Single dose oral dexamethasone versus multi-dose prednisolone in the treatment of acute exacerbations of asthma in children who attend the emergency department: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality. In acute exacerbations of asthma, corticosteroids reduce relapses, subsequent hospital admission and the need for ß2-agonist therapy. Prednisolone is relatively short-acting with a half-life of 12 to 36 hours, thereby requiring daily dosing. Prolonged treatment course, vomiting and a bitter taste may reduce patient compliance with prednisolone. Dexamethasone is a long-acting corticosteroid with a half-life of 36 to 72 hours. It is used frequently in children with croup and bacterial meningitis, and is well absorbed orally. The purpose of this trial is to examine whether a single dose of oral dexamethasone (0.3 mg/kg) is clinically non-inferior to prednisolone (1 mg/kg/day for three days) in the treatment of exacerbations of asthma in children who attend the Emergency Department. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized, non-inferiority, open-label clinical trial. After informed consent with or without assent, patients will be randomized to either oral dexamethasone 0.3 mg/kg stat or prednisolone 1 mg/kg/day for three days. The primary outcome measure is the comparison between the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) across both groups on Day 4. The PRAM score, a validated, responsive and reliable tool to determine asthma severity in children aged 2 to 16 years, will be performed by a clinician blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes include relapse, hospital admission and requirement for further steroid therapy. Data will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat and a per protocol basis. With a sample size of 232 subjects (105 in each group with an estimated 10% loss to follow-up), we will be able to reject the null hypothesis - that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with a probability (power) of 0.9. The Type I error probability associated with this test (of the null hypothesis) is 0.05. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial may provide evidence that a shorter steroid course using dexamethasone can be used in the treatment of acute pediatric asthma, thus eliminating the issue of compliance to treatment. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN26944158 and EudraCT Number 2010-022001-18

Structured sedation programs in the emergency department, hospital and other acute settings: protocol for systematic review of effects and events.

BACKGROUND: The use of procedural sedation outside the operating theatre has increased in hospital settings and has gained popularity among non-anesthesiologists. Sedative agents used for procedural pain, although effective, also pose significant risks to the patient if used incorrectly. There is currently no universally accepted program of education for practitioners using or introducing procedural sedation into their practice. There is emerging literature identifying structured procedural sedation programs (PSPs) as a method of ensuring a standardized level of competency among staff and reducing risks to the patient. We hypothesize that programs of education for healthcare professionals using procedural sedation outside the operating theatre are beneficial in improving patient care, safety, practitioner competence and reducing adverse event rates. METHODS: Electronic databases will be systematically searched for studies (randomized and non-randomized) examining the effectiveness of structured PSPs from 1966 to present. Database searches will be supplemented by contact with experts, reference and citation checking, and a grey literature search. No language restriction will be imposed. Screening of titles and abstracts, and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. All disagreements will be resolved by discussion with an independent third party. Data analysis will be completed adhering to procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. If the data allows, a meta-analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: This review will cohere evidence on the effectiveness of structured PSPs on sedation events and patient outcomes within the hospital and other acute care settings. In addition, it will examine key components identified within a PSP associated with patient safety and improved patient outcomes.Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013003851

A protocol for a randomised clinical trial of the effect of providing feedback on inhaler technique and adherence from an electronic device in patients with poorly controlled severe asthma

ntroduction In clinical practice, it is difficult to distinguish between patients with refractory asthma from those with poorly controlled asthma, where symptoms persist due to poor adherence, inadequate inhaler technique or comorbid diseases. We designed an audio recording device which, when attached to an inhaler, objectively identifies the time and technique of inhaler use, thereby assessing both aspects of adherence. This study will test the hypothesis that feedback on these two aspects of adherence when passed on to patients improves adherence and helps clinicians distinguish refractory from difficult-to-control asthma. Methods This is a single, blind, prospective, randomised, clinical trial performed at 5 research centres. Patients with partially controlled or uncontrolled severe asthma who have also had at least one severe asthma exacerbation in the prior year are eligible to participate. The effect of two types of nurse-delivered education interventions to promote adherence and inhaler technique will be assessed. The active group will receive feedback on their inhaler technique and adherence from the new device over a 3-month period. The control group will also receive training in inhaler technique and strategies to promote adherence, but no feedback from the device. The primary outcome is the difference in actual adherence, a measure that incorporates time and technique of inhaler use between groups at the end of the third month. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients who remain refractory despite good adherence, and differences in the components of adherence after the intervention. Data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat and a per-protocol basis. The sample size is 220 subjects (110 in each group), and loss to follow-up is estimated at 10% which will allow results to show a 10% difference (0.8 power) in adherence between group means with a type I error probability of 0.05. Trial registration number NCT01529697; Pre-results

