Relative effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapeutic agents for patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants: A protocol for a multicentre comparative effectiveness study (CANRxPDA)

Introduction Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is the most common cardiovascular problem that develops in preterm infants and evidence regarding the best treatment approach is lacking. Currently available medical options to treat a PDA include indomethacin, ibuprofen or acetaminophen. Wide variation exists in PDA treatment practices across Canada. In view of this large practice variation across Canadian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), we plan to conduct a comparative effectiveness study of the different pharmacotherapeutic agents used to treat the PDA in preterm infants. Methods and analysis A multicentre prospective observational comparative-effectiveness research study of extremely preterm infants born 29 weeks gestational age with an echocardiography confirmed PDA will be conducted. All participating sites will self-select and adhere to one of the following primary pharmacotherapy protocols for all preterm babies who are deemed to require treatment. Standard dose ibuprofen (10 mg/kg followed by two doses of 5 mg/kg at 24 hours intervals) irrespective of postnatal age (oral/intravenous). Adjustable dose ibuprofen (oral/intravenous) (10 mg/kg followed by two doses of 5 mg/kg at 24 hours intervals if treated within the first 7 days after birth. Higher doses of ibuprofen up to 20 mg/kg followed by two doses of 10 mg/kg at 24 hours intervals if treated after the postnatal age cut-off for lower dose as per the local centre policy). Acetaminophen (oral/intravenous) (15 mg/kg every 6 hours) for 3-7 days. Intravenous indomethacin (0.1-0.3 mg/kg intravenous every 12-24 hours for a total of three doses). Outcomes The primary outcome is failure of primary pharmacotherapy (defined as need for further medical and/or surgical/interventional treatment following an initial course of pharmacotherapy). The secondary outcomes include components of the primary outcome as well as clinical outcomes related to response to treatment or adverse effects of treatment. Sites and sample size The study will be conducted in 22 NICUs across Canada with an anticipated enrollment of 1350 extremely preterm infants over 3 years. Analysis To examine the relative effectiveness of the four treatment strategies, the primary outcome will be compared pairwise between the treatment groups using χ 2 test. Secondary outcomes will be compared pairwise between the treatment groups using χ 2 test, Student\u27s t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate. To further examine differences in the primary and secondary outcomes between the four groups, multiple logistic or linear regression models will be applied for each outcome on the treatment groups, adjusted for potential confounders using generalised estimating equations to account for within-unit-clustering. As a sensitivity analysis, the difference in the primary and secondary outcomes between the treatment groups will also be examined using propensity score method with inverse probability weighting approach. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the IWK Research Ethics Board (#1025627) as well as the respective institutional review boards of the participating centres. © 2021 Author(s). Published by BMJ

Association of Co-Exposure of Antenatal Steroid and Prophylactic Indomethacin with Spontaneous Intestinal Perforation

Objective: To evaluate the association of a combined exposure to antenatal steroids and prophylactic indomethacin with the outcome of spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) among neonates born at \u3c26 weeks of gestation or \u3c750 g birth weight. Study design: We conducted a retrospective study of preterm infants admitted to Canadian Neonatal Network units between 2010 and 2018. Infants were classified into 2 groups based on receipt of antenatal steroids; the latter subgrouped as recent (≤7 days before birth) or latent (\u3e7 days before birth) exposures. The co-exposure was prophylactic indomethacin. The primary outcome was SIP. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate aORs. Results: Among 4720 eligible infants, 4121 (87%) received antenatal steroids and 1045 (22.1%) received prophylactic indomethacin. Among infants exposed to antenatal steroids, those who received prophylactic indomethacin had higher odds of SIP (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.14-2.28) compared with no prophylactic indomethacin. Subgroup analyses revealed recent antenatal steroids exposure with prophylactic indomethacin had higher odds of SIP (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.15-2.43), but latent antenatal steroids exposure with prophylactic indomethacin did not (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.48-3.21), compared with the respective groups with no prophylactic indomethacin. Among those not exposed to antenatal steroids, mortality was lower among those who received prophylactic indomethacin (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.73) compared with no prophylactic indomethacin. Conclusions: In preterm neonates of \u3c26 weeks of gestation or birth weight \u3c750 g, co-exposure of antenatal steroids and prophylactic indomethacin was associated with SIP, especially if antenatal steroids was received within 7 days before birth. Among those unexposed to antenatal steroids, prophylactic indomethacin was associated with lower odds of mortality

Association of Co-Exposure of Antenatal Steroid and Prophylactic Indomethacin with Spontaneous Intestinal Perforation

