Chagas disease (CD) is one of the most neglected diseases in the world. In Latin America, CD is endemic in 21 countries, with an estimated 70 million people at risk of infection. Current treatments are limited to two nitroheterocyclic compounds: nifurtimox and benznidazole (BZN). Each has significant limitations, including long duration and safety concerns. However, data from recently completed studies suggest that reduced-duration regimens may be equally effective while enhancing safety.

NuestroBen is a phase III, randomised, multicentre clinical trial designed to assess whether shorter (2- and 4-week) regimens of BZN are non-inferior to the standard 8-week treatment. A total of 540 adult participants with no evidence of organ damage (the indeterminate form) or with mild cardiac progression (mild electrocardiographic alterations and without systolic dysfunction or symptoms), all in the chronic phase of CD, will be recruited at six study sites in Argentina and two study sites in Bolivia. Participants will be randomised to receive one of the two shortened regimens of BZN (300 mg per day for 2 or 4 weeks) or standard treatment (300 mg per day for 8 weeks). The primary endpoint is sustained elimination of parasitaemia from the end of treatment through 12 months of follow-up. Secondary endpoints will assess sustained clearance of parasitaemia at 1, 4, 6 and 8 months of follow-up from the end of treatment, drug tolerability and adherence to treatment. NuestroBen will also evaluate whether two shortened regimens of BZN improve drug tolerability and treatment adherence compared with the current standard treatment while maintaining efficacy in participants with the indeterminate form of CD or with mild cardiac involvement.

In Argentina, this study was approved by Fundación de Estudios Farmacológicos y Medicamentos ‘Luis M. Zieher’ for its conduct at the Instituto de Cardiología de Corrientes ‘Juana Francisca Cabral’ (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2021) and the Instituto Nacional de Parasitología ‘Dr. Mario Fatala Chaben’ (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2021) by Comité Institucional de Ética de Investigación en Salud for the Centro de Chagas y Patología Regional de Santiago del Estero (reference: NuestroBen-2020-088/2021), by Comité de Ética en Investigación for the Hospital de Infecciosas F.J. Muñiz (reference: NuestroBen-2020–4037) and the Hospital General de Agudos D.F. Santojanni (reference: NuestroBen-2020–4039) and by Comité de Bioética for the Fundación Huésped (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2021). In Bolivia, it was approved by Comité de Ética en Investigación en Salud from the Universidad Autónoma Juan Misael Saracho (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2025). All participants are asked to provide written informed consent to participate. Recruitment processes started in July 2023, and as of 15 June 2025, 140 participants have been recruited. Findings will be shared with Argentinian and Bolivian public health officials and with the Chagas and tropical medicine communities via international conferences. Findings will also be published in medical journals.

NCT04897516.

Patients receiving long-term ventilation (LTV) in out-of-hospital intensive care facilities often suffer from persistent impairments of their cognition, mental health and physical health, limiting their social participation. Chronically ill patients are often unable to express their care preferences. Thus, their medical care often lacks integration of patients’ wishes and values. Telemedicine may be used to collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from these patients to align medical care with their preferences. Early integration of teleconsultation to provide rapid support for specific patient symptoms can reduce economic costs.

This is a multicentre, prospective, non-blinded, single-arm interventional trial with a pre-post design and follows the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement. 10 out-of-hospital intensive care facilities in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany, are grouped into three clusters. The study population includes adult patients (≥18 years) receiving LTV and residing in participating care facilities. During the preintervention phase, standard patient care remains unchanged. From the start of the intervention phase, enrolled patients receive telemedicine rounds in addition to standard care. These telemedicine rounds, conducted at least weekly, involve on-site healthcare professionals, patients and their relatives. Data are collected at predefined time points—study months 1,3, 9, 15 and 21—with a target of 57 participants at each time point. The study aims to evaluate whether a structured telemedicine intervention (1) increases the proportion of patients receiving record-documented PROMs in routine care and (2) reduces hospital readmissions. Secondary outcomes include the evaluation of post-intensive care syndrome, healthcare costs and the usability, applicability and perceived benefits of telemedicine. Additionally, qualitative interviews with patients, their relatives and healthcare professionals will explore individual experiences with chronic critical illness, the perceived quality of life of the patients and how team members manage moral distress in caregiving contexts. A mixed-effects logistic regression model will be used to analyse patients’ access to PROMs, while a mixed-effects Poisson regression model will be employed to evaluate hospital readmission rates. The findings may provide valuable insights into how telemedicine can improve patient-centred care for this particular patient group.

This study protocol received approval from the Ethics Committee of Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany (EA2/136/22). The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at international conferences.

This study was registered in the ‘German Register of Clinical Studies’ (DRKS; DRKS00029326).

Hand-arm Bimanual Intensive Therapy Including Lower Extremities (HABIT-ILE) is an intensive rehabilitation programme for children with cerebral palsy (CP) delivered in a day camp setting recognised to promote the acquisition of specific functional abilities and independence. Currently, during HABIT-ILE camps, families are minimally involved in their child’s motor learning processes. This explains the challenges reported by both families and therapists, including difficulties in reinforcing skills at home, limited transfer to other functional goals and a lack of confidence in parents’ adaptive competence (self-determination and empowerment). Increasing family involvement in intensive motor rehabilitation programmes and the child’s developmental process by reinforcing skills at home could help reduce the parental impact of the child’s disability, enhance family satisfaction and strengthen their resources to support their child’s daily learning during and after the camp.

To address this, we developed the PARTNER programme, which combines HABIT-ILE with a structured home component focused on parent coaching.

We designed a non-inferiority, mixed-methods, multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy at 3 months of the PARTNER programme (35 hours HABIT-ILE+15 hours home programme) with the standard HABIT-ILE programme (50 hours) on the bimanual performance (Assisting Hand Assessment) of children with unilateral CP aged 3–5 years. The secondary aims are to compare the 3-month efficacy of the programmes on occupational performance, functional skills and upper limb activity levels, as well as families’ resources, the parent–child relationship, the quantity and quality of resources available in the home to stimulate the child’s motor development, and parental perceptions of their child’s disability and their child’s abilities (qualitative study). The tertiary aim is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of care consumption in each group up to 6 months after the end of the programmes.

Target recruitment is 66 children (33 in each group) from 3 centres in France. Outcomes will be evaluated before the interventions, immediately after, at 3 months and up to 6 months for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Families in the PARTNER group will receive specific coaching and extensive support to perform the home programme. The coaching will focus on enhancing their resources.

The study protocol has been reviewed, and ethics approval obtained from the Protection of Persons Committee (PPC) (PPC number: 2024-A01051-46). The results from this study will be actively disseminated through manuscript publications and conference presentations.

NCT06963151.

The Cardiometabolic function in Offspring, Mother and Placenta after Assisted Reproductive Technology (COMPART) study is a prospective cohort study aiming to explore health outcomes in mothers and children following assisted reproductive technology (ART), with a particular focus on frozen embryo transfer (FET) versus fresh embryo transfer (fresh-ET). The increasing prevalence of ART and FET emphasises the need to assess potential health risks associated with the procedures, both in pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia and large for gestational age offspring, and in the children, such as obesity and cardiometabolic dysfunction.

The cohort will include 600 pregnant women, their potential partner and their offspring in a 1:1:1 ratio of pregnancies achieved after ART with FET, ART with fresh-ET and women who conceived naturally. The study will involve extensive data collection from electronic medical records; parental questionnaires; biochemical, genetic and epigenetic analyses in blood, urine and placental tissue; and medical imaging (fetal ultrasound and PEA POD scan) and clinical examinations. Outcomes are grouped into six work packages (WPs) related to fetal growth (WP1), pregnancy (WP2), placenta (WP3), offspring (WP4), genetics (WP5) and epigenetics (WP6).

The COMPART study aims to provide valuable insights into the impact of ART and FET on maternal and offspring health and the underlying mechanisms responsible. The study seeks to advance reproductive medicine, shape clinical practice and guidelines and ultimately ensure maternal-fetal health following ART. The study has been approved by the Danish Ethics Committee (H-23071266; February 2024).

NCT06334003

Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia every year with either propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA). It is currently unknown which of these techniques is superior in relation to patient experience, safety and clinical outcomes. The primary aims of this trial are to determine (1) whether patients undergoing (a) major inpatient surgery, (b) minor inpatient surgery or (c) outpatient surgery have a superior quality of recovery after INVA or TIVA and (2) whether TIVA confers no more than a small (0.2%) increased risk of definite intraoperative awareness than INVA.

