Search

Introduction The TriAD study will assess the Xpert MTB/XDR (Xpert XDR; Cepheid) assay to detect tuberculosis (TB) drug resistance in sputum testing positive for TB to rapidly triage and treat patients with a short all-oral treatment regimen.Methods and analysis In this study, approximately 4800 Xpert MTB/RIF or Ultra MTB-positive patients (irrespective of rifampicin (RIF) resistance (RR) status) from several clinical sites across South Africa, Nigeria and Ethiopia will be enrolled over 18–24 months and followed-up for approximately 6 months post-TB treatment completion. Participants will be enrolled into one of two cohorts based on Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert XDR results: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) positive participants with RR in Cohort 1 (n=880) and M.tb positive RIF susceptible TB patients with isoniazid mono-resistance irrespective of presence of resistance to fluoroquinolones, second-line injectable drugs or ethionamide in Cohort 2 (n=400). Cohort 1 will be compared with historical cohorts from each implementing sites. The primary study outcomes include time to initiation of an appropriate treatment regimen by resistance profile and the proportion of patients with favourable treatment outcomes compared with historical cohorts from each of the implementing sites. Secondary outcomes include feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of this approach to inform policies and guidelines for programmatic implementation of this triage and treat model for drug-resistant tuberculosis management. Utility of the tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay (TB-MBLA) for real-time treatment response assessment will also be evaluated.Ethics and dissemination The University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BREC) and local research committees have provided ethical review and approval (BREC/00002654/2021, HREC 210805, NHREC/01/01/2007 and EPHI-IRB-459–2022). The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) have granted regulatory approval for the TRiAD Study (SAHPRA MD20211001). Trial results will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and the clinical trial registry.Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov; Trial registration number: NCT05175794; South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR DOH-27-012022-4720)

Objectives Despite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research.Design A modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.Setting A four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as >75% agreement.Participants A total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery.Results A total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline.Conclusion This study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability.

Introduction Chronic lower back pain is a common report in the general population. A dysfunctional sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is estimated to be responsible for one in five patients with lower back pain. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is a surgical procedure to treat SIJ dysfunction. During the procedure, the SIJ is stabilised by implants inserted percutaneously under fluoroscopy guidance. Postoperatively, patients often report a lot of pain, which contributes to patients taking high doses of painkillers (opioids for example,) and preventing early mobilisation. In several orthopaedic procedures, intraoperative infiltration of the wound bed results in decreased consumption of analgesics, earlier mobilisation and shorter hospitalisation time. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with analgesia in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF.Methods and analysis We will perform a two-centre, prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial to determine whether SIJ infiltration with 1.5–5 cc bupivacaine 0.50% is superior to 1.5–5 cc placebo (NaCl 0.9%) in reducing postoperative pain in patients after MISJF, and to determine whether bupivacaine significantly reduces opioid use in the direct postoperative period. Patients will be randomised with 1:1 allocation for either bupivacaine (intervention) or placebo SIJ infiltration. Postoperative pain will be measured by the Visual Analogue Scale pain score at entry and exit recovery, 2, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hours postoperatively.Ethics and dissemination This is the first trial that investigates the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF. If intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% proves to be effective, this might have important clinical implications, such as postoperative analgesics (opioids for example,) consumption, earlier mobilisation and potentially shorter hospitalisation time.Trial registration number NL9151.

Introduction The course of the disease in SARS-CoV-2 infection in mechanically ventilated patients is unknown. To unravel the clinical heterogeneity of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in these patients, we designed the prospective observational Maastricht Intensive Care COVID cohort (MaastrICCht). We incorporated serial measurements that harbour aetiological, diagnostic and predictive information. The study aims to investigate the heterogeneity of the natural course of critically ill patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.Methods and analysis Mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the intensive care with a SARS-CoV-2 infection will be included. We will collect clinical variables, vital parameters, laboratory variables, mechanical ventilator settings, chest electrical impedance tomography, ECGs, echocardiography as well as other imaging modalities to assess heterogeneity of the course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill patients. The MaastrICCht is also designed to foster various other studies and registries and intends to create an open-source database for investigators. Therefore, a major part of the data collection is aligned with an existing national intensive care data registry and two international COVID-19 data collection initiatives. Additionally, we create a flexible design, so that additional measures can be added during the ongoing study based on new knowledge obtained from the rapidly growing body of evidence. The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic requires the swift implementation of observational research to unravel heterogeneity of the natural course of the disease of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mechanically ventilated patients. Our study design is expected to enhance aetiological, diagnostic and prognostic understanding of the disease. This paper describes the design of the MaastrICCht.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the medical ethics committee (Medisch Ethische Toetsingscommissie 2020-1565/3 00 523) of the Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (Maastricht UMC+), which will be performed based on the Declaration of Helsinki. During the pandemic, the board of directors of Maastricht UMC+ adopted a policy to inform patients and ask their consent to use the collected data and to store serum samples for COVID-19 research purposes. All study documentation will be stored securely for fifteen years after recruitment of the last patient. The results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, with a preference for open access journals, while particularly considering deposition of the manuscripts on a preprint server early.Trial registration number The Netherlands Trial Register (NL8613).

Objectives: Patient and public involvement is regarded as vital in fostering high-quality care. While involvement has clear societal advantages, it is still widely viewed as tokenistic and surrounded by issues of representation. This study aims to understand how patients and informal caregivers can be trained to effectively contribute to improved quality of healthcare services., Design: Using an action research approach, a 15-week training programme for patients and informal caregivers called the Patient As a Person Academy was developed, tested and evaluated in three development cycles. Evaluation methods varied per development cycle and included open-ended questionnaires (N=27) and semistructured interviews (N=35) as well as agile evaluation sessions of all 15 training sessions., Setting and Participants: We purposively sampled patients and informal caregivers who had prior experience in patient and public involvement. Patients and informal caregivers who participated as patient and partner educators in health professions education in the Netherlands could participate., Intervention: Participants followed the Patient As a Person Academy, a 15-week training programme that aims to prepare patients and informal caregivers to become patient partners., Results: Participants reported that the Patient As a Person Academy's focus on self-management skills, understanding healthcare professionals' perspectives and communication skills helped them to engage in meaningful dialogue with healthcare professionals as patient partners and made them more confident in their roles. However, tailoring towards individual participants' levels of acceptance of illness and reflexivity was needed. Participants reported that, next to the training programme, peer-to-peer coaching and guidance towards roles in quality improvement initiatives would be necessary to optimise their contributions., Conclusions: Initiatives like the Patient As a Person Academy may alleviate the problems of tokenism in patient and public involvement. However, extensively preparing patients and informal caregivers raises issues around representation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Both MHB and SR initiated and were board members of Patient as a Person Foundation when the study was conducted. They received no financial remuneration for their contributions. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)