Short-Course Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections in Children: The SCOUT Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: There is a paucity of pediatric-specific comparative data to guide duration of therapy recommendations in children with urinary tract infection (UTI). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of standard-course and short-course therapy for children with UTI. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: The Short Course Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections (SCOUT) randomized clinical noninferiority trial took place at outpatient clinics and emergency departments at 2 children\u27s hospitals from May 2012, through, August 2019. Data were analyzed from January 2020, through, February 2023. Participants included children aged 2 months to 10 years with UTI exhibiting clinical improvement after 5 days of antimicrobials. INTERVENTION: Another 5 days of antimicrobials (standard-course therapy) or 5 days of placebo (short-course therapy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, treatment failure, was defined as symptomatic UTI at or before the first follow-up visit (day 11 to 14). Secondary outcomes included UTI after the first follow-up visit, asymptomatic bacteriuria, positive urine culture, and gastrointestinal colonization with resistant organisms. RESULTS: Analysis for the primary outcome included 664 randomized children (639 female [96%]; median age, 4 years). Among children evaluable for the primary outcome, 2 of 328 assigned to standard-course (0.6%) and 14 of 336 assigned to short-course (4.2%) had a treatment failure (absolute difference of 3.6% with upper bound 95% CI of 5.5.%). Children receiving short-course therapy were more likely to have asymptomatic bacteriuria or a positive urine culture at or by the first follow-up visit. There were no differences between groups in rates of UTI after the first follow-up visit, incidence of adverse events, or incidence of gastrointestinal colonization with resistant organisms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, children assigned to standard-course therapy had lower rates of treatment failure than children assigned to short-course therapy. However, the low failure rate of short-course therapy suggests that it could be considered as a reasonable option for children exhibiting clinical improvement after 5 days of antimicrobial treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01595529

Successful management of chylothorax with etilefrine: case report in 2 pediatric patients

El texto completo de este trabajo no está disponible en el Repositorio Académico UPC por restricciones de la casa editorial donde ha sido publicado.Chylothorax is defined as the accumulation of chyle within the pleural space. Originally described in 1917 by Pisek, it is the most common cause of pleural effusion in the neonatal period. The leading cause of chylothorax is laceration of the thoracic duct during surgery, which occurs in 0.85% to 6.6% of children undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Few authors of reports in the literature have looked at etilefrine, a relatively unknown sympathomimetic, as an option for the medical treatment of chylothorax. In this case report, we review the clinical course of 2 infants with type III esophageal atresia who developed chylothorax after thoracic surgery and were successfully treated with intravenous etilefrine after failing initial dietary and pharmacological management.Revisión por pare

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health