This protocol was co-created by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 13 000-patient, multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised, comparative effectiveness trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to one of two anaesthetic approaches, TIVA or INVA, using minimisation. The primary effectiveness endpoints are Quality of Recovery-15 (QOR-15) score on postoperative day (POD) 1 in patients undergoing (1) major inpatient surgery, (2) minor inpatient surgery or (3) outpatient surgery, and the primary safety endpoint is the incidence of unintended definite intraoperative awareness with recall in all patients, assessed on POD1 or POD30. Secondary endpoints include QOR-15 score on POD0, POD2 and POD7; incidence of delirium on POD0 and POD1; functional status on POD30 and POD90; health-related quality of life on POD30, POD90, POD180 and POD365; days alive and at home at POD30; patient satisfaction with anaesthesia at POD2; respiratory failure on POD0; kidney injury on POD7; all-cause mortality at POD30 and POD90; intraoperative hypotension; moderate-to-severe intraoperative movement; unplanned hospital admission after outpatient surgery in a free-standing ambulatory surgery centre setting; propofol-related infusion syndrome and malignant hyperthermia.

This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University, serving as the single Institutional Review Board for all participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2023. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.

NCT05991453.

Physicians frame medical information for patients in different ways, impacting patient outcomes. What underlies their framing choices has not been investigated. 

To explore the use and function of information framing practices in medical interactions.

Explorative, quantitative observational study with a mixed-methods design.

28 videorecorded hospital interactions, ranging from short-term/acute (orthopaedic surgery, gynaecology) to long-term/chronic care (oncology, gastroenterology) and involving 14 physicians and 28 patients.

Using a previously developed coding system, we analysed physicians’ framing practices. We extracted information sharing functions qualitatively, checking 10% of the analysis with an independent assessment from the physicians. To explore whether variation in physicians’ use of information frames stemmed from individual or clinical specialty differences, we estimated intraclass correlations. To assess how their use of information frames varied at the macro level (across clinical specialties) and micro (the immediate function in the interaction), we estimated linear mixed models adjusted for the number of words.

Variation in framing practices was mainly observed at the level of physicians nested within the same clinical unit (9.5% of the overall variance explained vs 1.3% for the unit level and 0.7% for the individual level). Physicians from different clinical units differed significantly in how they framed information, with the main differences between the gastroenterology and oncology units (mean difference=1.88; 95% CI 0.97; 2.79; p2 tests). Physicians from more short-term care units were oriented towards shared understanding, from gastroenterology towards inviting and convincing efforts and from oncology towards personal communication.

Results revealed signature marks of clinical units in terms of information sharing practices. Physicians’ information framing choices were driven both by the macro level (the clinical unit) and micro (the specific function for sharing information at that moment), thus highlighting potential areas for future interventions.

Current treatments for alcohol use disorders (AUD) have limited efficacy. A previous 28-day pilot trial of N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) vs placebo found NAC to be feasible and safe, with evidence of improvement on some measures of alcohol consumption. Thus, the primary aim of the NAC-AUD study is to examine the therapeutic and cost-effectiveness of NAC vs placebo in improving treatment outcomes for AUD. We will also examine the (i) effect of NAC vs placebo on mood, markers of liver injury, cognition and hangover symptoms; and (ii) predictors of any response.

This double-blind trial will randomise participants with AUD to a 12-week regimen of either NAC (2400 mg/day) or placebo. All participants will receive medical management. The primary drinking outcome will be the number of heavy drinking days (HDDs) per week, validated by phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Secondary alcohol-related outcomes will include standard drinks per drinking day (SDDD) per week and absence of any HDDs. Other secondary outcomes will include markers of liver injury, depression, anxiety, craving, hangover symptoms, cognition and blood oxidative stress markers. We will also examine the cost-efficacy of NAC vs placebo.

Ethics approval for the study has been granted by The Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (X21-0342& HREC2021/ETH11614). There are no restrictions on publication from the sponsor or other parties.

NCT05408247.

Athletes have been found to experience a similar prevalence of mental health issues to non-athletes. However, they are subjected to a greater array of barriers to help-seeking for mental health, including sport-specific factors. This scoping review synthesised the literature on athletes’ access to, attitudes towards and experiences of help-seeking for mental health from formal (mental health professionals such as psychiatrists) and semiformal sources (those who are not mental health professionals but are a service provider such as a coach).

The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and recommendations were used alongside the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols checklist for scoping reviews. This scoping review was predominantly informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews, supplemented by Levac et al’s additional recommendations. Rickwood and colleagues’ help-seeking frameworks informed the research question, inclusion/exclusion criteria and analysis.

