Relative Enhancement in Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Liver MRI as an Imaging Biomarker in the Diagnosis of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Pediatric Obesity

Relative enhancement (RE) in gadoxetate disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI is a reliable, non-invasive method for the evaluation and differentiation between simple steatosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in adults. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of RE in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver MRI and hepatic fat fraction (HFF) in unenhanced liver MRI and ultrasound (US) for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) screening in pediatric obesity. Seventy-four liver US and MRIs from 68 pediatric patients (13.07 ± 2.95 years) with obesity (BMI > BMI-for-age + 2SD) were reviewed with regard to imaging biomarkers (liver size, volume, echogenicity, HFF, and RE in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRIs, and spleen size), blood biomarkers, and BMI. The agreement between the steatosis grade, according to HFF in MRI and the echogenicity in US, was moderate. Alanine aminotransferase correlated better with the imaging biomarkers in MRI than with those in US. BMI correlated better with liver size and volume on MRI than in US. In patients with RE < 1, blood biomarkers correlated better with RE than those in the whole sample, with a significant association between gamma-glutamyltransferase and RE (p = 0.033). In conclusion, the relative enhancement and hepatic fat fraction can be considered as non-invasive tools for the screening and follow-up of NAFLD in pediatric obesity, superior to echogenicity on ultrasound

SARS-CoV-2 infections in “less visible” hospital staff: The roles and safety of environmental services and allied health professionals

Background: During the early SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, all healthcare workers had specific and essential functions. However, environmental services (e.g., cleaning staff) and allied health professionals (e.g., physiotherapists) are often less recognised inpatient care. The aim of our study was to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-infection rates and describe risk factors relevant to workplace transmission and occupational safety amongst healthcare workers in COVID-19 hospitals before the introduction of SARS-CoV-2-specific vaccines. Methods: This cross-sectional study (from May 2020 to March 2021, standardised WHO early-investigation protocol) is evaluating workplace or health-related data, COVID-19-patient proximity, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, anti-SARS-CoV-2-antibody status, and transmission pathways. Results: Out of n = 221 HCW (n = 189 cleaning/service staff; n = 32 allied health professionals), n = 17 (7.7 %) were seropositive. While even SARS-CoV-2-naïve HCW reported SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms, airway symptoms, loss of smell or taste, and appetite were the most specific for a SARS-CoV-2-infection. Adherence to IPC (98.6 %) and recommended PPE use (98.2 %) were high and not associated with seropositivity. In 70.6 %, transmission occurred in private settings; in 23.5 %, at the workplace (by interaction with SARS-CoV-2-positive colleagues [17.6 %] or patient contact [5.9 %]), or remained unclear (one case). Conclusions: Infection rates were higher in all assessed ‘less visible’ healthcare-worker groups compared to the general population. Our data indicates that, while IPC measures and PPE may have contributed to the prevention of patient-to-healthcare-worker transmissions, infections were commonly acquired outside of work and transmitted between healthcare workers within the hospital. This finding emphasises the importance of ongoing education on transmission prevention and regular infection screenings at work

Cohort analysis of child abuse and neglect cases treated during the initial 2 years of a programme to support hospital-based child protection work in Austria

Objective To describe characteristics of suspected child abuse and neglect (CAN) cases associated with the decision of paediatric departments (PDs) in Vienna, Austria, to involve services of a regional tertiary child protection service programme (Forensische Kinder- und JugendUntersuchungsStelle, FOKUS).Design Retrospective cohort analysis of a regional data collection of CAN cases over the first 2 years of FOKUS’s operational period (1 July 2015–30 June 2017).Setting All CAN cases reported to the PDs of six public hospitals in Vienna. Five of these public hospitals were secondary heath care centres and one was a tertiary healthcare centre.Results Overall, 231 cases (59.1%) were treated without and 160 (40.9%) with additional involvement of the FOKUS service programme. The odds of a case to be treated without FOKUS involvement were higher if neglect was suspected (OR 3.233, 95% CI 2.024 to 5.279). In contrast, when sexual abuse was suspected, the odds for involvement with FOKUS were significantly higher (OR 7.577, 95% CI 4.580 to 12.879). The odds of being managed with FOKUS services nearly doubled when multiple forms of abuse were suspected (OR 1.926, 95% CI 1.136 to 3.285). The odds for additional FOKUS involvement were significantly lower for patients treated as inpatients (OR 0.239, 95% CI 0.151 to 0.373). CAN patients managed with FOKUS involvement were significantly more often reported to law enforcement (LE) (OR 3.234, 95% CI 2.078 to 5.002). Concurrently, suspected sexual abuse cases and cases reported to LE were more frequently treated in the PD of the tertiary centre than in other PDs (χ2 p<0.001).Conclusion CAN case characteristics significantly influenced if PDs involved a tertiary child protection programme. Suspected sexual abuse, if more than one form of CAN was suspected and cases reported to LE required additional specialist expertise. For suspected neglect involvement of tertiary services seemed less important

Current state-of-the-art and gaps in platform trials: 10 things you should know, insights from EU-PEARL

Summary: Platform trials bring the promise of making clinical research more efficient and more patient centric. While their use has become more widespread, including their prominent role during the COVID-19 pandemic response, broader adoption of platform trials has been limited by the lack of experience and tools to navigate the critical upfront planning required to launch such collaborative studies. The European Union-Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatform (EU-PEARL) initiative has produced new methodologies to expand the use of platform trials with an overarching infrastructure and services embedded into Integrated Research Platforms (IRPs), in collaboration with patient representatives and through consultation with U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency stakeholders. In this narrative review, we discuss the outlook for platform trials in Europe, including challenges related to infrastructure, design, adaptations, data sharing and regulation. Documents derived from the EU-PEARL project, alongside a literature search including PubMed and relevant grey literature (e.g., guidance from regulatory agencies and health technology agencies) were used as sources for a multi-stage collaborative process through which the 10 more important points based on lessons drawn from the EU-PEARL project were developed and summarised as guidance for the setup of platform trials. We conclude that early involvement of critical stakeholder such as regulatory agencies or patients are critical steps in the implementation and later acceptance of platform trials. Addressing these gaps will be critical for attaining the full potential of platform trials for patients. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking with support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA