Search

To date, 18 living recommendations for the clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 have been issued by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. This includes recommendations on mode of birth, delayed umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, antenatal corticosteroids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, disease-modifying treatments (including dexamethasone, remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and advanced respiratory support interventions (prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Through continuous evidence surveillance, these living recommendations are updated in near real-time to ensure clinicians in Australia have reliable, evidence-based guidelines for clinical decision-making. Please visit https://covid19evidence.net.au/ for the latest recommendation updates.Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

To date, 18 living recommendations for the clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 have been issued by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. This includes recommendations on mode of birth, delayed umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, antenatal corticosteroids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, disease-modifying treatments (including dexamethasone, remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and advanced respiratory support interventions (prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Through continuous evidence surveillance, these living recommendations are updated in near real-time to ensure clinicians in Australia have reliable, evidence-based guidelines for clinical decision-making. Please visit https://covid19evidence.net.au/ for the latest recommendation updates.

Background: The inter-jurisdictional National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme for Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approvals of human research is designed to reduce the reported delays and costs of ethical review. Introduction of the NMA set forth an uncoupling of the ethics and governance review processes, permitting a single ethical review for multiple sites, while continuing separate governance review for each centre covering financial and operational aspects of the research project. Aim(s): To compare the time required to gain ethics and governance approvals in Australia for a non-interventional investigator-led study from December 2015 to approval times for an earlier pre-NMA study utilising a similar study design and study sites and evaluate the effect that the NMA has had on total approval time for non-interventional multi-centre projects. Method(s): We recorded the time taken to obtain ethics and governance approval at 16 sites for our nationwide low-risk non-interventional study looking at the prevalence and aetiology of non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection in people with cystic fibrosis in Australia. Result(s): Applications were submitted to three hospitals and one university HREC to conduct our study at 16 hospital sites, HREC approval took from 16 to 79 days (median 28). Subsequent site-specific governance approval at 15 hospital sites took 23-225 days (median 83). The entire process of gaining ethical and governance approval to conduct the study at 16 sites took 24 months at an estimated cost of AU$56000 (US$ 42 000). Conclusion(s): Lengthy governance approval processes negate benefits gained from centralised ethics review under the NMA.Copyright © 2018 Royal Australasian College of Physicians

BACKGROUND: The inter-jurisdictional National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme for Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approvals of human research is designed to reduce the reported delays and costs of ethical review. Introduction of the NMA set forth an uncoupling of the ethics and governance review processes, permitting a single ethical review for multiple sites, while continuing separate governance review for each centre covering financial and operational aspects of the research project. AIM: To compare the time required to gain ethics and governance approvals in Australia for a non-interventional investigator-led study from December 2015 to approval times for an earlier pre-NMA study utilising a similar study design and study sites and evaluate the effect that the NMA has had on total approval time for non-interventional multi-centre projects. METHODS: We recorded the time taken to obtain ethics and governance approval at 16 sites for our nationwide low-risk non-interventional study looking at the prevalence and aetiology of non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection in people with cystic fibrosis in Australia. RESULTS: Applications were submitted to three hospitals and one university HREC to conduct our study at 16 hospital sites, HREC approval took from 16 to 79 days (median 28). Subsequent site-specific governance approval at 15 hospital sites took 23-225 days (median 83). The entire process of gaining ethical and governance approval to conduct the study at 16 sites took 24 months at an estimated cost of AU$56000 (US$ 42 000). CONCLUSION: Lengthy governance approval processes negate benefits gained from centralised ethics review under the NMA.

Oxidative stress and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress are related states that can occur in cells as part of normal physiology but occur frequently in diseases involving inflammation. In this article, we review recent findings relating to the role of oxidative and ER stress in the pathophysiology of acute and chronic nonmalignant diseases of the lung, including infections, cystic fibrosis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and asthma. We also explore the potential of drugs targeting oxidative and ER stress pathways to alleviate disease.

Introduction/Aim: Despite a growing worldwide recognition of bronchiectasis as a cause of substantial morbidity and healthcare utilisation, little is known about the prevalence or burden of disease for Australians and New Zealanders. The Australasian Bronchiectasis Registry (ABR) was established to fill this gap and to promote international collaborative research. Method(s): A comprehensive Registry has been developed by the Australasian Bronchiectasis Consortium with the support of Lung Foundation Australia (LFA), the European (EMBARC) and US Bronchiectasis Registries, with common data fields to ensure interoperability and future collaboration, and some unique data-fields to capture information specific to Australia and New Zealand. Investigators identify participants during episodes of care or from preexisting local databases. Patients are eligible if non-CF bronchiectasis is reported on high-resolution computed tomography chest scan. Patient demographics and clinical information are obtained at baseline, annual review and during clinical exacerbations. Linkage to Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) information provides the opportunity to study health care resource utilisation. Result(s): As the first step towards a regional standardised registry, the project has been initiated at 15 hospitals, including adult, paediatric, metropolitan and regional sites. Enrolment commenced at the pilot site (Concord Hospital) in March 2016 and as of October 2016 is being undertaken at 10 sites, with the remainder awaiting research governance approvals. To date, 261 patients have been enrolled; females 166 (64%), mean age 64.7 +/- 19.4 years. Conclusion(s): The ABR is a secure, web-based platform to capture the first comprehensive longitudinal data set of patients with bronchiectasis in Australia and New Zealand. Unique features include the use of optout consent, collection of paediatric data and linkage to PBS/Medicare data which will allow for the first time, a to

RATIONALE: Despite a growing worldwide recognition of bronchiectasis as a cause of substantial morbidity and healthcare utilisation, little is known about the prevalence or burden of disease for Australians and New Zealanders. The Australasian Bronchiectasis Registry (ABR) was established to fill this gap and to promote international collaborative research. METHOD(S): A comprehensive Registry has been developed by the Australasian Bronchiectasis Consortium with the support of Lung Foundation Australia (LFA), the European (EMBARC) and US Bronchiectasis Registries, with common data fields to ensure interoperability and future collaboration, and some unique data-fields to capture information specific to Australia and New Zealand. Investigators identify participants during episodes of care or from pre-existing local databases. Patients are eligible if non-CF bronchiectasis is reported on high-resolution computed tomography chest scan. Patient demographics and clinical information are obtained at baseline, annual review and during clinical exacerbations. Linkage to Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) information provides the opportunity to study health care resource utilisation. RESULT(S): As the first step towards a regional standardised registry, the project has been initiated at 15 hospitals, including adult, paediatric, metropolitan and regional sites. Enrolment commenced at the pilot site (Concord Hospital) in March 2016 and as of October 2016 is being undertaken at 10 sites, with the remainder awaiting research governance approvals. To date, 261 patients have been enrolled; females 166 (64%), mean age 64.7 +/- 19.4 years. CONCLUSION(S): The ABR is a secure, web-based platform to capture the first comprehensive longitudinal data set of patients with bronchiectasis in Australia and New Zealand. Unique features include the use of opt-out consent, collection of paediatric data and linkage to PBS/Medicare data which will allow for the first time, a topogra