Objective: To evaluate the association of a combined exposure to antenatal steroids and prophylactic indomethacin with the outcome of spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) among neonates born at \u3c26 weeks of gestation or \u3c750 g birth weight. Study design: We conducted a retrospective study of preterm infants admitted to Canadian Neonatal Network units between 2010 and 2018. Infants were classified into 2 groups based on receipt of antenatal steroids; the latter subgrouped as recent (≤7 days before birth) or latent (\u3e7 days before birth) exposures. The co-exposure was prophylactic indomethacin. The primary outcome was SIP. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate aORs. Results: Among 4720 eligible infants, 4121 (87%) received antenatal steroids and 1045 (22.1%) received prophylactic indomethacin. Among infants exposed to antenatal steroids, those who received prophylactic indomethacin had higher odds of SIP (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.14-2.28) compared with no prophylactic indomethacin. Subgroup analyses revealed recent antenatal steroids exposure with prophylactic indomethacin had higher odds of SIP (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.15-2.43), but latent antenatal steroids exposure with prophylactic indomethacin did not (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.48-3.21), compared with the respective groups with no prophylactic indomethacin. Among those not exposed to antenatal steroids, mortality was lower among those who received prophylactic indomethacin (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.73) compared with no prophylactic indomethacin. Conclusions: In preterm neonates of \u3c26 weeks of gestation or birth weight \u3c750 g, co-exposure of antenatal steroids and prophylactic indomethacin was associated with SIP, especially if antenatal steroids was received within 7 days before birth. Among those unexposed to antenatal steroids, prophylactic indomethacin was associated with lower odds of mortality

Psychological distress and burnout among healthcare worker during COVID-19 pandemic in India-A cross-sectional study.

BackgroundCOVID-19 has inundated the entire world disrupting the lives of millions of people. The pandemic has stressed the healthcare system of India impacting the psychological status and functioning of health care workers. The aim of this study is to determine the burnout levels and factors associated with the risk of psychological distress among healthcare workers (HCW) engaged in the management of COVID 19 in India.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from 1 September 2020 to 30 November 2020 by telephonic interviews using a web-based Google form. Health facilities and community centres from 12 cities located in 10 states were selected for data collection. Data on socio-demographic and occupation-related variables like age, sex, type of family, income, type of occupation, hours of work and income were obtained was obtained from 967 participants, including doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, emergency response teams, lab personnel, and others directly involved in COVID 19 patient care. Levels of psychological distress was assessed by the General health Questionnaire -GHQ-5 and levels of burnout was assessed using the ICMR-NIOH Burnout questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the risk of psychological distress. The third quartile values of the three subscales of burnout viz EE, DP and PA were used to identify burnout profiles of the healthcare workers.ResultsOverall, 52.9% of the participants had the risk of psychological distress that needed further evaluation. Risk of psychological distress was significantly associated with longer hours of work (≥ 8 hours a day) (AOR = 2.38, 95% CI(1.66-3.41), income≥20000(AOR = 1.74, 95% CI, (1.16-2.6); screening of COVID-19 patients (AOR = 1.63 95% CI (1.09-2.46), contact tracing (AOR = 2.05, 95% CI (1.1-3.81), High Emotional exhaustion score (EE ≥16) (AOR = 4.41 95% CI (3.14-6.28) and High Depersonalisation score (DP≥7) (AOR = 1.79, 95% CI (1.28-2.51)). About 4.7% of the HCWs were overextended (EE>18); 6.5% were disengaged (DP>8) and 9.7% HCWs were showing signs of burnout (high on all three dimensions).ConclusionThe study has identified key factors that could have been likely triggers for psychological distress among healthcare workers who were engaged in management of COVID cases in India. The study also demonstrates the use of GHQ-5 and ICMR-NIOH Burnout questionnaire as important tools to identify persons at risk of psychological distress and occurrence of burnout symptoms respectively. The findings provide useful guide to planning interventions to mitigate mental health problems among HCW in future epidemic/pandemic scenarios in the country

Association of co-exposure of antenatal steroid and prophylactic indomethacin with spontaneous intestinal perforation

Objective: to evaluate the association of a combined exposure to antenatal steroids and prophylactic indomethacin with the outcome of spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) among neonates born at &lt;26 weeks of gestation or &lt;750 g birth weight.Study design: we conducted a retrospective study of preterm infants admitted to Canadian Neonatal Network units between 2010 and 2018. Infants were classified into 2 groups based on receipt of antenatal steroids; the latter subgrouped as recent (≤7 days before birth) or latent (&gt;7 days before birth) exposures. The co-exposure was prophylactic indomethacin. The primary outcome was SIP. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate aORs.Results: among 4720 eligible infants, 4121 (87%) received antenatal steroids and 1045 (22.1%) received prophylactic indomethacin. Among infants exposed to antenatal steroids, those who received prophylactic indomethacin had higher odds of SIP (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.14-2.28) compared with no prophylactic indomethacin. Subgroup analyses revealed recent antenatal steroids exposure with prophylactic indomethacin had higher odds of SIP (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.15-2.43), but latent antenatal steroids exposure with prophylactic indomethacin did not (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.48-3.21), compared with the respective groups with no prophylactic indomethacin. Among those not exposed to antenatal steroids, mortality was lower among those who received prophylactic indomethacin (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.73) compared with no prophylactic indomethacin.Conclusions: in preterm neonates of &lt;26 weeks of gestation or birth weight &lt;750 g, co-exposure of antenatal steroids and prophylactic indomethacin was associated with SIP, especially if antenatal steroids was received within 7 days before birth. Among those unexposed to antenatal steroids, prophylactic indomethacin was associated with lower odds of mortality.</p