Protocol for a Randomized Multiple Center Trial of Conservative Versus Liberal Oxygenation Targets in Critically Ill Children (Oxy-PICU): Oxygen in Paediatric Intensive Care

OBJECTIVES: Oxygen administration is a fundamental part of pediatric critical care, with supplemental oxygen offered to nearly every acutely unwell child. However, optimal targets for systemic oxygenation are unknown. Oxy-PICU aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a conservative peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2) target of 88-92% compared with a liberal target of more than 94%. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open, multiple-center, parallel group randomized control trial with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Fifteen PICUs across England, Wales, and Scotland. PATIENTS: Infants and children age more than 38 week-corrected gestational age to 16 years who are accepted to a participating PICU as an unplanned admission and receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with supplemental oxygen for abnormal gas exchange. INTERVENTION: Adjustment of ventilation and inspired oxygen settings to achieve an Spo2 target of 88-92% during invasive mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Randomization is 1:1 to a liberal Spo2 target of more than 94% or a conservative Spo2 target of 88-92% (inclusive), using minimization with a random component. Minimization will be performed on: age, site, primary reason for admission, and severity of abnormality of gas exchange. Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, approaching patients for written informed consent will be deferred to after randomization. The primary clinical outcome is a composite of death and days of organ support at 30 days. Baseline demographics and clinical status will be recorded as well as daily measures of oxygenation and organ support, and discharge outcomes. This trial received Health Research Authority approval on December 23, 2019 (reference: 272768), including a favorable ethical opinion from the East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 19/EE/0362). Trial findings will be disseminated in national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals

Protocol for a Randomized Multiple Center Trial of Conservative Versus Liberal Oxygenation Targets in Critically Ill Children (Oxy-PICU): Oxygen in Pediatric Intensive Care.

OBJECTIVES: Oxygen administration is a fundamental part of pediatric critical care, with supplemental oxygen offered to nearly every acutely unwell child. However, optimal targets for systemic oxygenation are unknown. Oxy-PICU aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a conservative peripheral oxygen saturation (Sp o2 ) target of 88-92% compared with a liberal target of more than 94%. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open, multiple-center, parallel group randomized control trial with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Fifteen PICUs across England, Wales, and Scotland. PATIENTS: Infants and children age more than 38 week-corrected gestational age to 16 years who are accepted to a participating PICU as an unplanned admission and receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with supplemental oxygen for abnormal gas exchange. INTERVENTION: Adjustment of ventilation and inspired oxygen settings to achieve an Sp o2 target of 88-92% during invasive mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Randomization is 1:1 to a liberal Sp o2 target of more than 94% or a conservative Sp o2 target of 88-92% (inclusive), using minimization with a random component. Minimization will be performed on: age, site, primary reason for admission, and severity of abnormality of gas exchange. Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, approaching patients for written informed consent will be deferred to after randomization. The primary clinical outcome is a composite of death and days of organ support at 30 days. Baseline demographics and clinical status will be recorded as well as daily measures of oxygenation and organ support, and discharge outcomes. This trial received Health Research Authority approval on December 23, 2019 (reference: 272768), including a favorable ethical opinion from the East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 19/EE/0362). Trial findings will be disseminated in national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals

E-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The majority of smokers accessing the current best treatments continue to smoke. We aimed to test if e-cigarettes (EC) compared with nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) can help such smokers to reduce smoking. The design was a randomized controlled trial of EC (n = 68) versus NRT (n = 67) with 6-month follow-up, which took place in a stop smoking service in London, UK with a total of 135 smokers (median age = 40 years, 51% male) previously unable to stop smoking with conventional treatments. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received either NRT of their choice (8-week supply) or an EC starter pack and instructions to purchase further e-liquids of strength and flavours of their choice themselves. Products were accompanied by minimal behavioural support. MEASUREMENTS: Participants who reported that they stopped smoking or reduced their daily cigarette consumption by at least 50% at 6-month follow-up were invited to provide a carbon monoxide (CO) reading. The primary outcome was biochemically validated reduction in smoke intake of at least 50% at 6 months and the main secondary outcome was sustained validated abstinence at 6 months. Drop-outs were included as 'non-reducers'. FINDINGS: Validated smoking reduction (including cessation) was achieved by 26.5 versus 6.0% of participants in the EC and NRT study arms, respectively. Sustained validated abstinence rates at 6 months were 19.1 versus 3.0%. Product use was high and equal in both study arms initially, but at 6 months allocated product use was 47% in the EC arm versus 10% in the NRT arm, respectively. Adverse events were minor and infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In smokers unable to quit using conventional methods, e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in facilitating validated long-term smoking reduction and smoking cessation when limited other support was provided