The search terms and synonyms of "athlete" AND "mental health" AND "help-seeking" were searched in PsychINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsychArticles Full Text, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Sport Discus, CINAHL and Proquest (Education Database, Health & Medical Collection, Nursing & Allied Health database, Psychology Database, Public Health Database, Education Collection, and Medicine & Education). These searches were conducted at three time points between April 2022 and 2024.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were initially predetermined and specified in the protocol paper published in BMJ Open. Primary research articles, interventions and systematic reviews that referred to semiformal and formal sources of support were included.

The lead reviewer (KRB) screened all titles and abstracts, and full texts, and extracted data from all included studies. A second reviewer was involved in screening and extracting 20%–30% of studies at each stage. Findings were synthesised descriptively (eg, study population, data collection method and location of studies) and by content (eg, access, attitudes and experiences, sources of support, use of theory and the validity of quantitative measures used).

After screening 4954 titles and abstracts and 275 full texts in Covidence, 104 papers were included in the review. This comprised of 87 primary research articles, 13 interventions and 4 systematic reviews. Most of the primary articles and interventions were published in the USA (50%). 49.4% of the primary articles used quantitative methods, 34.5% used qualitative methods and 16.1% used mixed methods. Attitudes towards mental health help-seeking were investigated in 78.8% of the included studies, experiences of help-seeking in 53.8% and access to sources of support in 31.7% of studies. Of the primary articles and interventions, formal sources were investigated in 55% of studies, semiformal sources in 2% and both in 26% of studies.

This scoping review of 104 papers showed the benefit of using help-seeking frameworks to shape and analyse a review. Analysing the results using these frameworks provided a novel contribution to the literature, showing where the athlete help-seeking literature base is currently focused and identified gaps for further research. For example, there is a need for further research on athletes in less developed nations, more qualitative and mixed methods studies, and further research on athletes’ access to mental health support and their interactions with semiformal sources. The results have applied implications in public health and sport by highlighting the different factors that impact athlete help-seeking, and therefore areas where they require support.

Frequency of general practitioners’ (GPs’) antibiotic prescribing for acute, self-limiting respiratory tract infections (aRTIs) is high. The practice environment and culture influence the clinical behaviour, including prescribing behaviour, of GP specialist vocational trainees (registrars). We aimed to assess inter-practice variability in registrars’ antibiotic prescribing.

This was a cross-sectional analysis from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study, from 2010 to 2020.

ReCEnT documents registrars’ clinical experiences and behaviours. Before 2016, 5 of 17 Australian training regions participated in ReCEnT. From 2016, three of nine regions (~40% of Australian registrars) participated.

3210 registrars (response rate 91.8%) from 1286 training practices contributed to the analysis.

The outcomes were prescription of an antibiotic for new diagnoses of (1) all aRTIs and (2) acute bronchitis diagnoses specifically. Prescribing percentages were calculated at the training practice level. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the ratio of interpractice variation to total variance. Median ORs (MORs) were also estimated to quantify interpractice variability.

Practice-level antibiotic prescribing percentages ranged from 0% to 100% for both aRTIs and acute bronchitis diagnoses in the primary analysis. ICCs for aRTI prescribing were 0.08 (unadjusted) and 0.02 (adjusted). For acute bronchitis, ICCs were 0.10 (unadjusted) and 0.05 (adjusted). MORs were 1.66 (unadjusted) and 1.32 (adjusted) for aRTIs. MORs for acute bronchitis were 1.80 (unadjusted) and 1.53 (adjusted). This indicates a marked variation in the odds of a patient receiving antibiotics for an aRTI if randomly attending different practices.

There was considerable interpractice variation in registrars’ antibiotic prescribing frequencies. Further research is required to examine the factors accounting for this variation and to develop practice-level interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing in high-prescribing practices.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, are major global public health concerns. Diet quality—particularly the consumption of ultra-processed foods—has been associated with increased risk of NCDs. Traditional cohort studies are often expensive and logistically complex. The NutriNet-Brasil cohort leverages a web-based approach, offering a cost-effective and practical solution for comprehensive data collection and long-term follow-up.

Recruitments began in January 2020 through mass media, social media campaigns and collaborations with health organisations. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥18 years) living in Brazil with internet access. Participants complete self-administered online questionnaires covering dietary intake, health status and other health determinants. Dietary assessment is based on the Nova classification system, which categorises foods by their level of processing.

Over 88 000 participants have completed the initial questionnaire. The cohort is predominantly women (79.9%) and highly educated (67.9% had completed higher education). The web-based design enabled the development and application of innovative dietary assessment tools, including the Nova24h and the Nova24hScreener, specifically designed to evaluate food processing levels. These tools have shown good performance in capturing dietary patterns and are central to the cohort’s aim. The online platform facilitates efficient recruitment, data collection and participant retention.

NutriNet-Brasil is pioneering the development of web-based cohort methodologies and instruments tailored to food processing research. Future work includes leveraging collaborations with national and international research centres to conduct multidisciplinary analyses and inform public health policies.

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can lead to reduced lung function and worse clinical outcomes. Previous studies have reported associations between severe exacerbations and increased risk of hospitalisation and/or mortality. This meta-analysis examined the impact of moderate exacerbations on the risk of future exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

This meta-analysis included seven observational studies from the EXACOS (EXAcerbations of COPD and their OutcomeS)/AVOIDEX (Impact of AVOIDing EXacerbations of COPD) programme studies.

This meta-analysis used data from regional claims databases or electronic healthcare records from seven countries.

The individual studies included patients with a diagnosis of COPD and ≥12 months of data availability before (regarded as baseline) and after the index (ie, the date of the first COPD diagnosis), with postindex data considered the follow-up period.

The number of COPD exacerbations experienced during the baseline period (ie, the exposure variable) was used to categorise patients into the following groups: no exacerbations, one moderate exacerbation only or two or more moderate/severe exacerbations. Outcomes assessed included risk of COPD exacerbations and all-cause mortality during follow-up as a function of baseline exacerbations. For meta-analyses, all rate ratios (RRs) were log-transformed, and associations were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models.

Among 2 733 162 patients with COPD, one moderate exacerbation was significantly associated with a twofold increased risk of future exacerbations compared with having no exacerbations during baseline, with pooled RRs (95% CIs) of 2.47 (1.47 to 4.14) at 1 year, 2.49 (1.38 to 4.49) at 2 years and 2.38 (1.30 to 4.34) at 3 years postindex. The pooled RR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality was 1.30 (1.05 to 1.62), indicating a 30% increase in risk following one moderate exacerbation versus no exacerbations.

Preventing moderate exacerbations in patients with COPD should be a priority that may improve patient trajectories and outcomes.

The needs of patients in palliative care (PC) are multiple and changing. Several tools assess them, but there is a lack of homogeneity among them. A specific diagnostic tool to assess complexity in PC (IDC-Pal: Instrumento Diagnóstico de la Complejidad en Cuidados Paliativos, in Spanish) was created in community and hospital settings with 36 items to diagnose PC complexity, but its application in primary care is difficult.

(1) To generate an adapted version to primary care of the IDC-Pal tool to identify and stratify PC complexity in the adult population. (2) To determine face, content, criterion and construct validity and reliability of the new instrument.

There are three phases of clinimetric cross-sectional observational validation study: Phase 0: Review of the original tool structure suitability for its use in primary care setting by a committee (researchers and the original developer team). Phase 1: Expert consensus phase by Delphi technique with physicians, nurses and social workers from primary care and PC. Phase 2: Empirical validation of the resulting tool in primary care using a cross-sectional descriptive design involving physicians and case manager nurses from across Andalucia, who will recruit adult patients with PC needs from healthcare centres that accept to participate in the study. Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, interclass correlation coefficient) and construct validity (exploratory factor analysis) analysis will be carried out; convergent criterion validity will be assessed with the NEC-PAL (Necesidades Paliativas Questionnaire, in Spanish) instrument. Differences by gender, type of professional and place where it is administered will be explored. Interobserver reliability analyses will be carried out using intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman plots and concordance analysis. Phase 0–1 results were expected by 2025 and Phase 2 results by 2026. Reporting method: CRISP checklist. This protocol was conducted without patient or public participation.

This study evaluates a novel, co-designed tool to diagnose PC complexity to inform practice recommendations for a more efficient allocation of resources that may be included in future clinical practice guidelines. The study has been approved by the Provincial Research Ethics Committee of Málaga as of July 2023 and will be conducted in accordance with the principles established in the Declaration of Helsinki, the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the requirements established in Spanish legislation. The study conforms to the norms of good clinical practice. All participants in the Delphi study must express their agreement to participate in the survey by providing informed consent (IC) before beginning the questionnaire. For the development of Phase 2, the primary care professionals who agree to participate will sign a researcher commitment, and the patients included in the study will sign a written IC before the data collection. Dissemination of the results will inform future research on the appropriate diagnosis of PC complexity in the primary care setting, which is of paramount importance due to its gatekeeper position. Dissemination will be aimed at academics and healthcare professionals through publications, presentations and training workshops on the use of the diagnostic tool.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial decrease was observed in hospital admissions and in-hospital procedures for patients with acute cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The extent to which measures to prevent COVID-19 transmission, for example, lockdowns, affected the outpatient care of patients at higher cardiovascular risk remains unclear. We aimed to compare outpatient department (OPD) attendance, cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and cardiovascular health (CVH) of patients at higher cardiovascular risk referred to an OPD of a tertiary care centre between preCOVID-19, during and postCOVID-19 periods.

