Search

Magnolia Cardona,1,2 Adem Sav,3 Zoe A Michaleff,1 Sarah T Thomas,2 Claudia C Dobler1,4 1Institute for Evidence Based Healthcare, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia; 2Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Queensland, Australia; 3School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 4The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaCorrespondence: Magnolia Cardona, Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Level 4, HSM Building 5, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, 4226, Australia, Tel +61 7 5595 0170, Email mcardona@bond.edu.auPurpose: To identify and rank areas of treatment burden in chronic heart failure (CHF), including solutions, that should be discussed during the clinical encounter from a patient, and doctors’ perspective.Patients and Methods: Patients with CHF and clinicians managing heart failure were invited. Nominal group technique sessions held either face to face or online in 2021– 2022, with individual identification of priorities and voting on ranking.Results: Four patient groups (N=22) and one doctor group (N=5) were held. For patients with heart failure, in descending order of priority Doctor-patient communication, Inefficiencies of the healthcare system, Healthcare access issues, Cost implications of treatment, Psychosocial impacts on patients and their families, and Impact of treatment work were the most important treatment burdens. Priorities independently identified by the doctors aligned with the patients’ but ranking differed. Patient solutions ranged from involvement of nurses or pharmacists to enhance understanding of discharge planning, through to linkage between health information systems, and maintaining strong family or social support networks. Doctors’ solutions covered timing medicines with activities of daily living, patient education on the importance of compliance, medication reviews to overcome clinical inertia, and routine clinical audits.Conclusion: The top treatment burden priorities for CHF patients were related to interaction with clinicians and health system inefficiencies, whereas doctors were generally aware of patients’ treatment burden but tended to focus on the complexity of the direct treatment work. Addressing the priority issues identified here can commence with clinicians becoming aware of the issues that matter to patients and proactively discussing feasible immediate and longer-term solutions during clinical encounters.Keywords: patient priorities, barriers, qualitative studies, older adults

ObjectivesThe treatment workload associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is high. The treatment burdens experienced by patients with ESKD are not well understood. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the most important areas of treatment burden for discussion in a clinical encounter from the perspectives of patients with ESKD and nephrologists. We sought to explore possible solutions to these high priority treatment burden challenges.DesignNominal group technique (NGT) sessions.Setting and participantsThree in-person NGT sessions were conducted with 19 patients with dialysis-dependent ESKD from one tertiary treatment centre (mean age 64 years; range 47–82). All patients were either retired or on a disability pension; 74% perceived moderate or severe treatment burden; and 90% spent more than 11 hours on treatment-related activities per week (range 11–30). One online NGT session was conducted with six nephrologists from two Australian states.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a ranked list of treatment burden priorities. The secondary outcome was potential solutions to these treatment burden challenges.ResultsEvery patient group rankedhealth system issuesas the most important treatment burden priority. This encompassed lack of continuity and coordination of care, dissatisfaction with frequent healthcare encounters and challenges around healthcare access.Psychosocial burdenson patients and families were perceived to be the most important area of treatment burden by physicians, and were ranked the second highest priority by patients.ConclusionsDiscussing treatment burden in a clinical encounter may lead to a better understanding of patients’ capacity to cope with their treatment workload. This could facilitate tailored care, improve health outcomes, treatment sustainability and patients’ overall quality of life.

Clinicians regularly have to trade benefits and harms to choose between testing and treatment strategies. This process is often done by making global and implicit judgments. A decision analysis is an analytic method that makes this process more explicit, reproducible, and evidence-based. While clinicians are unlikely to conduct their own decision analysis, they will read publications of such analyses or use guidelines based on them. This review outlines the anatomy of a decision tree and provides clinicians with the tools to critically appraise a decision analysis and apply its results to medical decision making. Clinicians reading about a decision analysis can make two judgments. The first judgment is about the credibility of the methods, such as whether the decision analysis addressed a relevant clinical question, included all important outcomes, used the current best evidence to derive variables in the model, and adopted the appropriate time horizon. The second judgment is about rating confidence in the preferred course of action by determining the certainty in the model variables, whether the results are robust in sensitivity analyses and if the results are applicable to a specific patient. Results from a valid and robust decision analysis can inform both guideline panels and the patient-clinician dyad engaged in shared decision-making.

