Increasing evidence suggests that dolutegravir (DTG), endorsed by the WHO since 2018 for first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), is associated with significant weight gain and potentially also with cardiometabolic disorders. In an effort to expand therapeutic options for people living with HIV (PLHIV), the EvaLuating the non-inferiority of DORAvirine vs DOlutegravir trial aims to compare the virologic efficacy of doravirine (DOR) and DTG-based regimens and to assess their safety, including a focus on cardiometabolic effects.

This is an international, phase III, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial that will enrol 610 ART-naïve PLHIV (HIV RNA≥1000 copies/mL at screening) across six countries (Brazil, Cameroon, France, Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique and Thailand) spanning four continents. Key inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, confirmed HIV-1 infection with plasma RNA levels ≥1000 copies/mL, indication for ART initiation and no prior ART exposure. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either DOR 100 mg once daily in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (300 mg daily) plus lamivudine (3TC) (300 mg daily) or DTG (50 mg daily) in combination with TDF (300 mg once daily) plus either emtricitabine (FTC) (200 mg daily) or 3TC (300 mg daily). Randomisation will be stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA load (≤100 000 or >100 000 copies/mL) and by country. The primary outcome is virological efficacy, defined as the proportion of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA

Primary outcome results (week 48) are expected in early 2028. The project was submitted to and approved by national ethics committees and pharmaceutical regulatory authorities in all participating countries: Brazil (CEP INI FIOCRUZ (21.040-900)/CEP HGNI (26.030-380)); Cameroon (CNERSH (2024/09/1717/CE/CNERSH/SP)/Ministry of Public Health (D30-1464/AAR/MINSANTE/SG/DROS/CRC); Côte d'Ivoire: (CNESVS (0018224/MSHPCMU/CNESVS-km)/AIRP (1329/AIRP/DISMP/Om/kbaag); France (CTIS CPP/ANSM (2023-508626-10-00)); Mozambique (CNBS (20/CNBS/25)/ANARME (4635/380/ANARME)); Thailand: (IHRP (08/1944)/Thai FDA: ongoing on 19 January 2026). The trial received authorisation from the French National Commission for Data Protection and Liberties (CNIL) under approval number 924 302. Written informed consent is obtained from all participants prior to any study-specific procedures and trial enrolment, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable national regulations. Study findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international scientific conferences. Results will also be communicated to policymakers, healthcare professionals, community stakeholders and study participants through appropriate dissemination activities, including policy briefs, stakeholder meetings and lay summaries on dedicated and easily accessible platforms.

NCT06203132; EU-CT, 2023-508626-10-00.

Falls are a significant health concern and associated with cancer survivorship. Falls can result in negative psychosocial consequences for cancer survivors and economic sequelae for healthcare delivery. There are cancer-specific fall risk factors relevant to cancer survivors which can contribute to increased fall risk. However, fall prevention may not be addressed in standard care for cancer survivors. This review aims to synthesise the findings from published research to explore the intervention characteristics and the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions on the incidence of falls and risk factors for falls in cancer survivors.

This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search in CINAHL Ultimate, PubMed, Scopus, Embase and supplementary search Google Scholar will be conducted in November 2025. We will include randomised controlled and controlled trials that describe the characteristics of the programme and report falls or risk factors for falls as outcomes. Title, abstract and full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. The Tool for the assEssment of Study qualiTy and reporting in EXercise (TESTEX), Risk Of Bias instrument for Use in SysTematic reviews-for Randomised Controlled Trials (ROBUST-RCT) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tools will be used to assess the quality and certainty of evidence. We will provide a summary of the intervention characteristics and perform a meta-analysis or narrative synthesis of the findings as appropriate.

Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review as we will include papers published in peer-reviewed journals and original data will not be collected. The findings of this systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at relevant conferences.

ID 1240723.

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of delivering a vocational rehabilitation intervention (Return to Work After Trauma—ROWTATE), remotely to individuals recovering from traumatic injuries. The primary objectives were to assess therapists’ training and competence, adapt the intervention and training for remote delivery and assess the feasibility and fidelity of remote delivery to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial.

A mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating (1) telerehabilitation qualitative literature review, (2) qualitative interviews preintervention and postintervention with therapists and patients, (3) a team objective structured clinical examination to assess competency, (4) usefulness of training, attitudes towards (15-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale) and confidence in (4-item Evidence Based Practice Confidence Scale) evidence-based practice, intervention delivery confidence (8-bespoke questions) and intervention behaviour determinants (51-items Theoretical Domains Framework) and (5) single-arm intervention delivery feasibility study.

The study was conducted in two UK Major Trauma Centres. The intervention and training were adapted for remote delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therapists: Seven occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs) were trained, and six participated in competency assessment. Seven OTs and CPs participated in preintervention interviews and surveys; six completed post-intervention interviews and four completed post-training surveys. Patients: 10 patients were enrolled in the single-arm feasibility study and 4 of these participated in postintervention qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria included therapists involved in vocational rehabilitation delivery and patients admitted to major trauma centres. Exclusion criteria included participation in other vocational rehabilitation trials or those who had returned to work or education for at least 80% of preinjury hours. Intervention: The ROWTATE vocational rehabilitation intervention was delivered remotely by trained OTs and CPs. Training included competency assessments, mentoring and adaptation for telerehabilitation. The intervention was delivered over multiple sessions, with content tailored to individual patient needs.

Therapists found the training useful, reported positive attitudes (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale mean=2.9 (SD 0.9)) and high levels of confidence in delivering evidence-based practice (range 75%–100%) and the ROWTATE intervention (range 80%–100%). Intervention barriers identified pretraining became facilitators post-training. Half the therapists needed additional support post-training through mentoring or additional training. The intervention and training were successfully adapted for remote delivery. High levels of fidelity (intervention components delivered: OTs=84.5%, CPs=92.9%) and session attendance rates were found (median: OT=97%, CP=100%). Virtually all sessions were delivered remotely (OT=98%, CP=100%). The intervention was acceptable to patients and therapists; both considered face-to-face delivery where necessary was important.

The ROWTATE intervention was delivered remotely with high fidelity and attendance and was acceptable to patients and therapists. Definitive trial key changes include modifying therapist training, competency assessment, face-to-face intervention delivery where necessary and addressing lower fidelity intervention components.

ISRCTN74668529.

Phasix mesh is a fully resorbable synthetic mesh for use in clean and contaminated ventral incisional hernia repairs. Long-term absorbable Phasix mesh appears to be a safe and promising device in incisional hernia repair, with low recurrence rates; however, data on long-term complications after surgery, particularly after the resorption period of the mesh, are scarce.

This protocol describes a study of several European registries on the use of a Phasix mesh in incisional hernia repair. The primary endpoint of the study is long-term complications at 2–5 year follow-up after mesh implantation, with secondary endpoints including hernia recurrence and complications during short-term follow-up.

Ethical approval was not required for this protocol as the study is based on anonymised registry data collected with prior patient consent in each registry. Each participating registry has its own ethical approval process, and this study will adhere to those regulations. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

To compare costs and health consequences and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using low-dose oral long-acting morphine in people with chronic breathlessness.

Within-trial planned cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness analysis of data from a multisite, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose, long-acting morphine.

11 hospital outpatients across the UK.

Consenting adults with chronic breathlessness due to long-term cardiorespiratory conditions.

5–10 mg two times a day oral long-acting morphine with a blinded laxative for 56 days.

Mean and SD of healthcare resource use (HRU) by trial arm; mean differences and 95% CI of costs between trial arms.

Mean differences in 28- and 56-day quality-adjusted life years (QALYs based on EuroQol five-dimension five-level score), Short Form-six dimensional scores and ICEpop CAPability-Supportive Care Measure scores; cost-utility of long-acting morphine for chronic breathlessness.

143 participants (75 morphine and 67 placebo) were randomised; 140 (90% power, males 66%, mean age 70.5 (SD 9.4)) formed the modified intention-to-treat population (participants receiving at least one dose of study medication). There were more inpatient and fewer outpatient services used by the morphine group versus the placebo. In the base-case analysis at 56 days, long-acting morphine was associated with similar mean per-patient costs and QALYs. There was an increase of £24 (95% CI –£395 to £552) and 0.002 (95% CI –0.004 to 0.008) QALYs. Hospitalisations were the main driver of cost differences. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12 000/QALY, with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 54% at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. In the scenario analysis that excluded costs of adverse events considered unrelated to long-acting morphine by site investigators and researchers, the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 73%.