A protocol for a randomised clinical trial of the effect of providing feedback on inhaler technique and adherence from an electronic device in patients with poorly controlled severe asthma.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical practice, it is difficult to distinguish between patients with refractory asthma from those with poorly controlled asthma, where symptoms persist due to poor adherence, inadequate inhaler technique or comorbid diseases. We designed an audio recording device which, when attached to an inhaler, objectively identifies the time and technique of inhaler use, thereby assessing both aspects of adherence. This study will test the hypothesis that feedback on these two aspects of adherence when passed on to patients improves adherence and helps clinicians distinguish refractory from difficult-to-control asthma. METHODS: This is a single, blind, prospective, randomised, clinical trial performed at 5 research centres. Patients with partially controlled or uncontrolled severe asthma who have also had at least one severe asthma exacerbation in the prior year are eligible to participate. The effect of two types of nurse-delivered education interventions to promote adherence and inhaler technique will be assessed. The active group will receive feedback on their inhaler technique and adherence from the new device over a 3-month period. The control group will also receive training in inhaler technique and strategies to promote adherence, but no feedback from the device. The primary outcome is the difference in actual adherence, a measure that incorporates time and technique of inhaler use between groups at the end of the third month. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients who remain refractory despite good adherence, and differences in the components of adherence after the intervention. Data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat and a per-protocol basis. The sample size is 220 subjects (110 in each group), and loss to follow-up is estimated at 10% which will allow results to show a 10% difference (0.8 power) in adherence between group means with a type I error probability of 0.05. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01529697; Pre-results

An Investigation of Feasibility and Safety of Bi‐Modal Stimulation for the Treatment of Tinnitus: An Open‐Label Pilot Study

Objectives: Tinnitus is the perception of sound in the absence of an external auditory stimulus. It is widely believed that tinnitus, in patients with associated hearing loss, is a neurological phenomenon primarily affecting the central auditory structures. However, there is growing evidence for the involvement of the somatosensory system in this form of tinnitus. For this reason it has been suggested that the condition may be amenable to bi‐modal stimulation of the auditory and somatosensory systems. We conducted a pilot study to investigate the feasibility and safety of a device that delivers simultaneous auditory and somatosensory stimulation to treat the symptoms of chronic tinnitus. Methods: A cohort of 54 patients used the stimulation device for 10 weeks. Auditory stimulation was delivered via headphones and somatosensory stimulation was delivered via electrical stimulation of the tongue. Patient usage, logged by the device, was used to classify patients as compliant or noncompliant. Safety was assessed by reported adverse events and changes in tinnitus outcome measures. Response to treatment was assessed using tinnitus outcome measures: Minimum Masking Level (MML), Tinnitus Loudness Matching (TLM), and Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI). Results: The device was well tolerated by patients and no adverse events or serious difficulties using the device were reported. Overall, 68% of patients met the defined compliance threshold. Compliant patients (N = 30) demonstrated statistically significant improvements in mean outcome measures after 10 weeks of treatment: THI (−11.7 pts, p < 0.001), TLM (−7.5dB, p < 0.001), and MML (−9.7dB, p < 0.001). The noncompliant group (N = 14) demonstrated no statistical improvements. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of a new bi‐modal stimulation device and supports the potential efficacy of this new treatment for tinnitus

Structured sedation programs in the emergency department, hospital and other acute settings: protocol for systematic review of effects and events

Abstract Background The use of procedural sedation outside the operating theatre has increased in hospital settings and has gained popularity among non-anesthesiologists. Sedative agents used for procedural pain, although effective, also pose significant risks to the patient if used incorrectly. There is currently no universally accepted program of education for practitioners using or introducing procedural sedation into their practice. There is emerging literature identifying structured procedural sedation programs (PSPs) as a method of ensuring a standardized level of competency among staff and reducing risks to the patient. We hypothesize that programs of education for healthcare professionals using procedural sedation outside the operating theatre are beneficial in improving patient care, safety, practitioner competence and reducing adverse event rates. Methods/Design Electronic databases will be systematically searched for studies (randomized and non-randomized) examining the effectiveness of structured PSPs from 1966 to present. Database searches will be supplemented by contact with experts, reference and citation checking, and a grey literature search. No language restriction will be imposed. Screening of titles and abstracts, and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. All disagreements will be resolved by discussion with an independent third party. Data analysis will be completed adhering to procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. If the data allows, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion This review will cohere evidence on the effectiveness of structured PSPs on sedation events and patient outcomes within the hospital and other acute care settings. In addition, it will examine key components identified within a PSP associated with patient safety and improved patient outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD4201300385