The risk of tuberculosis (TB) is variable among individuals with latentMycobacterium tuberculosisinfection (LTBI), but validated estimates of personalized risk are lacking. In pooled data from 18 systematically identified cohort studies from 20 countries, including 80,468 individuals tested for LTBI, 5-year cumulative incident TB risk among people with untreated LTBI was 15.6% (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.0-29.2%) among child contacts, 4.8% (95% CI, 3.0-7.7%) among adult contacts, 5.0% (95% CI, 1.6-14.5%) among migrants and 4.8% (95% CI, 1.5-14.3%) among immunocompromised groups. We confirmed highly variable estimates within risk groups, necessitating an individualized approach to risk stratification. Therefore, we developed a personalized risk predictor for incident TB (PERISKOPE-TB) that combines a quantitative measure of T cell sensitization and clinical covariates. Internal-external cross-validation of the model demonstrated a random effects meta-analysis C-statistic of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93) for incident TB. In decision curve analysis, the model demonstrated clinical utility for targeting preventative treatment, compared to treating all, or no, people with LTBI. We challenge the current crude approach to TB risk estimation among people with LTBI in favor of our evidence-based and patient-centered method, in settings aiming for pre-elimination worldwide. The risk of developing active tuberculosis (TB) in individuals with latent TB infection is highly variable within and among different risk groups. A personalized risk predictor was developed to better target preventative treatment to individuals at greatest risk, supporting evidence-based clinical decision-making for latent TB.

Adem Sav,1 Sarah T Thomas,2 Magnolia Cardona,3,4 Zoe A Michaleff,4,5 Claudia C Dobler3,4,6 1School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 2Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia; 3Evidence-Based Practice Professorial Unit, Gold Coast Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia; 4Institute for Evidence Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia; 5Northern NSW Local Health District, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia; 6The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, AustraliaCorrespondence: Adem Sav, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Tel +61 7 3138 5795, Email adem.sav@qut.edu.auPurpose: Many people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) feel overburdened with the treatment and management of their illness. Although research has begun to shed light on how COPD patients experience treatment burden, most of what we know is limited to personal experiences of patients. The aim of this study is to identify and prioritise areas of treatment burden that should be discussed during the clinical encounter from the perspectives of COPD patients, carers, and respiratory physicians.Patients and Methods: Data were collected from participants using the nominal group technique. Five nominal group sessions were conducted in total (n = 31); three sessions with patients (n = 18), one with carers (n = 7) and another with respiratory physicians (pulmonologists or chest physicians) (n = 6). Each session was recorded and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Going beyond understanding patients’ and carers’ experiences of treatment burden, this study offers a practical viewpoint of what should be discussed in a clinical encounter. Each group of participants contextualized treatment burden issues for discussion from their own perspectives. There was strong agreement, however, across the groups that difficulties accessing healthcare, lack of education and information, and worry about COPD treatment and prognosis were the most important treatment burden priorities for discussion.Conclusion: Understanding and creating opportunities to discuss these issues in a clinical encounter is important in not only reducing treatment burden but also improving health outcomes and quality of life for COPD patients and their carers.Keywords: COPD, burden of treatment, treatment burden, nominal group technique

