Cardiovascular diseases, overweight, type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues are recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology to lower the risk of death and progression of cardiovascular disease in patients with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Semaglutide, tirzepatide and liraglutide are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight. CagriSema is currently not approved, but several phase III trials are ongoing.

No previous systematic review has investigated the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and liraglutide, which may not be disease-specific, on hard binary outcomes for all trial populations at increased risk of cardiovascular events.

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. We expect to perform the literature search in December 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will include randomised trials assessing the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and/or liraglutide in participants with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause hospitalisation. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses and network meta-analysis, risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool V. 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach.

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD42024623312.

Total diet replacements (TDRs) and weight loss medications (WLMs) have proven effective in producing substantial weight loss for individuals with obesity. Evidence is lacking on whether combining these treatments is effective and cost-effective in primary care for adults with obesity class I (body mass index (BMI) 30–34.9) or uncomplicated obesity class II or higher (BMI≥35 without obesity-related disease).

LightCARE is a 2-year 1:1 randomised, parallel-group, clinical superiority trial with blinded outcome assessment evaluating the benefits and harms of an intensive weight loss (IWL) intervention compared with usual care for adults with obesity in Denmark and the UK. The trial will include 400 participants aged 18–60 years with obesity class I or uncomplicated obesity class II or higher. The IWL programme aims to achieve and maintain a weight loss of ≥20% through a flexible and individualised combination of TDR, behavioural support, including physical activity and sleep guidance, and WLM if needed and will continue for 2 years. The control group will receive usual care offered in each country, typically consisting of brief behavioural support for weight loss. The primary outcome is body weight 2 years after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of participants achieving ≥20% weight loss, Short-Form-36 Mental Component Score, 4-m gait speed and Metabolic Syndrome Severity-Z score. Serious adverse events, the incidence of eating disorders and bone mineral density will be evaluated as safety outcomes. We will also examine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, within the trial and in the longer term through modelling. We will conduct a process evaluation to inform any future implementation.

Ethical approval was granted in Denmark (December 2023, H-23051332) and the UK (August 2024, 24/SC/0210). Findings from the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.

NCT06321432.

Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disease with a rising incidence and prevalence. Patients with Parkinson’s disease may receive antipsychotics, for example, due to Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Parkinson’s disease psychosis is characterised by visual hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms. To date, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of antipsychotics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, this review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antipsychotics for Parkinson’s disease.

This is a protocol for a systematic review. A search specialist will perform a search in major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)) and clinical trial registries. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing antipsychotics to any control (placebo, standard care or other antipsychotics) in patients with Parkinson’s disease will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—V.2. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and significant falls. Secondary outcomes will be hospitalisations, non-serious adverse events, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total score and psychotic symptoms using any valid symptom scale. Data will be synthesised by aggregate meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. Several subgroup analyses are planned. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) and CiNeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach.

This protocol does not include results, and ethics approval is not required for the project. The findings from the systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

PROSPERO ID: CRD42025633985. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025633985.

To increase the sustainability of healthcare, clinical trials must assess the environmental impact of interventions alongside clinical outcomes. This should be guided by Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extensions, which will be developed by The Implementing Climate and Environmental Outcomes in Trials Group. The objective of the scoping review is to describe the existing methods for reporting and measuring environmental outcomes in randomised trials. The results will be used to inform the future development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions on environmental outcomes (SPIRIT-ICE and CONSORT-ICE).

This protocol outlines the methodology for a scoping review, which will be conducted in two distinct sections: (1) identifying any existing guidelines, reviews or methodological studies describing environmental impacts of interventions and (2) identifying how environmental outcomes are reported in randomised trial protocols and trial results. A search specialist will search major medical databases, reference lists of trial publications and clinical trial registries to identify relevant publications. Data from the included studies will be extracted independently by two review authors. Based on the results, a preliminary list of items for the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed.

This study does not include any human participants, and ethics approval is not required according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings from the scoping review will be published in international peer-reviewed journals, and the findings will be used to inform the design of a Delphi survey of relevant stakeholders.

Registered with Open Science 28 of February 2025.

Incretin-based drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RAs, are increasingly used in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. While these agents have shown cardiovascular benefits, their effects on both cardiovascular outcomes and cardiac structure and function remain uncertain—particularly in patients with and without a history of heart failure (HF).

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S)), as well as clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. The literature search is scheduled for July 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess risk of bias. We will include randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of cagrilintide/semaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide and tirzepatide in patients with and without a history of HF. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will include HF hospitalisation, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and left ventricular end-systolic volume. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

As this study is a systematic review based on secondary analysis of published data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD420251003374.

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.

In this case study conducted in a Danish general practice, we aimed to explore how patients with obesity experience a novel treatment approach: group consultations (GCs) for weight loss, lifestyle changes and semaglutide treatment. To receive semaglutide treatment, patients were required to participate in GCs focused on lifestyle changes.

A qualitative study design comprising individual, semistructured interviews was used. Patients were asked to reflect on and describe their past experiences with participating in GCs. Thematic analysis was used as an analytical strategy.

A general practice located in a larger city in the Region of Southern Denmark.

12 patients (eight women and four men) with obesity, aged between 27 years and 69 years, who met the Danish obesity treatment criteria for semaglutide (body mass index over 30 kg/m² or over 27 kg/m² with comorbidities), were included. Data were collected from 1 November 2023 to 31 January 2024.

Before attending GCs, patients were worried about sharing personal information with other patients and losing their confidentiality. They also feared being judged by the others in the group, possibly due to previous experiences of stigmatisation. However, after participating in GCs, patients reported positive experiences with peer sharing, had no issues with confidentiality and found the consultations beneficial. Most patients indicated a preference for GCs over one-on-one consultations in the future.

Despite initial concerns about confidentiality and stigmatisation, patients ultimately had positive experiences and gained valuable peer support during group GCs in general practice. Various aspects of the group design, such as the hybrid consultation format and the role of the facilitator, may impact the effectiveness of peer support and influence patients’ overall experience of GCs.

Distal radius fractures account for one-fifth of all fractures in the active elderly population and may cause chronic pain, loss of hand function and reduced work productivity, imposing a significant socioeconomic burden. Most are initially treated with closed reduction and casting, but 30% subsequently require surgery due to insufficient realignment. The current approaches for analgesia for closed reduction are suboptimal. A brachial plexus nerve block provides complete pain relief and muscle relaxation distal to the elbow, potentially creating better conditions for realignment of the fractured bone ends. This may ultimately translate into reduced need for surgery and result in better functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to a haematoma block, which is the current standard care in Denmark.

The BLOCK Trial is an investigator-initiated, parallel-group, allocation-concealed, outcome assessor and analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised, controlled, clinical multicentre trial performed at 11 Danish emergency departments. Eligible adult patients with a distal radius fracture who need closed reduction will be included and allocated 1:1 to either an ultrasound-guided brachial plexus nerve block or a haematoma block. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with distal radius fracture surgery 90 days after closed reduction. We will include 1716 participants to detect or discard a relative risk reduction of surgery of 20%. Secondary outcomes include treatment-related complications, patient-reported wrist function, pain during closed reduction and proportion of patients with unacceptable radiographic fracture position immediately after closed reduction.

The trial is approved by the Danish Medicines Agency and the Danish Research Ethics Committees (EU CT number: 2024-512191-35-00). All results will be summarised on www.theblocktrial.com, clinicaltrials.gov and euclinicaltrials.eu after publication. Primary and secondary outcome results from 0 to 90 days will be presented in the main article and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Results from outcomes on the 12-month follow-up will be presented separately.

NCT06678438.