Oral morphine for chronic breathlessness is likely to be a cost-effective intervention provided adverse events are minimised, but the effect on outcome is small and cautious interpretation is warranted.

ISRCTN87329095.

The development of the target trial emulation (TTE) methodology has enhanced the conduct of non-randomised studies. By leveraging readily available routinely collected data, TTEs offer opportunities for complementing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), providing more precise estimates and improving the external validity of RCTs. To explore this potential, we selected a successfully completed RCT as a case study. In the FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC) step-up RCT, high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was found to be non-inferior to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in terms of time to liberation from respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting. We will emulate the FIRST-ABC step-up trial using routinely collected data from the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet) database.

This is a protocol for a TTE that will use longitudinally collected data from the PICANet database. The study aims to emulate the FIRST-ABC step-up RCT using an observational study design in a frequentist framework. We will benchmark the results against the published trial. The study will apply a new-user design by selecting children admitted to paediatric intensive care units that started HFNC or non-invasive ventilatory support (as a surrogate for CPAP). The eligibility criteria and selected outcomes will reflect those of FIRST-ABC within the constraints of the available routinely collected data. We will use advanced quantitative doubly robust methods to minimise the impact of confounding by indication and allow for heterogeneity according to child characteristics. The analysis will be repeated using a Bayesian approach for follow-up research.

The research received ethics approval from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee. This study will expand the findings from the FIRST-ABC step-up RCT, providing additional insight from a large representative sample using real-world data. The frequentist and Bayesian approaches will enable a discussion about the advantages and drawbacks of the two strategies. The results will be disseminated to the research and clinical community and made accessible to the public. In addition, the study results will be used in future research, which aims to supplement RCTs with additional evidence from a TTE.

The ROWTATE intervention helps people experiencing trauma to return to work (RTW) through vocational rehabilitation (VR) support from occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs). This study aims to explore and understand the acceptability of VR after traumatic injury for patients, therapists and employers.

Qualitative interviews in eight major trauma regions, UK.

Interviews were undertaken with a range of stakeholders—15 patients, 15 therapists and 6 employers. Data were analysed using the theoretical framework of acceptability.

Stakeholders understood the aim of the intervention was to support people to RTW and perceived it as effective in achieving this. Patients and therapists understood the benefits of working with a combination of occupational therapy and clinical psychology. The intervention fits with the values of patients wanting to recover, therapists wanting to offer support and line managers wanting to meet employer and employee needs.

Patients reported they could not have achieved RTW without the intervention, and their therapist helped them feel less alone. Therapists felt that their work was rewarding, effective and had good outcomes. Patients perceived remote delivery as less burdensome than attending in person. Therapists felt they wasted time on non-patient activity, such as (re-)arranging appointments.

Employers discussed the difficulty of balancing employer and employee needs and managing uncertainty. Some workplace policies lacked flexibility, and without the ROWTATE intervention, employers lacked confidence in supporting employees RTW.

A VR intervention delivered remotely by OTs and CPs is acceptable to patients, therapists and employers.

ISRCTN43115471.

We report the collaborative views of a group of nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) in the UK who have a genomics research remit or interest. Our group includes genetic counsellors under this diverse category of healthcare workers.

This group came together as part of the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (NIHR) Genomics Research National Specialty Group. After responding to a survey to elicit the views of NMAHPs working in genomics, some of the original 45 respondents, along with others who learnt of the project by word of mouth, have worked together to produce this article.

The paper aims to set out in clear terms the value of NMAHPs to research that supports the patient-centred implementation of genomics in the National Health Service (NHS).

We discuss four potential areas where NMAHPs, in particular, can contribute to the research. These are patient perspectives and epistemic justice, psychosocial impacts, the familial nature of genomics and equity. We argue that this group (NMAHPs) represents a potentially underused resource for the NHS as it seeks to ensure that advances in genomics are translated into patient benefit.

We propose that NMAHPs, with our research expertise, are well placed to shape and deliver a research agenda that explores models of patient-centred care in the genomics era. We call for increased funding for NMAHP research roles and funding opportunities to deliver this fundamental work.