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of nonpharmacologic interventions in patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients and Methods We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov from database inception to January 2, 2019, for randomized controlled trials that enrolled adults with exacerbation of COPD and evaluated the effect of nonpharmacologic interventions on clinical outcomes and/or lung function. Results We included 30 randomized controlled trials with 2643 participants. Improvement in 6-minute walking test distance was associated with resistance training (weighted mean difference [WMD], 74.42; 95% CI, 46.85 to 101.99), pulmonary rehabilitation (WMD, 20.02; 95% CI, 12.06 to 28.67), whole body vibration (WMD, 89.42; 95% CI, 45.18 to 133.66), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (WMD, 64.54; 95% CI, 53.76 to 75.32). Improvement in quality of life was associated with resistance training (WMD, 18.7; 95% CI, 5.06 to 32.34), combined breathing technique and range of motion exercises (WMD, 14.89; 95% CI, 5.30 to 24.50), whole body vibration (WMD, -12.02; 95% CI, -21.41 to -2.63), and intramuscular vitamin D (WMD, -4.67; 95% CI, -6.00 to -3.35 at the longest follow-up). Oxygen titration with a target oxygen saturation range of 88% to 92% was associated with reduced mortality compared with high flow oxygen (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.88). All findings were based on low strength of evidence. Conclusion In patients hospitalized for exacerbation of COPD, exercise interventions and pulmonary rehabilitation programs may ameliorate functional decline. Oxygen should be titrated with a target oxygen saturation of 88% to 92% in these patients. Trial Registration PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42018111609.

The continuous flow of new research articles on MDR-TB diagnosis, treatment, prevention and rehabilitation requires frequent update of existing guidelines. This review is aimed at providing clinicians and public health staff with an updated and easy-to-consult document arising from consensus of Global Tuberculosis Network (GTN) experts. The core published documents and guidelines have been reviewed including the recently published MDR-TB WHO rapid advice and ATS/CDC/ERS/IDSA guidelines. After a rapid review of epidemiology and risk factors, the clinical priorities on MDR-TB diagnosis (including whole genome sequencing and drug-susceptibility testing interpretations) and treatment (treatment design and management, TB in children) are discussed. Furthermore, the review comprehensively describes the latest information on contact tracing and LTBI management in MDR-TB contacts, while providing guidance on post-treatment functional evaluation and rehabilitation of TB sequelae, infection control and other public health priorities.

Han MK, Ye W, Wang D, et al.

Tuberculosis (TB) does not respect borders, and migration confounds global TB control and elimination. Systematic screening of immigrants from TB high burden settings and—to a lesser degree TB infection (TBI)—is recommended in most countries with a low incidence of TB. The aim of the study was to evaluate the views of a diverse group of international health professionals on TB management among migrants. Participants expressed their level of agreement using a six-point Likert scale with different statements in an online survey available in English, French, Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. The survey consisted of eight sections, covering TB and TBI screening and treatment in migrants. A total of 1055 respondents from 80 countries and territories participated between November 2019 and April 2020. The largest professional groups were pulmonologists (16.8%), other clinicians (30.4%), and nurses (11.8%). Participants generally supported infection control and TB surveillance established practices (administrative interventions, personal protection, etc.), while they disagreed on how to diagnose and manage both TB and TBI, particularly on which TBI regimens to use and when patients should be hospitalised. The results of this first knowledge, attitude and practice study on TB screening and treatment in migrants will inform public health policy and educational resources.

(1) Background: Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the standard imaging test for the evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but it is associated with patients’ exposure to radiation. Studies have suggested that radiation exposure can be reduced without compromising PE detection by limiting the scan range (the z-axis, going from up to down); (2) Methods: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE on 17 July 2021. Studies were included if they enrolled patients who had undergone a CTPA and described the yield of PE diagnoses, number of missed filling defects and/or other diagnoses using a reduced z-axis in comparison to a full-length scan. To assess risk of bias, we modified an existing risk of bias tools for observational studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were synthesized in a narrative review. Primary outcomes were the number of missed PE diagnoses (based on at least one filling defect) and filling defects; the secondary outcome was the number of other missed findings; (3) Results: Eleven cohort studies and one case-control study were included reporting on a total of 3955 scans including 1025 scans with a diagnosis of PE. Six different reduced scan ranges were assessed; the most studied was from the top of the aortic arch to below the heart, in which no PEs were missed (seven studies). One sub-segmental PE was missed when the scan coverage was 10 cm starting from the bottom of the aortic arch and 14.7 cm starting from the top of the arch. Five studies that reported on other findings all found that other diagnoses were missed with a reduced z-axis. Most of the included studies had a high risk of bias; (4) Conclusions: CTPA scan coverage reduction from the top of aortic arch to below the heart reduced radiation exposure without affecting PE diagnoses, but studies were generally at high risk of bias.

