Multi-dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis: study Protocol for the multi-DOSE oral ondansetron for pediatric Acute GastroEnteritis (DOSE-AGE) pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options that clinicians can provide to children presenting to emergency departments with vomiting secondary to acute gastroenteritis. Based on evidence of effectiveness and safety, clinicians now routinely administer ondansetron in the emergency department to promote oral rehydration therapy success. However, clinicians are also increasingly providing multiple doses of ondansetron for home use, creating unquantified cost and health system resource use implications without any evidence to support this expanding practice. METHODS/DESIGN: DOSE-AGE is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, six-center, pragmatic clinical trial being conducted in six Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs). In September 2019 the study began recruiting children aged 6 months to 18 years with a minimum of three episodes of vomiting in the 24 h preceding enrollment,(1:1 allocation via an internet-based, third-party, randomization service) to receive a 48-h supply (i.e., six doses) of ondansetron oral solution or placebo, administered on an as-needed basis. All participants, caregivers and outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Outcome data will be collected by surveys administered to caregivers 24, 48 and 168 h following enrollment. The primary outcome is the development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in the 7 days following the ED visit as measured by a validated clinical score (the Modified Vesikari Scale). Secondary outcomes include duration and frequency of vomiting and diarrhea, proportions of children experiencing unscheduled health care visits and intravenous rehydration, caregiver satisfaction with treatment and safety. A preplanned economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: Definitive data are lacking to guide the clinical use of post-ED visit multidose ondansetron in children with acute gastroenteritis. Usage is increasing, despite the absence of supportive evidence. The incumbent additional costs associated with use, and potential side effects such as diarrhea and repeat visits, create an urgent need to evaluate the effect and safety of multiple doses of ondansetron in children focusing on post-emergency department visit and patient-centered outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03851835. Registered on 22 February 2019

Dating of Bruises in Children: An Assessment of Physician Accuracy

Dating of Bruises in Methods. Children who presented to the emergency department of a children's hospital with accidental bruises of known age and origin had demographic data and information about their injury recorded. Historyblinded emergency pediatricians, other physicians, and trainees (fellows, residents, and medical students) independently examined the bruised area and recorded injury characteristics and age estimation and ranked characteristics that influenced their estimation. Results. Fifty children with accidental bruises were enrolled. Emergency pediatricians' accuracy of age estimation within 24 hours of actual age was 47.6%. Individual emergency pediatrician's accuracy ranged from 0% to 100%, and the interobserver reliability was poor ( ‫؍‬ ؊0.03). Accuracy within 24 hours of actual age was 29.4% for other physicians and 36.8% for trainees, which was similar to the emergency pediatricians. Observers reported using color primarily to estimate age, followed by tenderness and then swelling; however, none of these factors was significantly correlated with accuracy. Conclusions. Physician estimates of bruise age are highly inaccurate within 24 hours of the actual age of the injury. Large individual variability and poor interrater reliability also suggest that caution must be used when interpreting these estimates. This study supports earlier studies, urging extreme caution in estimating bruise age, even when such estimates are based on direct examination of the injured area. Pediatrics 2003;112:804 -807; children, bruising, abuse, emergency

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of multi-dose oral ondansetron for pediatric gastroenteritis (the DOSE-AGE study): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastroenteritis is a leading cause of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among children in North America. Oral-rehydration therapy is recommended for children with mild-to-moderate dehydration, but children who present with vomiting are frequently offered intravenous rehydration in the emergency department (ED). Recent studies have demonstrated that the anti-emetic ondansetron can reduce vomiting, intravenous rehydration, and hospitalization when administered in the ED to children with dehydration. However, there is little evidence of additional benefit from prescribing ondansetron beyond the initial ED dose. Moreover, repeat dosing may increase the frequency of diarrhea. Despite the lack of evidence and potential adverse side effects, many physicians across North America provide multiple doses of ondansetron to be taken following ED disposition. Thus, the Multi-Dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis (DOSE-AGE) trial will evaluate the effectiveness of prescribing multiple doses of ondansetron to treat acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. This article specifies the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the DOSE-AGE trial and was submitted before the outcomes of the study were available for analysis. METHODS/DESIGN: The DOSE-AGE study is a phase III, 6-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel design randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether participants who are prescribed multiple doses of oral ondansetron to administer, as needed, following their ED visit have a lower incidence of experiencing moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, as measured by the Modified Vesikari Scale score, compared with a placebo. To assess safety, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the frequency and maximum number of diarrheal episodes following ED disposition, and the occurrence of palpitations, pre-syncope/syncope, chest pain, arrhythmias, and serious adverse events. For the secondary outcomes, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the individual elements of the Modified Vesikari Scale score and caregiver satisfaction with the therapy. DISCUSSION: The DOSE-AGE trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of multiple doses of oral ondansetron, taken as needed, following an initial ED dose in children with acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. The data from the DOSE-AGE trial will be analyzed using this SAP. This will reduce the risk of producing data-driven results and bias in our reported outcomes. The DOSE-AGE study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 22, 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03851835 . Registered on 22 February 2019

