatment in non-severe, acute pancreatitis.

Treatment for abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) remains challenging in the setting of central nervous system sensitisation, a phenomenon of remodelling and neuronal hyperexcitability resulting from persistent pain stimuli. This is suspected to render affected individuals less likely to respond to conventional therapies. Endotherapy or surgical decompression is offered to patients with pancreatic duct obstruction. However, the response to treatment is unpredictable. Pancreatic quantitative sensory testing (P-QST), an investigative technique of standardised stimulations to test the pain system in CP, has been used for phenotyping patients into three mutually exclusive groups: no central sensitisation, segmental sensitisation (pancreatic viscerotome) and widespread hyperalgesia suggestive of supraspinal central sensitisation. We will test the predictive capability of the pretreatment P-QST phenotype to predict the likelihood of pain improvement following invasive treatment for painful CP.

This observational clinical trial will enrol 150 patients from the University of Pittsburgh, Johns Hopkins and Indiana University. Participants will undergo pretreatment phenotyping with P-QST. Treatment will be pancreatic endotherapy or surgery for clearance of painful pancreatic duct obstruction. Primary outcome: average pain score over the preceding 7 days measured by Numeric Rating Scale at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes will include changes in opioid use during follow-up, and patient-reported outcomes in pain and quality of life at 3, 6 and 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory outcomes will include creation of a model for individualised prediction of response to invasive treatment.

The trial will evaluate the ability of P-QST to predict response to invasive treatment for painful CP and develop a predictive model for individualised prediction of treatment response for widespread use. This trial was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Data and results will be reported and disseminated in conjunction with National Institutes of Health policies.

NCT04996628.

Prescribing long-term opioid therapy is a nuanced clinical decision requiring careful consideration of risks versus benefits. Our goal is to understand patient, provider and context factors that impact the decision to prescribe opioids in patients with cancer.

We conducted a secondary analysis of the raw semistructured interview data gathered from 42 prescribers who participated in one of two aligned concurrent qualitative studies in the USA and Australia. We conducted a two-part analysis of the interview: first identifying all factors influencing long-term prescribing and second open coding-related content for themes.

Factors that influence long-term opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain clustered under three key domains (patient-related, provider-related and practice-related factors) each with several themes. Domain 1: Patient factors related to provider–patient continuity, patient personality, the patient’s social context and patient characteristics including racial/ethnic identity, housing and socioeconomic status. Domain 2: Provider-related factors centred around provider ‘personal experience and expertise’, training and time availability. Domain 3: Practice-related factors included healthcare interventions to promote safer opioid practices and accessibility of quality alternative pain therapies.

Despite the differences in the contexts of the two countries, providers consider similar patient, provider and practice-related factors when long-term prescribing opioids for patients with cancer. Some of these factors may be categorised as cognitive biases that may intersect in an already disadvantaged patient and exacerbate disparities in the treatment of their pain. A more systematic understanding of these factors and how they impact the quality of care can inform appropriate interventions.

Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective HIV prevention method; however, uptake and persistence have been low among southern African women. A dual prevention pill (DPP) that combines PrEP with oral contraception (OC) may increase PrEP use and better meet women’s sexual and reproductive health needs. We will gauge the DPP’s acceptability in two cross-over clinical trials.

PC952 (Zimbabwe) and PC953 (South Africa) will compare acceptability, adherence and preference for an over-encapsulated DPP versus PrEP and OCs taken separately. HIV-negative, non-pregnant cisgender females in Johannesburg, South Africa (n=96, 16–40 years) and Harare, Zimbabwe (n=30, 16–24 years) will be randomised 1:1 to the order of regimens—DPP or two separate tablets—each used for three 28-day cycles, followed by a 6-month choice period in South Africa. Monthly clinic visits include HIV and pregnancy testing; safety assessments and risk reduction and adherence counselling. We will assess adherence (monthly) based on tenofovir diphosphate drug levels in dried blood spots and by self-report. We will evaluate acceptability (monthly) and preference (end of cross-over) via computer-assisted self-interviewing and in-depth interviews with a subset of participants. Data collection started in September 2022 and ended in January 2024.