We included all adult patients at higher cardiovascular risk referred to the cardiology, vascular medicine, diabetology, geriatrics, nephrology or multidisciplinary vascular surgery OPDs of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands, between March 2019 and December 2022, in a prospective cohort study.

We assessed trends in the number of first and follow-up appointments and in the completeness of extractable CVRM indicators from the electronic health record (EHR) as a proxy for CVRM guideline adherence. CVH was determined using the Life’s Essential 8 metric (score 0–100, the higher score, the better). We investigated whether CVH differed between COVID-19 periods compared with the reference period (ie, 2019) and stratified by OPDs, using multivariable linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, CVD history and whether the patient had a previous appointment before the reference period.

Among 15 143 patients, we observed a 33% reduction in the weekly number of first appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the largest reductions in the cardiology and nephrology OPDs, with no differences between women and men. Follow-up appointments conducted remotely, compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic, increased significantly for all OPDs. CVRM indicators were up to 11% less extractable during the first lockdown yet returned to prepandemic levels directly after the first lockdown period. The CVH score of patients visiting the nephrology, vascular medicine and geriatrics OPDs during the first lockdown was 11.23 (95% CI 2.74 to 19.72), 5.68 (95% CI 0.82 to 10.54) and 5.66 (95% CI 0.01 to 11.31) points higher, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. In between the second and third lockdowns, the CVH score was comparable to the preCOVID reference period, yet for the cardiology OPD it was significantly higher (5.54, 95% CI 2.04 to 9.05).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly numbers of first appointments to OPDs decreased, and a population with a higher CVH score (ie, better CVH) visited certain OPDs, especially during the first lockdown period. These suggest that patients with poorer CVH more often avoided or were unable to visit OPDs, which might have resulted in missed opportunities to control cardiovascular risk factors and potentially may have led to preventable disease outcomes. For future epidemics and pandemics, it seems vital to develop a strategy that includes an emphasis on seeking healthcare when needed, with specific attention to patients at higher CVD risk.

SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protection against reinfection and severe COVID-19 disease; however, this protective effect may diminish over time. We assessed waning of natural immunity conferred by previous infection against severe disease and symptomatic reinfection in Brazil and Scotland.

We undertook a test-negative design study and nested case–control analysis to estimate waning of natural immunity against severe COVID-19 outcomes and symptomatic reinfection using national linked datasets. We used logistic regression to estimate ORs with 95% CIs. A stratified analysis assessed immunity during the Omicron dominant period in Brazil.

We included data from the adult populations of Brazil and Scotland from 1 June 2020 to 30 April 2022.

Severe COVID-19 was defined as hospitalisation or death. Reinfection was defined as reverse-transcriptase PCR or rapid antigen test confirmed at least 120 days after primary infection.

From Brazil, we included 30 881 873 tests and 1 301 665 severe COVID-19 outcomes, and from Scotland, we included 1 520 201 tests and 7988 severe COVID-19 outcomes. Against severe outcomes, sustained protection was observed for at least 12 months after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection with little evidence of waning: 12 months postprimary infection: Brazil OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.14), Scotland OR 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.04). For symptomatic reinfection, Brazilian data demonstrated evidence of waning in the 12 months following primary infection, although some residual protection remained beyond 12 months: 12 months postprimary infection: OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.43). The greatest reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was in individuals with hybrid immunity (history of previous infection and vaccination), with sustained protection against severe outcomes at 12 months postprimary infection. During the Omicron dominant period in Brazil, odds of symptomatic reinfection were higher and increased more quickly over time when compared with the overall study period, although protection against severe outcomes was sustained at 12 months postprimary infection (whole study: OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.14); Omicron phase: OR 0.15 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.19)).

Cross-national analyses demonstrate sustained protection against severe COVID-19 disease for at least 12 months following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, with vaccination further enhancing protection. Protection against symptomatic reinfection was lower with evidence of waning, but there remained a protective effect beyond 12 months from primary infection.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Despite the organised CRC screening programme, the uptake rate of the population-based CRC screening was still low. Thus, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial in a community setting to evaluate the effectiveness of a theory-based chatbot in promoting CRC screening uptake.