Background Little is known about the treatment burden experienced by patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) who use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Participants 18 patients (33.3% males, mean age 59.7±11.8 years) with OSA who use CPAP therapy were interviewed. Methods Patients treated with CPAP for OSA at a tertiary hospital outpatient clinic in Sydney, Australia, were invited to participate in an interview in person or via phone. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the treatment burden associated with using CPAP. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software. Results Four categories of OSA-specific treatment burden were identified: healthcare tasks, consequences of healthcare tasks, exacerbating and alleviating factors of treatment burden. Participants reported a significant burden associated with using CPAP, independently of how frequently they used their device. Common sources of their treatment burden included attending healthcare appointments, the financial cost of treatment, lifestyle changes, treatment-related side effects and general discomfort. Conclusions This study demonstrated that there is a significant treatment burden associated with the use of CPAP, and that treatment non-adherence is not the only consequence of treatment burden. Other consequences include relationship burden, stigma and financial burden. It is important for physicians to identify other negative impacts of treatment burden in order to optimise the patient experience.

Background and objectives High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do-not-intubate (DNI) and/or do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Methods We conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018. Results We included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified. Conclusions While HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high-quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

Background ICU patients/surrogates may experience adverse outcomes related to perceived inappropriate treatment. The objective was to determine the prevalence of patient/surrogate-reported perceived inappropriate treatment, its impact on adverse outcomes, and discordance with clinicians. Methods We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study of adult ICU patients. Results For 151 patients, 1,332 patient, surrogate, nurse, and physician surveys were collected. Disagreement between patients/surrogates and clinicians regarding "too much" treatment being administered occurred in 26% of patients. Disagreement regarding "too little" treatment occurred in 10% of patients. Disagreement about perceived inappropriate treatment was associated with prognostic discordance (P = .02) and lower patient/surrogate satisfaction (Likert scale 1-5 of 4 vs 5; P = .02). Patient/surrogate respondents reported "too much" treatment in 8% of patients and "too little" treatment in 6% of patients. Perceived inappropriate treatment was associated with moderate or high respondent distress for 55% of patient/surrogate respondents and 35% of physician/nurse respondents (P = .30). Patient/surrogate perception of inappropriate treatment was associated with lower satisfaction (Family Satisfaction in the ICU Questionnaire-24, 69.9 vs 86.6; P = .002) and lower trust in the clinical team (Likert scale 1-5 of 4 vs 5; P = .007), but no statistically significant differences in depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 of 2 vs 1; P = .06) or anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale of 7 vs 4; P = .18). Conclusions For approximately one-third of ICU patients, there is disagreement between clinicians and patients/surrogates about the appropriateness of treatment. Disagreement about appropriateness of treatment was associated with prognostic discordance and lower patient/surrogate satisfaction. Patients/surrogates who reported inappropriate treatment also reported lower satisfaction and trust in the ICU team.