PC952 was approved by the Ministry of Health and Child Care, Medical Research Council, Research Council and Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe; the Chitungwiza City Health Ethics Committee; and the Joint Research Ethics Committee for the University of Zimbabwe Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences and Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals. PC953 was approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and the University of the Witwatersrand’s Human Research Ethics Committee. The Population Council IRB approved both studies. We will disseminate results in open-access journals, clinical trials registries, and at local and international meetings and conferences.

NCT04778514, NCT04778527.

The overall objective of the study was to describe the disposition status of children presenting with a burn injury to five emergency departments (ED) across New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

A retrospective study design was used to review routinely collected ED data.

Study sites included five acute hospitals across NSW, Australia.

During the 5-year study period between 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020, there were 5213 paediatric burn injury presentations.

The mean age of burn injury presentations was 24 months (Inter-Quartile-Range (IQR) 12–84), of which 57% (2951/5213) were males. The most common presentation time was between 16:00 and 23:59 hours (63%, 3297/5213), and the median time spent in the ED was 3 hours (IQR 1–4). The majority (80%, 4196/5213) of the burn injuries presentations did not require hospital admission. The most common principal diagnoses were ‘Burn body region unspecified’ (n=1916) and ‘Burn of wrist and hand’ (n=1060).

Most children who presented to the hospital with a burn injury were not admitted. Often the details of these burns were poorly recorded and a complete picture of the true burden of burn injury in children, especially the ongoing care given outside the acute hospital setting, is missing. This information is crucial, as it would inform future models of care as the paradigm shifts rapidly towards primary, ambulatory and outpatient models of care.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting autosomal recessive genetic condition. It is caused by mutations in the gene that encodes for a chloride and bicarbonate conducting transmembrane channel. X-ray velocimetry (XV) is a novel form of X-ray imaging that can generate lung ventilation data through the breathing cycle. XV technology has been validated in multiple animal models, including the β-ENaC mouse model of CF lung disease. It has since been assessed in early-phase clinical trials in adult human subjects; however, there is a paucity of data in the paediatric cohort, including in CF. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the feasibility of performing a single-centre cohort study in paediatric patients with CF and in those with normal lungs to demonstrate the appropriateness of proceeding with further studies of XV in these cohorts.

This is a cross-sectional, single-centre, pilot study. It will recruit children aged 3–18 years to have XV lung imaging performed, as well as paired pulmonary function testing. The study will aim to recruit 20 children without CF with normal lungs and 20 children with CF. The primary outcome will be the feasibility of recruiting children and performing XV testing. Secondary outcomes will include comparisons between XV and current assessments of pulmonary function and structure.

This project has ethical approval granted by The Women’s and Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC ID 2021/HRE00396). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conferences.

ACTRN12623000109606.

Sepsis affects 25.2 million children per year globally and causes 3.4 million deaths, with an annual cost of hospitalisation in the USA of US$7.3 billion. Despite being common, severe and expensive, therapies and outcomes from sepsis have not substantially changed in decades. Variable case definitions, lack of a reference standard for diagnosis and broad spectrum of disease hamper efforts to evaluate therapies that may improve sepsis outcomes. This landscape analysis of community-acquired childhood sepsis in Australia and New Zealand will characterise the burden of disease, including incidence, severity, outcomes and cost. Sepsis diagnostic criteria and risk stratification tools will be prospectively evaluated. Sepsis therapies, quality of care, parental awareness and understanding of sepsis and parent-reported outcome measures will be described. Understanding these aspects of sepsis care is fundamental for the design and conduct of interventional trials to improve childhood sepsis outcomes.

