Search

Introduction: Patient-reported antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common. These labels have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on use of appropriate antibiotics and patient-related health outcomes. These patients are more likely to receive suboptimal antibiotics, have increased rates of surgical site infections and are more likely to be colonised with multidrug-resistant organisms. Increasing recognition that antibiotic allergy forms a key part of good antimicrobial stewardship has led to calls for greater access to antibiotic allergy assessment.PREPARE is a pilot randomised controlled trial of beta-lactam allergy assessment and point of care delabelling in perioperative patients utilising a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool that has been repurposed into a smartphone application. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility and safety of this approach in the perioperative outpatient setting., Methods and Analysis: Adult participants requiring elective surgery and are likely to require prophylactic intravenous antibiotics will be recruited. During the intervention phase, participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arm, with control patients receiving usual standard of care. Those randomised to intervention undertake a risk assessment via the smartphone application, with those deemed low risk proceeding to direct oral provocation with either a penicillin or cephalosporin. Study outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase, 30 and 90 days after surgery.Feasibility of intervention delivery and recruitment will be reported as proportions with respective 95% CIs. Participants who experience an antibiotic adverse event will be reported by group with respective 95% CIs and compared using modified Poisson regression model with robust SE estimation., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has received approval from the Austin Health human research and ethics committee, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia (HREC/17/Austin/575). Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentation at international conferences., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620001295932., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) are a group of T cell-mediated hypersensitivities associated with significant morbidity, mortality and hospital costs. Clinical phenotypes include Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). In this Australasian, multicentre, prospective registry, we plan to examine the clinical presentation, drug causality, genomic predictors, potential diagnostic approaches, treatments and long-term outcomes of SCAR in Australia and New Zealand., Methods and Analysis: Adult and adolescent patients with SCAR including SJS, TEN, DRESS, AGEP and another T cell-mediated hypersensitivity, generalised bullous fixed drug eruption, will be prospectively recruited. A waiver of consent has been granted for some sites to retrospectively include cases which result in early mortality. DNA will be collected for all prospective cases. Blood, blister fluid and skin biopsy sampling is optional and subject to patient consent and site capacity. To develop culprit drug identification and prevention, genomic testing will be performed to confirm human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and ex vivo testing will be performed via interferon-γ release enzyme linked immunospot assay using collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells. The long-term outcomes of SCAR will be investigated with a 12-month quality of life survey and examination of prescribing and mortality data., Ethics and Dissemination: This study was reviewed and approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/50791/Austin-19). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000241134)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in the healthcare setting and associated with the prescription of second-line inferior antibiotics. More than 85% of all penicillin allergy labels can be removed by skin testing and 96%-99% of low-risk penicillin allergy labels can be removed by direct oral challenge. An internally and externally validated clinical assessment tool for penicillin allergy, PEN-FAST, can identify a low-risk penicillin allergy without the need for skin testing; a score of less than 3 has a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1 to 97.8) for the presence of a penicillin allergy. It is hypothesised that PEN-FAST is a safe and effective tool for assessing penicillin allergy in an outpatient clinic setting., Methods and Analysis: This is an international, multicentre randomised control trial using the PEN-FAST tool to risk-stratify penicillin allergy labels in adult outpatients. The study's primary objective is to evaluate the non-inferiority of using PEN-FAST score-guided management with direct oral challenge compared with standard care (defined as prick and intradermal skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention arm (direct oral penicillin challenge) or standard of care arm (skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge, if skin testing is negative). The sample size of 380 randomised patients (190 per treatment arm) is required to demonstrate non-inferiority., Ethics and Dissemination: The study will be performed according to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/62425/Austin-2020) in Melbourne Australia, Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB #202174) in Tennessee, USA, Duke University Institutional Review Board (IRB #Pro00108461) in North Carolina, USA and McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board in Canada (PALACE/2022-7605). The results of this study will be published and presented in various scientific forums., Trial Registration Number: NCT04454229., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Immunosenescence leads to increased morbidity and mortality associated with viral infections and weaker vaccine responses. This has been well documented for seasonal influenza and the current pandemic with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), which disproportionately impact older adults, particularly those in residential aged care facilities. Inadequate nutrient intakes associated with impaired immunity, respiratory and muscle function are likely to augment the effects of immunosenescence. In this study, we test whether the impact of inadequate nutrition can be reversed using multi-nutrient supplementation, consequently enhancing vaccine responses, reducing the risk of viral infections and improving respiratory and muscle function., Methods and Analysis: The Pomerium Study is a 3-month, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial testing the effects of two daily servings of an oral multi-nutrient supplement (330 kcal, 20 g protein, 1.5 g calcium 3-hydroxy-3-methylbutyrate monohydrate (CaHMB), 449 mg calcium, 500 IU vitamin D 3 and 25 vitamins and minerals) on the immune system and muscle and respiratory function of older adults in aged care in Melbourne, Australia. 160 older adults (≥75 years old) will be recruited from aged care facilities and randomised to treatment (multi-nutrient supplement) or control (usual care). The primary outcome is a change in T-cell subsets CD8 + and CD28null counts at months 1 and 3. Secondary outcomes measured at baseline and month 3 are multiple markers of immunosenescence (also at 1 month), body composition (bioimpedance), handgrip strength (dynamometer), physical function (short physical performance battery), respiratory function (spirometry) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Incidence and complications of COVID-19 and/or viral infections (ie, hospitalisation, complications or death) will be recorded throughout the trial, including 3 months after supplementation is ceased., Ethics and Dissemination: This study was approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. HREC/73985/MH-2021, ERM Ref No. RMH73985, Melbourne Health Site Ref No. 2021.115). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and made available to key aged care stakeholders, including providers, residents, and government bodies., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12621000420842., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GD and SI-B serve as members of the Advisory Board of Abbott Australia. GD serves on the Scientific Advisory Board at TSI Pharmaceuticals. BK is currently supported by a research fellowship from TSI Pharmaceuticals. All the other authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Traditionally, the approach to fracture prevention has focused on increasing bone mineral density while typically lacking a combined clinical approach to falls prevention and vice versa. To resolve this gap, we implemented and evaluated a novel combined model of care to the assessment and prevention of osteoporosis and falls in the outpatients setting., Setting: Falls and Fractures Clinic (FFC) at Nepean Hospital (Penrith, NSW, Australia)., Participants: Pre-effects and posteffects assessment of 106 community-dwelling older patients referred from the community., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Previous falls and fractures were recorded. Clinical, functional and paraclinical evaluations were performed. A comprehensive multidisciplinary care plan was then tailored based on the presence of risk factors. Six-month follow-ups were performed assessing the incidence of falls and fractures, change in risk factors for falls and level of risk, with the recommended plan., Results: We report that 97% of patients had a fall in the preceding 6 months, 47.6% of whom experienced a fracture from the fall. Furthermore, 64% of patients had a marked risk for falling by Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA), 90% had intermediate-high 10-year probability of fracture according to FRAX and 78% had sarcopenia. At 6-month follow-up, we observed more than an 80% reduction in falls and recurrent falls, and 50% reduction in fractures. In addition, 65% of patients had reduced PPA and a 57% reduction in 10-year fracture probability., Conclusions: In conclusion, we suggest that a multidisciplinary FFC can provide substantial reductions in falls and fractures for high-risk older people, even over a relatively short 6-month time period. The current model of service provision via traditional falls clinics could be significantly improved by encompassing fracture prevention within the multifactorial approach to interventions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Manual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months' closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods and Analysis: This open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ≥25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA 1c , severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12617000520336; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MIdB and NDC report receiving speaker honoraria from Medtronic. DJHW reports receiving speaker and advisory board honoraria from Medtronic. RWM reports receiving conference travel and accommodation support from Medtronic. JS reports that the ACBRD has received honoraria from Medtronic in relation to her speaking engagements and role in advisory boards. DNON reports receiving speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)