The Safety and Tolerability of Linezolid in Novel Short-Course Regimens Containing Bedaquiline, Pretomanid, and Linezolid to Treat Rifampicin-Resistant Tuberculosis: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness, safety, tolerability, and adherence are critical considerations in shifting to shorter tuberculosis (TB) regimens. Novel 6-month oral regimens that include bedaquiline (B), pretomanid (Pa), and linezolid (L), with or without a fourth drug, have been shown to be as or more effective than the established longer regimens for the treatment of multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant TB (MDR/RR-TB). We aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of linezolid in BPaL-containing regimens for the treatment of MDR/RR-TB among recently completed clinical trials. METHODS: A review and meta-analysis was undertaken including published and unpublished data from clinical trials, conducted between 2010 and 2021, that evaluated regimens containing BPaL for the treatment of MDR/RR-TB. Individual patient data were obtained. For each BPaL-containing regimen, we evaluated the frequency and severity of treatment-related adverse events. The risk difference of adverse events for each regimen was calculated, in comparison to patients assigned to receiving the lowest cumulative exposure of linezolid. RESULTS: Data from 3 clinical trials investigating 8 unique BPaL-containing regimens were included, comprising a total of 591 participants. Adverse events were more frequent in groups randomized to a higher cumulative linezolid dose. Among patients who were randomized to a daily dose of 1200 mg linezolid, 68 of 195 (35%) experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event versus 89 of 396 (22%) patients receiving BPaL-containing regimens containing 600 mg linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Regimens containing BPaL were relatively well tolerated when they included a daily linezolid dose of 600 mg. These novel regimens promise to improve the tolerability of treatment for MDR/RR-TB.

A summary of the 2023 Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) hypertension in pregnancy guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect up to 10% of all pregnancies annually and are associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. This guideline represents an update of the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) guidelines for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 2014 and has been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) under section 14A of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. In approving the guideline recommendations, NHMRC considers that the guideline meets NHMRC's standard for clinical practice guidelines. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: A total of 39 recommendations on screening, preventing, diagnosing and managing HDP, especially preeclampsia, are presented in this guideline. Recommendations are presented as either evidence-based recommendations or practice points. Evidence-based recommendations are presented with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Practice points were generated where there was inadequate evidence to develop specific recommendations and are based on the expertise of the working group. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINE: This version of the SOMANZ guideline was developed in an academically robust and rigorous manner and includes recommendations on the use of combined first trimester screening to identify women at risk of developing preeclampsia, 14 pharmacological and two non-pharmacological preventive interventions, clinical use of angiogenic biomarkers and the long term care of women who experience HDP. The guideline also includes six multilingual patient infographics which can be accessed through the main website of the guideline. All measures were taken to ensure that this guideline is applicable and relevant to clinicians and multicultural women in regional and metropolitan settings in Australia and New Zealand.

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self-testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of publications in any language that reported cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the community or health care workers in hospitals in whom severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was suspected, and the results of testing self-collected biological samples with a TGA-approved COVID-19 RAT were compared with those of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) were checked and compared with manufacturer estimates published on the TGA website. DATA SOURCES: Publications (to 1 September 2022) identified in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the World Health Organization COVID-19 research database. Information on manufacturer diagnostic accuracy evaluations was obtained from the TGA website. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve publications that reported a total of eighteen evaluations of eight RATs approved by the TGA for self-testing (manufacturers: All Test, Roche, Flowflex, MP Biomedicals, Clungene, Panbio, V-Chek, Whistling) were identified. Five studies were undertaken in the Netherlands, two each in Germany and the United States, and one each in Denmark, Belgium, and Canada; test sample collection was unsupervised in twelve studies, and supervised by health care workers or researchers in six. Estimated sensitivity with unsupervised sample collection ranged from 20.9% (MP Biomedicals) to 74.3% (Roche), and with supervised collection from 7.7% (V-Chek) to 84.4% (Panbio); the estimates were between 8.2 and 88 percentage points lower than the values reported by the manufacturers. Test specificity was high for all RATs (97.9-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of false negative results when using COVID-19 RATs for self-testing may be considerably higher than apparent in manufacturer reports on the TGA website, with implications for the reliability of these tests for ruling out infection.

Addressing missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials: A methodological scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is common in trials, and robust methods to address this are needed. Most trial reports currently use methods applicable under a missing completely at random assumption (MCAR), although this strong assumption can often be inappropriate. OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarise current literature on the analytical methods for handling missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), emphasising methods appropriate for data missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a methodological scoping review and identified papers through searching four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) from January 2015 to March 2023. We also performed forward and backward citation searching. Eligible papers discussed methods or frameworks for handling missing outcome data in RCTs or simulation studies with an RCT design. RESULTS: From 1878 records screened, our search identified 101 eligible papers. 90 (89%) papers described specific methods for addressing missing outcome data and 11 (11%) described frameworks for overall methodological approach. Of the 90 methods papers, 30 (33%) described methods under the MAR assumption, 48 (53%) explored methods under the MNAR assumption and 11 (12%) discussed methods under a hybrid of MAR and MNAR assumptions. Control-based methods under the MNAR assumption were the most common method explored, followed by multiple imputation under the MAR assumption. CONCLUSION: This review provides guidance on available analytic approaches for handling missing outcome data, particularly under the MNAR assumption. These findings may support trialists in using appropriate methods to address missing outcome data.

