The main treatment of chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is neurosurgical evacuation with subsequent drainage. However, consensus on optimal drain modality and placement is lacking.

To examine whether 24-hour active subperiosteal drainage is non-inferior to 24-hour passive subdural drainage after a single burr hole evacuation of a symptomatic CSDH.

SUPERDURA is a multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial encompassing all neurosurgical units in Denmark. Adult patients with symptomatic CSDH admitted to a Danish neurosurgical unit for single burr hole evacuation will be screened for inclusion. Patients who are not able to give informed consent, and patients with recurrent CSDH, known cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities and other known brain pathologies will be excluded. Patients with bilateral CSDH will be registered as one case and treated similarly on both sides. Before surgical haematoma evacuation, patients will be randomised to 24-hour passive subdural drainage or 24-hour active subperiosteal drainage. The patients included and the two study statisticians will be blinded. The primary outcome is a composite outcome of 90-day mortality and symptomatic CSDH recurrence. Secondary outcomes are 90-day simplified modified Rankin score, 90-day serious adverse events and complications related to surgery or occurring during admission, including intracerebral haemorrhage due to misplaced drains, acute subdural haematoma, tension pneumocephalus, wound infection, drain seepage, subperiosteal haematoma, thromboembolic events, infections and seizures.

A detailed statistical analysis plan is published separately. Sample size simulations of non-inferiority with a threshold of 7% increased relative risk show that a total of 354 participants will be required to demonstrate a relative risk reduction of recurrent CSDH and mortality of 30% for the cohort receiving active subperiosteal drainage given a stable power above 80% with an alpha of 5%. The study inclusion period is estimated to last 2 years.

Ethics approval for the inclusion of competent patients has been obtained from the North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics. Results of the primary and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant neurosurgical meetings.

N-20240009, accepted 13 May 2024 and 13 December 2024.

NCT06621407.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains high but unevenly distributed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Current risk stratification strategies are far from optimal, leading to both undertreatment and overtreatment of patients. The STENO INTEN-CT trial aims to evaluate a strategy of improved CVD risk management by using cardiac CT (coronary artery calcification (CAC)) for stratification and tailoring of multifactorial cardiovascular treatment based on CAC score. We hypothesise that (1) intensified medical treatment will lower CVD event rates in high-risk patients (CAC≥100), and (2) less intensive multifactorial treatment is safe in very low-risk patients (CAC=0).

The Steno INTEN-CT trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, open-label, event-driven randomised controlled trial including patients with T2DM without known CVD. All participants (expected n=7300) will be invited for a non-contrast coronary CT scan. After the scan, participants will be randomised to either standard treatment (blinded for CAC results) or CAC-based treatment. Participants in CAC-based treatment and their general practitioner (GP) will receive information on CAC and a recommendation of multifactorial treatment. High-risk participants in the interventional arm will be invited for one or more initial study visits to intensify treatment with a combination of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, high-dose lipid-lowering, antihypertensive and antithrombotic treatment. Very low-risk patients in the interventional arm will be recommended less intensive treatment targets. After initial study-related activities, all participants will continue to be taken care of by their GP guided by specific treatment recommendations. The primary outcome in the primary hierarchical analysis (the rate of the combined CVD endpoint of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospitalisation for heart failure) will be monitored through national health registries. The trial is event-driven, but a median follow-up of 5 years is expected. Key secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes, quality-adjusted life years and healthcare costs.

The protocol V.1.9 is approved by the Research Ethics Committee and the Danish Medicines Agency and the Danish Data Protection Agency. The results of the study—positive, negative or neutral—will be published in peer-reviewed journals and through www.clinicaltrials.org.

NCT05700877.

To investigate the context of separations among mother, father and infant after childbirth, with a focus on the psychological, social and physical implications of these separations.

A short-term ethnographic study, which included participant observations and informal interviews. Data were analysed by a partly deductive content analysis inspired by Graneheim and Lundman.

A ‘27-bed’ Danish neonatal intensive care unit.

The study included parents (n=19) who had an infant in need of intensive care and were separated after childbirth.

The study identified an overarching theme of navigating family dynamics, caregiving and emotional challenges during separation. Three interconnected subthemes—Physical and virtual bonding as a necessity, Nurturing and caregiving shifts and Collective emotional impact of separation—shed light on the disjointed and emotional nature of parent-infant separation in neonatal care.

The findings revealed that the first hours in the neonatal intensive care unit were often characterised by disjointed rather than unified care, as nurses balanced their focus across the family while parents navigated the emotional strain of separation. Organisational and structural barriers further challenged reunification, highlighting the need for care models prioritising proximity, family bonding and minimised separation.

Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is a serious, untreatable complication of diabetes that contributes to excess cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. CAN is associated with increased fibrosis and inflammation, possibly driven by increased sympathetic activity and overactive mineralocorticoid receptors (MRs). These may represent a potential therapeutic target. MR antagonists (MRAs) improve autonomic function in non-diabetic diseases, and finerenone, a non-steroidal MRA, has demonstrated promising results in managing diabetic kidney disease and cardiovascular complications, suggesting its potential as a novel therapy for early-stage CAN. This trial aims to evaluate whether daily administration of finerenone can modify the disease progression of early-stage CAN.

This trial is a two-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, 1:1 randomised, placebo-controlled study evaluating the effect of 78 weeks of intervention with finerenone or placebo on early-stage CAN in 100 individuals with type 2 diabetes in Denmark. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in the expiration:inspiration ratio of the cardiovascular autonomic reflex tests (CARTs). Secondary endpoints are the between-group differences in the remaining CARTs, heart rate variability measures and fibrosis markers. Treatment effects on other forms of neuropathy and related pathological mechanisms will be explored.

The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Counsil for Harmonisation good clinical practice guidelines, with ethics approval obtained from the Danish Medical Research Ethics Committee. All participants will provide written informed consent. Due to the risk of hyperkalaemia associated with finerenone, safety will be closely monitored throughout the study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and clinical trial registries. A lay summary will be provided to participants on study completion.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06906081; registration date: 25 March 2025. Clinical Trials Information System: EUCT no. 2024-516597-30-00; registration date: 3 September 2024.

The evidence for the optimal duration of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is scarce. Two previous trials have compared different durations of psychotherapy. The first compared 6 months versus 12 months of dialectical behaviour therapy for BPD (the FASTER trial). The second compared 5 months versus 14 months of mentalisation-based therapy for BPD (the MBT-RCT trial). The primary objective of the present study will be to provide an individual patient data pooled analysis of two randomised clinical trials by combining the two short-term groups and the two long-term groups from the FASTER and MBT-RCT trials, thereby providing greater statistical power than the individual trials. Accordingly, we will evaluate the overall evidence on the effects of short-term versus long-term psychotherapy for BPD and investigate whether certain subgroups might benefit from short-term versus long-term psychotherapy.

An individual patient data pooled analysis of the FASTER trial and the MBT-RCT trial will be conducted. The primary outcome will be a composite of the proportion of participants with a suicide, a suicide attempt or a psychiatric hospitalisation. The secondary outcome will be the proportion of participants with self-harm. Exploratory outcomes will be BPD symptoms, symptom distress, level of functioning and quality of life. We will primarily assess outcomes at 15 months after randomisation for the FASTER trial and at 16 months after randomisation for the MBT-RCT trial. Predefined subgroups based on the design variables in the original trials will be tested for interaction with the intervention as follows: trial, sex (male compared with female), age (below or at 30 years compared with above 30 years) and baseline level of functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning baseline score at 0–49 compared with 50–100).

The statistical analyses will be performed on anonymised trial data that have already been approved by the respective ethical committees that originally assessed the included trials. The final analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and the results will be presented at national seminars and international conferences.

CRD42024612840.

The use of natural environments and nature activities as elements in the treatment and rehabilitation of mental health challenges is gaining international attention. The objective of the present review was to summarise the knowledge on the effects of nature-based health interventions (NBHIs) targeting individuals diagnosed with anxiety, depression and/or experiencing stress.

Systematic review and meta-analyses. The quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the SIGN and GRADE.

Searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science.

(1) NBHIs, (2) Individuals with a diagnosis of mild to moderate anxiety, depression and/or experiencing stress, (3) Age of participating individuals: 18–84 years, (4) Study designs: randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case-series studies and (5) Publication date: 2000–2024.

Screening, quality appraisal and certainty of evidence, assessed using SIGN and GRADE, were performed by two independent reviewers, except title screening. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models.

Nineteen articles were included, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses. The articles showed substantial variation in design, interventions, settings and risk of bias, limiting the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Participating in NBHIs led to a small to large effect in mental health with standardised mean changes of –0.80 (95% CI= (–1.56; –0.04)), –0.87 (95% CI= (–1.18; –0.56)), –0.32 (95% CI= (–0.74; 0.09)) and 0.58 (95% CI= (0.39; 0.77)) for anxiety, depression and stress scores and overall mental health scores, respectively.

This is the first systematic review examining the effect of NBHIs exclusively on individuals diagnosed with anxiety, depression and/or experiencing stress. Our findings suggest small to large improvements after participating in NBHIs. However, methodological limitations to the included articles necessitate cautious interpretation.

CRD42024516270.