A total of 500 eligible participants will be randomly assigned to a WhatsApp Messenger-initiated chatbot outreach group or a standard text reminder group at a ratio of 1:1. The intervention group will deliver Chinese culturally tailored education texts and videos developed based on the Health Belief Model and the Trans-Theoretical Model. The control group will deliver a standard text reminder of information about the Hong Kong organised CRC screening programme. In addition to the baseline assessment and postintervention assessment, all subjects will be followed up for 3 months and 6 months, respectively. The primary outcome will be the CRC screening uptake rate at the 3 month and 6 month follow-up. The secondary outcomes will be the intention to undergo CRC screening uptake, time interval to participate in and complete screening after recruitment, and reasons for not participating in screening at the 3 month and 6 month follow-up. Quantitative data will be analysed using Student’s t-test, Pearson’s ² test or Fisher’s exact test. Qualitative data will be analysed by thematic analysis.

Ethical approval of this trial was granted by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (2022.614). Written informed consent will be obtained from study participants before enrolment. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06192862).

There is a need for early, non-invasive and inexpensive biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), which could serve as a proxy measure in prevention and intervention trials that might eventually be suitable for mass screening. People with Down syndrome (DS) are the largest patient group whose condition is associated with a genetically determined increased risk of AD. The REVEAL study aims to examine changes in the structure and function of the eye in individuals with DS compared with those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively healthy control (HC) individuals. REVEAL will also explore whether these changes are connected to inflammatory markers previously associated with AD.

The protocol describes a cross-sectional, non-interventional, single-centre study recruiting three cohorts, including (1) participants with DS (target n=50; age range, 6–60 years), (2) participants with MCI (target n=50; age range, 50–80 years) and (3) HC participants (target n=50; age range, 50–80 years). The primary research objective is to profile retinal, choroidal and lenticular status using a variety of eye imaging modalities and retinal functional testing to determine potential associations with cognitive status. The REVEAL study will also measure and compare established blood markers for AD and proteomic and transcriptomic marker profiles between DS, MCI and HC groups. Between-group differences will be assessed with an independent sample t-test and ² tests for normally distributed or binary measures, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis will be used to analyse parameters across all three cohorts. Data collection began in October 2023 and is expected to end in October 2025.

The study gained a favourable opinion from Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee A (REC reference 22/NI/0158; approved on 2 December 2022; Amendment 22/0064 Amend 1, 5 April 2023; Amendment 22/0064 Amend 2; 23 May 2024; Amendment 22/0064 Amend 3; 25 June 2024; Amendment 22/0064 Amend 4; 16 January 2025; Amendment 22.0064 Amend 5; 9 May 2025; Amendment 22.0064 Amend 6; 9 June 2025). The study has also been reviewed and approved by the School of Biomedical Sciences Research Ethics Filter Committee within Ulster University. Findings from the REVEAL study will be presented to academic audiences at international conferences and peer-reviewed publications in targeted high-impact journals after data collection and analysis are complete. Dissemination activities will also include presentations at public events.

To examine the association between behavioural risk factors and their physiological sequelae among adults aged 40 and above in Bo District, Sierra Leone.

Cross-sectional study.

Household survey in Bo District, Sierra Leone.

The study included 1978 randomly sampled adults aged 40 and above (44.4% male and 55.6% female). The majority of participants were aged 40–49 years (34.5%). Data were collected using a household survey based on the validated WHO STEPs questionnaire.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine associations between behavioural risk factors (diet, physical activity and salt intake) and the presence of hypertension, diabetes and/or obesity, adjusting for sociodemographic variables.

The primary outcomes were the presence of hypertension, diabetes or overweight/obesity. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure of ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure of ≥90 (measured); diabetes as fasting glucose of ≥7.0 mmol/L, random plasma glucose level of ≥11.1 mmol/L or the use of antidiabetic medications (self-reported) and overweight/obesity as having a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m² (measured).