Challenges in the diagnostic process of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can result in diagnostic misclassifications, including overdiagnosis. The term “overdiagnosis” in general has been associated with variable definitions. In connection with efforts to reduce low-value care, “overdiagnosis” has been defined as a true positive diagnosis of a condition that is not associated with any harm in the diagnosed person. It is, however, unclear how the term “overdiagnosis” is used in the COPD literature. We conducted a rapid review of the literature to explore how the terms “overdiagnosis” and “misdiagnosis” are used in the context of COPD. Electronic searches of Medline were conducted from inception to October 2018, to identify primary studies that reported on over- and/or misdiagnosis of COPD using these terms. 28 articles were included in this review. Overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis in COPD were found to be used to describe five main concepts: 1) physician COPD diagnosis despite normal spirometry (14 studies); 2) discordant results for COPD diagnosis based on different spirometry-based definitions for airflow obstruction (10 studies); 3) COPD diagnosis based on pre-bronchodilator spirometry results (three studies); 4) comorbidities (e.g. heart failure or asthma) that affect spirometry and have clinical features which overlap with COPD (two studies); and 5) normalisation of abnormal (post-bronchodilator) spirometry at follow-up (one study). The terms “overdiagnosis” and “misdiagnosis” were often used interchangeably and almost always referred to a false positive diagnosis. Performing (technically correct) spirometry with correct interpretation of the results could probably reduce misdiagnosis in a large proportion of the misdiagnosed cases of COPD. In addition, guidelines need to provide a more acceptable consensus spirometric definition of airflow obstruction. Key points In the COPD literature, the terms “overdiagnosis” and “misdiagnosis” are often used interchangeably and almost always refer to a false positive diagnosis. Use of spirometry with correct interpretation of the results can avoid a substantial proportion of cases of misdiagnosis of COPD. Educational aims To explore the use of the terms “overdiagnosis” and “misdiagnosis” in the COPD literature. To identify the main sources of overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis in COPD., Overdiagnosis in the COPD literature generally refers to a false positive diagnosis (misdiagnosis). Misdiagnosis can be significantly reduced by performing spirometry in every patient with suspected COPD. http://ow.ly/zuAw30o7hiV

The uptake of new evidence in healthcare relies on clinicians’ willingness to change their clinical practice by implementing an evidence-based clinical intervention or deimplementing an obsolete, non-evidence-based practice. A number of barriers to change among health professionals have been identified including the way that clinicians make medical decisions. When clinicians judge situations, make decisions and solve problems, they routinely use cognitive shortcuts, also called ‘heuristics’, as well as internalised tacit knowledge (based on clinicians’ own experiences, exchange with colleagues, reading information and hearing from opinion leaders, patients, pharmaceutical representatives, and so on).1 Mental shortcuts can assist clinicians to process large amounts of information in a short time and are an important tool for experienced clinicians to make a correct diagnosis based on recognition of internalised patterns of signs of symptoms. They also have the potential, however, to prevent evidence-based decisions. Here, we will outline a number of cognitive biases that constitute potential barriers to the practice of evidence-based medicine and potential solutions to address and overcome these biases. It is unknown to which extent cognitive biases play a role in clinicians’ decision-making, but some evidence suggests that cognitive biases in medical decision-making might be common.2 In a study on anaesthesiology practice, of nine types of cognitive errors selected for observation, seven occurred in >50% of observed emergencies.2 The following cognitive biases typically influence clinicians’ decision-making regarding treatment and management of patients and are thus potential barriers to evidence-based clinical practice (figure 1). Figure 1 Illustrations of clinicians’ cognitive biases. COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. ### Omission bias Omission bias is the tendency to judge actions that lead to harm as worse or less moral than equally harmful non-actions (omissions). The inclination is thus towards inaction following the principle of ‘do no harm’. Kahneman and Miller explained this bias in terms of norm theory: …

Purpose This scoping review sought to identify objective factors to assist clinicians and policy-makers in making consistent, objective and ethically sound decisions about resource allocation when healthcare rationing is inevitable. Materials and methods Review of guidelines and tools used in ICUs, hospital wards and emergency departments on how to best allocate intensive care beds and ventilators either during routine care or developed during previous epidemics, and association with patient outcomes during and after hospitalisation. Results Eighty publications from 20 countries reporting accuracy or validity of prognostic tools/algorithms, or significant correlation between prognostic variables and clinical outcomes met our eligibility criteria: twelve pandemic guidelines/triage protocols/consensus statements, twenty-two pandemic algorithms, and 46 prognostic tools/variables from non-crisis situations. Prognostic indicators presented here can be combined to create locally-relevant triage algorithms for clinicians and policy makers deciding about allocation of ICU beds and ventilators during a pandemic. No consensus was found on the ethical issues to incorporate in the decision to admit or triage out of intensive care. Conclusions This review provides a unique reference intended as a discussion starter for clinicians and policy makers to consider formalising an objective a locally-relevant triage consensus document that enhances confidence in decision-making during healthcare rationing of critical care and ventilator resources.

Extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPT) can affect all organs. Its diagnosis is often challenging, especially when the lung is not involved. Some EPT locations, such as when the central nervous system is involved, are a medical emergency, and some have implications for treatment options and length. This review describes clinical features of EPT, diagnostic tests and treatment regimens., Extrapulmonary tuberculosis can affect any organ, can be potentially life threatening or disabling, poses diagnostic difficulties and may change the type and length of treatment. Looking for concomitant pulmonary tuberculosis is essential. https://bit.ly/2YEaRVb

Background The lifetime risk of tuberculosis (TB) among individuals with latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is commonly estimated as 5–10%, but is highly variable between individuals. Validated estimates of personalised risk are needed to facilitate precise targeting of preventative treatment. We aimed to characterise population-level TB risk among people tested for LTBI, and to develop and validate a prognostic model to estimate personalised risk of disease. Methods We pooled individual-level data from 18 systematically-identified cohort studies conducted in 20 countries with low TB transmission (annual incidence ≤20/100,000 persons). We estimated population-level incident TB risk using flexible parametric survival models with random effect intercepts by source study. We then developed and validated a flexible parametric survival prediction model for incident TB using the internal-external cross-validation framework, iteratively discarding one contributing dataset from model development and using it for validation. Findings In pooled data including 80,468 individuals tested for LTBI and 803 TB cases, 5-year cumulative risk of incident TB among people with untreated LTBI was 15.6% (95% CI 8.0–29.2) for child contacts, 4.8% (3.0–7.7) for adult contacts, 5.0% (1.6–14.5) for migrants, and 4.8% (1.5–14.3) for immunocompromised groups. We found highly variable estimates within risk groups, necessitating a personalised approach to risk-stratification. We thus developed a prognostic model that combines a quantitative measure of T cell sensitisation and clinical covariates. These covariates included age, history of TB exposure (household contact of smear-positive index case, other contact, migration from high TB burden country or no exposure), HIV status and receipt of a solid organ or haematological transplant. Validation of this model achieved a random-effects meta-analysis C-statistic of 0.88 (0.82–0.93) for incident TB over 2 years. Decision curve analysis revealed that applying the model improved clinical decision-making for targeting LTBI treatment. Interpretation TB incidence rates are heterogeneous among people identified as having LTBI by current standards, even after stratification by indication for screening. We present a freely available and directly data-driven personalised risk predictor for incident TB (www.periskope.org). PERISKOPE-TB will facilitate a programmatic paradigm shift by allowing a fully evidence-based and patient-centred approach to TB risk stratification in settings aiming towards pre-elimination globally.

For a primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) (in a person with no underlying lung disease) with a visible rim of >2 cm between the lung margin and the chest wall (at the level of the hilum) on a chest radiograph, current guidelines recommend aspiration with a 16–18-gauge cannula and insertion of a small-bore chest drain (8–14 French) if the pneumothorax size cannot successfully be reduced below the 2 cm rim or the patient remains breathless [1]. As interventional management of PSP is associated with potential complications and a patient with a chest drain needs to be admitted to hospital, evaluation of conservative management as a potential alternative to interventional management of larger PSPs is desirable. Before the current trial, there were a few observational studies suggesting that moderate to large sized PSPs can potentially be successfully managed without intervention but evidence from randomised trials was lacking [2]. The PSP trial aimed to determine whether conservative management is an acceptable alternative to interventional management for uncomplicated, moderate-to-large PSP [3]., Conservative management (with a treatment escalation plan in case the patient deteriorates) is a safe alternative to interventional management of a primary spontaneous pneumothorax https://bit.ly/3fIN4uh