This prospective observational study will include children up to 18 years of age presenting to 12 emergency departments with suspected sepsis within the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative network in Australia and New Zealand. Presenting characteristics, management and outcomes will be collected. These will include vital signs, serum biomarkers, clinician assessment of severity of disease, intravenous fluid administration for the first 24 hours of hospitalisation, organ support therapies delivered, antimicrobial use, microbiological diagnoses, hospital and intensive care unit length-of-stay, mortality censored at hospital discharge or 30 days from enrolment (whichever comes first) and parent-reported outcomes 90 days from enrolment. We will use these data to determine sepsis epidemiology based on existing and novel diagnostic criteria. We will also validate existing and novel sepsis risk stratification criteria, characterise antimicrobial stewardship, guideline adherence, cost and report parental awareness and understanding of sepsis and parent-reported outcome measures.

Ethics approval was received from the Royal Children’s Hospital of Melbourne, Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/69948/RCHM-2021). This included incorporated informed consent for follow-up. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences.

ACTRN12621000920897; Pre-results.

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

UK health service and community.

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children’s surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was ‘can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?’

We have identified research priorities for children’s cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Clinical staging models in psychiatry assert that there are earlier, less severe or more malleable forms of illness that are distinguishable from later, more chronic forms of illness, and that these stages may have different prognostic and treatment implications. Previous reviews on clinical staging in eating disorders (EDs) suggest a staging heuristic could be useful for anorexia nervosa, but less research is available on how this applies to other EDs. An up-to-date review is required to synthesise new and heterogenous avenues of research. This scoping review aims to explore the extent and types of evidence in relation to illness staging for EDs and how these concepts are associated with treatment response and outcomes.

This protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. We will consider any documents providing evidence for clinical staging such as those which describe full or partial staging models, for all EDs, across various domains of assessment and functioning. Participants will include clinical or non-clinical population samples with full-syndrome EDs or disordered eating behaviour. PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases will be systematically searched for relevant literature. Two authors will export documents and screen titles, abstracts and full texts. Data will be extracted into a charting form drafted by the authors. A narrative summary of the documents will be conducted in line with the study aims. Finally, clinical and research recommendations will be outlined.

Ethical approval will not be required to synthesise published and unpublished literature. The study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared at conferences, via social media, and in other communications.

Geriatric Fracture Centers (GFCs) are dedicated treatment units where care is tailored towards elderly patients who have suffered fragility fractures. The primary objective of this economic analysis was to determine the cost-utility of GFCs compared with usual care centres.

The primary analysis was a cost-utility analysis that measured the cost per incremental quality-adjusted life-year gained from treatment of hip fracture in GFCs compared with treatment in usual care centres from the societal perspective over a 1-year time horizon. The secondary analysis was a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. We evaluated these outcomes using a cost-utility analysis using data from a large multicentre prospective cohort study comparing GFCs versus usual care centres that took place in Austria, Spain, the USA, the Netherlands, Thailand and Singapore.

GFCs may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. Patients in usual care centre group were slightly older and had fewer comorbidities. For the 1-year analysis, the costs per patient were slightly lower in the GFC group (–$646.42), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.034). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18 863.34 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year). The lifetime horizon analysis found that the costs per patient were lower in the GFC group (–$7210.35), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.02). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $320 678.77 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year).

This analysis found that GFCs were associated with lower costs compared with usual care centres. The cost-savings were greater when the lifetime time horizon was considered. This comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from an international prospective cohort study, found that GFC may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. A greater number of major adverse events were reported at GFC, nevertheless a lower mortality rate associated with these adverse events at GFC. Due to the minor utility benefits, which may be a result of greater adverse event detection within the GFC group and much greater costs of usual care centres, the GFC may be cost-effective due to the large cost-savings it demonstrated over the lifetime time horizon, while potentially identifying and treating adverse events more effectively. These findings suggest that the GFC may be a cost-effective option over the lifetime of a geriatric patient with hip fracture, although future research is needed to further validate these findings.

Economic, level 2.

NCT02297581.