Acceptability of a Hypothetical Reduction in Routinely Scheduled Clinic Visits Among Patients With History of a Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: After treatment for a localized melanoma, patients attend routinely scheduled clinics to monitor for new primary or recurrent melanoma. Patient-led surveillance (skin self-examination with patient-performed teledermoscopy) is an alternative model of follow-up that could replace some routinely scheduled visits. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits among participants of the Melanoma Self Surveillance (MEL-SELF) pilot randomized clinical trial of patient-led surveillance (intervention) versus usual care (control). METHODS: Patients previously treated for localized melanoma in New South Wales who were participating in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized clinical trial were asked to respond to a web-based questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months on trial. We used mixed methods to analyze the data. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits for melanoma surveillance. RESULTS: Of 100 randomized participants, 87 answered the questionnaire at baseline, 66 answered the questionnaire at 6 months, and 79 provided a free-text explanation at either time point. At 6 months, 33% (17/51) of the control group and 35% (17/49) of the intervention group indicated that a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits with all melanoma doctors was at least slightly acceptable (difference in proportions -1%, 95% CI -20% to 17%; P=.89). Participants suggested that prerequisites for a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would include that sufficient time had elapsed since the previous diagnosis without a new primary melanoma or recurrence, an unscheduled appointment could be made at short notice if the patient noticed something concerning, their melanoma doctor had suggested reducing their clinic visit frequency, and patients had confidence that patient-led surveillance was a safe and effective alternative. Participants suggested that a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would not be acceptable where they perceived a very high risk of new or recurrent melanoma, low self-efficacy in skin self-examination and in the use of technologies for the patient-led surveillance intervention, and where they had a preference for clinician-led surveillance. Some patients said that a partial reduction to once a year may be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients may be receptive to a reduction in routinely scheduled visits if they are assured that patient-led surveillance is safe and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865&isReview=true; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03581188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03581188. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4704.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow up? Statistical analysis plan for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial of patient-led surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance in people treated for localised cutaneous melanoma (stage 0, I, II). The primary trial aim is to determine if patient led-surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance increases the proportion of participants who are diagnosed with a new primary or recurrent melanoma at a fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visit. The secondary outcomes include time to diagnosis of any skin cancer, psychosocial outcomes, acceptability, and resource use. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to outline and publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan before the database lock and the start of analysis. METHODS/DESIGN: The statistical analysis plan describes the overall analysis principles, including how participants will be included in each analysis, the presentation of the results, adjustments for covariates, the primary and secondary outcomes, and their respective analyses. In addition, we present the planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. A separate analysis plan will be published for health economic outcomes. RESULTS: The MEL-SELF statistical analysis plan has been designed to minimize bias in estimating effects of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes. By pre-specifying analyses, we ensure the study's integrity and believability while enabling the reproducibility of the final analysis. CONCLUSION: This detailed statistical analysis plan will help to ensure transparency of reporting of results from the MEL-SELF trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864. Registered 18 February 2021, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621000176864.aspx.

Assessing the Potential for Patient-led Surveillance After Treatment of Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patient-led surveillance is a promising new model of follow-up care following excision of localized melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-led surveillance in patients with prior localized primary cutaneous melanoma is as safe, feasible, and acceptable as clinician-led surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pilot for a randomized clinical trial at 2 specialist-led clinics in metropolitan Sydney, Australia, and a primary care skin cancer clinic managed by general practitioners in metropolitan Newcastle, Australia. The participants were 100 patients who had been treated for localized melanoma, owned a smartphone, had a partner to assist with skin self-examination (SSE), and had been routinely attending scheduled follow-up visits. The study was conducted from November 1, 2018, to January 17, 2020, with analysis performed from September 1, 2020, to November 15, 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized (1:1) to 6 months of patient-led surveillance (the intervention comprised usual care plus reminders to perform SSE, patient-performed dermoscopy, teledermatologist assessment, and fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits) or clinician-led surveillance (the control was usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible and contacted patients who were randomized. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (eg, SSE knowledge, attitudes, and practices, psychological outcomes, other health care use) and clinical outcomes (eg, clinic visits, skin surgeries, subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma). RESULTS: Of 326 patients who were eligible and contacted, 100 (31%) patients (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [12.0] years; 53 [53%] men) were randomized to patient-led (n = 49) or clinician-led (n = 51) surveillance. Data were available on patient-reported outcomes for 66 participants and on clinical outcomes for 100 participants. Compared with clinician-led surveillance, patient-led surveillance was associated with increased SSE frequency (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 14.0) and thoroughness (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.7), had no detectable adverse effect on psychological outcomes (fear of cancer recurrence subscale score; mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.5), and increased clinic visits (risk ratio [RR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.1), skin lesion excisions (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0), and subsequent melanoma diagnoses and subsequent melanoma diagnoses (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, -2% to 23%). New primary melanomas and 1 local recurrence were diagnosed in 8 (16%) of the participants in the intervention group, including 5 (10%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits; and in 3 (6%) of the participants in the control group, with none (0%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This pilot of a randomized clinical trial found that patient-led surveillance after treatment of localized melanoma appears to be safe, feasible, and acceptable. Experiences from this pilot study have prompted improvements to the trial processes for the larger trial of the same intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001716459.