At least one physiological risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, that is, hypertension, obesity or diabetes, was present in 43.5% of participants. Hypertension was associated with urban living (OR=1.46, 95% CI (1.41 to 1.51)), older age (OR for 80+=3.98, 95% CI (3.70 to 4.28)), insufficient fruit and vegetable intake (OR=1.52, 95% CI (1.46 to 1.60)) and low physical activity (OR=1.35, 95% CI (1.27 to 1.43)). Diabetes was associated with urban residence (OR=1.84, 95% CI (1.66 to 2.05)), older age (OR for 70–79=3.82, 95% CI (3.28 to 4.45)), low fruit and vegetable consumption (OR=1.61, 95% CI (1.36 to 1.90)), high salt intake (OR=1.34, 95% CI (1.21 to 1.49)) and low physical activity (OR=1.47, 95% CI (1.26 to 1.71)). Obesity was associated with urban living (OR=1.66, 95% CI (1.59 to 1.72)), high salt intake from two or more sources (OR=1.21, 95% CI (1.17 to 1.25)) and low physical activity (OR=1.30, 95% CI (1.22 to 1.39)). Male sex (OR=0.37, 95% CI (0.36 to 0.38)) and older age (OR for 80+=0.39, 95% CI (0.35 to 0.43)) were protective factors.

In Bo District, nearly half of adults over 40 face hypertension, diabetes or obesity, especially urban dwellers, older age groups and those eating too few fruits and vegetables, consuming excess salt and getting little exercise. Public health efforts should focus on urban-targeted nutrition education, salt-reduction strategies, community exercise programmes and routine blood pressure and glucose screening, working with local leaders to ensure sustainable lifestyle changes and early disease detection.

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is an acquired deformity that develops in 2–4% of otherwise healthy children during adolescent growth, substantially reducing their quality of life and creating a life-long burden of disease. Despite many years of dedicated research, the cause and mechanism of AIS are still unknown and no effective curative treatments are available for children suffering from this spinal and chest deformity. To date, all etiological studies focused on children with an already established scoliosis. EARLYBIRD aims to uncover the earliest pathoanatomical changes in AIS, by studying longitudinal spinal growth in children at increased risk for scoliosis development with MRI, starting before adolescence.

This prospective observational cohort study will follow two groups: 60 adolescent girls (8–10 years old) who have an older sibling or parent diagnosed with AIS (cohort 1) and 60 adolescents with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, a genetic microdeletion associated with 50% scoliosis prevalence (cohort 2). Data collection will be completely radiation-free and occur at baseline and yearly during adolescence up to 15 years of age in girls and up to 16 in boys. A comprehensive physical examination, a dedicated spine and chest MRI as well as a standing three-dimensional (3-D) spinal ultrasound will be obtained at each time point. The main parameter will be the longitudinal changes in segmental axial rotation during growth in subjects that do and do not develop AIS. Secondary endpoints are longitudinal changes in 3-D morphology of the bone and intervertebral discs (IVDs) during normal spinal development and during scoliosis development, determining biomarkers for bone growth, implementing radiation-free imaging methods for spinal monitoring in adolescent patients at risk for scoliosis development and use these for spinal skeletal maturity and patient-specific spinal biomechanical analyses.

This protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee NedMed and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05924347). Written informed consent will be obtained from all parents/legal representatives. Key findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and presentation at conferences. This study is funded by the European Research Council.

The increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidity places a significant burden on patients and leads to increasing challenges for healthcare systems, especially in primary care. Recognising the multifaceted nature of chronic conditions, the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to support person-centred care, by facilitating shared decision-making and self-management. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool in primary care.

This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted over 18 months alongside a clustered, two-arm quasi-experimental study in primary care in the Netherlands.

The study included 231 participants diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or chronic heart failure (CHF). Of these, 173 were assigned to the intervention group and 58 to the control group.

The intervention group was intended to incorporate the ABCC tool into routine consultations, while the control group had to continue care as usual.

Outcomes were assessed from a societal perspective, including quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived via the EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Costs were measured using adapted versions of the Productivity Costs Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Consumption Questionnaire (MCQ). Sensitivity analyses (SAs) included a healthcare perspective, per-protocol analysis (to account for disruptions caused by COVID-19) and exclusion of home care costs (to address extreme outliers). Moreover, all analyses were performed for well-being-adjusted life years (WALYs), derived from the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) questionnaire.

The ABCC tool was more expensive and effective than usual care, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 64 525 per QALY and a 29% probability of cost-effectiveness. With the exception of the healthcare perspective, the SAs yielded more favourable outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness, with ICERs (probability of cost-effectiveness) of 41 484 (31%), 8683 (58%) and 23 905 (48%) for a healthcare perspective, per-protocol analysis and exclusion of home care costs, respectively. Outcomes for QALY and WALY were comparable.

While the primary analysis suggested a relatively low probability of cost-effectiveness, the SAs showed higher probabilities. The per-protocol analysis suggested that the ABCC tool can be cost-effective when actually used.

NCT04127383.