Innovative approaches to investigator-initiated, multicentre paediatric clinical trials in Canada

Data from clinical trials are needed to guide the safe and effective use of medicines in children. Clinical trials are challenging to design and implement in all populations, and children present additional considerations. Several regions including the UK, USA and Europe have established clinical trial infrastructure to capitalise on expertise and promote clinical trials enrolling children. Our objective is to describe the partnerships and operational considerations for the development of paediatric clinical trials infrastructure in Canada. We describe the design and conduct of four emergency room paediatric trials, with four separate sponsors, across four provinces in parallel. Operations discussed include multisite contract development, centralised risk-based data monitoring, ethical review and patient engagement. We conclude with lessons learnt, additional challenges and potential solutions to facilitate drug development for children in Canada

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published inmedical journals (Review)

Background: An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the “effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals” was published. Objectives: To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals. Search methods: We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed inMEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE.We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive. Selection criteria: In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal’s ’Instructions to Authors’ to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment. Data collection and analysis: We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR®. One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10%random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus. For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score. Main results: Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors. Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. ’Allocation concealment’ resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the ’Introduction’ (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); ’sample size’ (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for ’sequence generation’ (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, ’total sum score’ (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)). Authors’ conclusions: Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influenc

Predicting Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome and Renal Replacement Therapy in Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli-infected Children.

BACKGROUND: Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) infections are leading causes of pediatric acute renal failure. Identifying hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) risk factors is needed to guide care. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, historical cohort study to identify features associated with development of HUS (primary outcome) and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (secondary outcome) in STEC-infected children without HUS at initial presentation. Children agedeligible. RESULTS: Of 927 STEC-infected children, 41 (4.4%) had HUS at presentation; of the remaining 886, 126 (14.2%) developed HUS. Predictors (all shown as odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]) of HUS included younger age (0.77 [.69-.85] per year), leukocyte count ≥13.0 × 103/μL (2.54 [1.42-4.54]), higher hematocrit (1.83 [1.21-2.77] per 5% increase) and serum creatinine (10.82 [1.49-78.69] per 1 mg/dL increase), platelet count \u3c250 \u3e× 103/μL (1.92 [1.02-3.60]), lower serum sodium (1.12 [1.02-1.23 per 1 mmol/L decrease), and intravenous fluid administration initiated ≥4 days following diarrhea onset (2.50 [1.14-5.46]). A longer interval from diarrhea onset to index visit was associated with reduced HUS risk (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, .54-.90]). RRT predictors (all shown as OR [95% CI]) included female sex (2.27 [1.14-4.50]), younger age (0.83 [.74-.92] per year), lower serum sodium (1.15 [1.04-1.27] per mmol/L decrease), higher leukocyte count ≥13.0 × 103/μL (2.35 [1.17-4.72]) and creatinine (7.75 [1.20-50.16] per 1 mg/dL increase) concentrations, and initial intravenous fluid administration ≥4 days following diarrhea onset (2.71 [1.18-6.21]). CONCLUSIONS: The complex nature of STEC infection renders predicting its course a challenge. Risk factors we identified highlight the importance of avoiding dehydration and performing close clinical and laboratory monitoring

International variation in evidence-based emergency department management of bronchiolitis: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the international variation in the use of evidence-based management (EBM) in bronchiolitis. We hypothesised that management consistent with full-EBM practices is associated with the research network of care, adjusted for patient-level characteristics. Secondary objectives were to determine the association between full-EBM and (1) hospitalisation and (2) emergency department (ED) revisits resulting in hospitalisation within 21 days. Design: A secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study. Setting: 38 paediatric EDs belonging to the Paediatric Emergency Research Network in Canada, USA, Australia/New Zealand UK/Ireland and Spain/Portugal. Patients: Otherwise healthy infants 2–11 months old diagnosed with bronchiolitis between 1 January 2013 and 31 December, 2013. Outcome measures: Primary outcome was management consistent with full-EBM, that is, no bronchodilators/corticosteroids/antibiotics, no chest radiography or laboratory testing. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisations during the index and subsequent ED visits. Results: 1137/2356 (48.3%) infants received full-EBM (ranging from 13.2% in Spain/Portugal to 72.3% in UK/Ireland). Compared with the UK/Ireland, the adjusted ORs (aOR) of full-EBM receipt were lower in Spain/Portugal (aOR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29), Canada (aOR 0.13 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.31) and USA (aOR 0.16 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35). EBM was less likely in infants with dehydration (aOR 0.49 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.71)), chest retractions (aOR 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.91)) and nasal flaring (aOR 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.92)). EBM was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation at the index visit (aOR 0.77 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.98)) but not at revisits (aOR 1.17 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.85)). Conclusions: Infants with bronchiolitis frequently do not receive full-EBM ED management, particularly those outside of the UK/Ireland. Furthermore, there is marked variation in full-EBM between paediatric emergency networks, and full-EBM delivery is associated with lower likelihood of hospitalisation. Given the global bronchiolitis burden, international ED-focused deimplementation of non-indicated interventions to enhance EBM is needed

Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE:A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND:The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was published in October 2007 to improve quality of reporting of observational studies. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of the STROBE statement on observational study reporting and study design quality in the nephrology literature. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic literature review. SETTING & POPULATION:European and North American, Pre-dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) cohort studies. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES:Studies assessing the association between CKD and mortality in the elderly (>65 years) published from 1st January 2002 to 31st December 2013 were included, following systematic searching of MEDLINE & EMBASE. PREDICTOR:Time period before and after the publication of the STROBE statement. OUTCOME:Quality of study reporting using the STROBE statement and quality of study design using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools. RESULTS:37 papers (11 Pre & 26 Post STROBE) were identified from 3621 potential articles. Only four of the 22 STROBE items and their sub-criteria (objectives reporting, choice of quantitative groups and description of and carrying out sensitivity analysis) showed improvements, with the majority of items showing little change between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement. Pre- and post-period analysis revealed a Manuscript STROBE score increase (median score 77.8% (Inter-quartile range [IQR], 64.7-82.0) vs 83% (IQR, 78.4-84.9, p = 0.05). There was no change in quality of study design with identical median scores in the two periods for NOS (Manuscript NOS score 88.9), SIGN (Manuscript SIGN score 83.3) and CASP (Manuscript CASP score 91.7) tools. LIMITATIONS:Only 37 Studies from Europe and North America were included from one medical specialty. Assessment of study design largely reliant on good reporting. CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights continuing deficiencies in the reporting of STROBE items and their sub-criteria in cohort studies in nephrology. There was weak evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality, with no improvement in methodological quality of CKD cohort studies between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement

Post–COVID-19 Conditions Among Children 90 Days After SARS-CoV-2 Infection

IMPORTANCE Little is known about the risk factors for, and the risk of, developing post-COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) among children. OBJECTIVES To estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2-positive children with PCCs 90 days after a positive test result, to compare this proportion with SARS-CoV-2-negative children, and to assess factors associated with PCCs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective cohort study, conducted in 36 emergency departments (EDs) in 8 countries between March 7, 2020, and January 20, 2021, included 1884 SARS-CoV-2-positive children who completed 90-day follow-up; 1686 of these children were frequency matched by hospitalization status, country, and recruitment date with 1701 SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. EXPOSURE SARS-CoV-2 detected via nucleic acid testing. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Post-COVID-19 conditions, defined as any persistent, new, or recurrent health problems reported in the 90-day follow-up survey. RESULTS Of 8642 enrolled children, 2368 (27.4%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive, among whom 2365 (99.9%) had index ED visit disposition data available; among the 1884 children (79.7%) who completed follow-up, the median age was 3 years (IQR, 0-10 years) and 994 (52.8%) were boys. A total of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive children (5.8%; 95% CI, 4.8%-7.0%) reported PCCs, including 44 of 447 children (9.8%; 95% CI, 7.4%-13.0%) hospitalized during the acute illness and 66 of 1437 children (4.6%; 95% CI, 3.6%-5.8%) not hospitalized during the acute illness (difference. 5.3%; 95% CI, 2.5%-8.5%). Among SARS-CoV-2-positive children, the most common symptom was fatigue or weakness (21 [1.1%]). Characteristics associated with reporting at least 1 PCC at 90 days included being hospitalized 48 hours or more compared with no hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.67 [95% CI, 1.63-4.38]); having 4 or more symptoms reported at the index ED visit compared with 1 to 3 symptoms (4-6 symptoms: aOR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.28-4.31]; >= 7 symptoms: aOR, 4.59 [95% CI, 2.50 8.44]); and being 14 years of age or older compared with younger than 1 year (aOR, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.43-4.99]). SARS-CoV-2-positive children were more likely to report PCCs at 90 days compared with those who tested negative, both among those who were not hospitalized (55 of 1295 [4.2%; 95% CI, 3.2%-5.5%] vs 35 of 1321[2.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.7%]; difference, 1.6% [95% CI, 0.2%-3.0%]) and those who were hospitalized (40 of 391[10.2%; 95% CI, 7.4%-13.7%] vs 19 of 380 [5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.7%]; difference, 5.2% [95% CI, 1.5%-9.1%]). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with reporting PCCs 90 days after the index ED visit (aOR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.14-2.35]), specifically systemic health problems (eg, fatigue, weakness, fever; aOR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.19-5.00]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with reporting PCCs at 90 days in children. Guidance and follow-up are particularly necessary for hospitalized children who have numerous acute symptoms and are older.This studywas supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (operating grant: COVID-19-clinical management); the Alberta Health Services-University of Calgary-Clinical Research Fund; the Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute; the COVID-19 Research Accelerator Funding Track (CRAFT) Program at the University of California, Davis; and the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Division of Emergency Medicine Small Grants Program. Dr Funk is supported by the University of Calgary Eyes-High PostDoctoral Research Fund. Dr Freedman is supported by the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation Professorship in Child Health andWellness