Establishing and augmenting acceptability of the Fever trial: a mixed methods feasibility study

Introduction: Paediatric clinical trials in critical care settings are challenging to conduct. Establishing trial acceptability can help inform trial design and avoid research waste. This paper reports on how research with parents and staff established and augmented perspectives and the design of a trial investigating temperature thresholds in critically ill children with fever and infection (Fever trial). // Methods: We used a mixed methods approach to explore perspectives at three time points: 1) before, 2) during and 3) after a pilot trial. This included: 1) pre-trial focus groups with staff and interviews with parents; 2) questionnaires with parents of randomised children following trial recruitment; 3) post-trial interviews with parents and focus groups and a survey with staff. Data analysis drew on Sekhon et al (2017) theoretical framework of acceptability. // Results: 1) 25 parents were interviewed and 56 staff took part focus groups, 2) 60 parents of 57 randomised children took part in questionnaires, 3) 19 parents were interviewed and 50 staff took part in focus group and 48 in a survey. There was initial support for the trial, although both groups raised concerns regarding proposed thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed pilot trial protocol changes and training, which assisted practitioner ‘buy in’. However, concerns about children being in pain or discomfort when weaned from ventilation led to cases of withdrawal and protocol non-adherence. Nevertheless, 95% of parents provided consent and all supported the trial. Those trained by the Fever team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Trusting parent and staff relationships were linked to trial acceptability. // Conclusions: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience augmented perspectives, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. The proposed trial was deemed feasible. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform the design of future trial feasibility studies

Mortality and morbidity in community-acquired sepsis in European pediatric intensive care units: a prospective cohort study from the European Childhood Life-threatening Infectious Disease Study (EUCLIDS)

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is one of the main reasons for non-elective admission to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), but little is known about determinants influencing outcome. We characterized children admitted with community-acquired sepsis to European PICUs and studied risk factors for mortality and disability. METHODS: Data were collected within the collaborative Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)-funded EUCLIDS study, which is a prospective multicenter cohort study aiming to evaluate genetic determinants of susceptibility and/or severity in sepsis. This report includes 795 children admitted with community-acquired sepsis to 52 PICUs from seven European countries between July 2012 and January 2016. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome measures were PICU-free days censured at day 28, hospital length of stay, and disability. Independent predictors were identified by multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Patients most commonly presented clinically with sepsis without a source (n = 278, 35%), meningitis/encephalitis (n = 182, 23%), or pneumonia (n = 149, 19%). Of 428 (54%) patients with confirmed bacterial infection, Neisseria meningitidis (n = 131, 31%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 78, 18%) were the main pathogens. Mortality was 6% (51/795), increasing to 10% in the presence of septic shock (45/466). Of the survivors, 31% were discharged with disability, including 24% of previously healthy children who survived with disability. Mortality and disability were independently associated with S. pneumoniae infections (mortality OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.1-16.0, P = 0.04; disability OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.8-15.8, P < 0.01) and illness severity as measured by Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM2) score (mortality OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.1, P < 0.01; disability OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.8-6.4, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread immunization campaigns, invasive bacterial disease remains responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality in critically ill children in high-income countries. Almost one third of sepsis survivors admitted to the PICU were discharged with some disability. More research is required to delineate the long-term outcome of pediatric sepsis and to identify interventional targets. Our findings emphasize the importance of improved early sepsis-recognition programs to address the high burden of disease

Permissive versus restrictive temperature thresholds in critically ill children with fever and infection: A multicentre randomized clinical pilot trial

Background: Fever improves pathogen control at a significant metabolic cost. No randomized clinical trials (RCT) have compared fever treatment thresholds in critically ill children. We performed a pilot RCT to determine whether a definitive trial of a permissive approach to fever in comparison to current restrictive practice is feasible in critically ill children with suspected infection. Methods: An open, parallel-group pilot RCT with embedded mixed methods perspectives study in four UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and associated retrieval services. Participants were emergency PICU admissions aged > 28 days to < 16 years receiving respiratory support and supplemental oxygen. Subjects were randomly assigned to permissive (antipyretic interventions only at ≥ 39.5 °C) or restrictive groups (antipyretic interventions at ≥ 37.5 °C) whilst on respiratory support. Parents were invited to complete a questionnaire or take part in an interview. Focus groups were conducted with staff at each unit. Outcomes were measures of feasibility: recruitment rate, protocol adherence and acceptability, between group separation of temperature and safety. Results: One hundred thirty-eight children met eligibility criteria of whom 100 (72%) were randomized (11.1 patients per month per site) without prior consent (RWPC). Consent to continue in the trial was obtained in 87 cases (87%). The mean maximum temperature (95% confidence interval) over the first 48 h was 38.4 °C (38.2-38.6) in the restrictive group and 38.8 °C (38.6-39.1) in the permissive group, a mean difference of 0.5 °C (0.2-0.8). Protocol deviations were observed in 6.8% (99/1438) of 6-h time periods and largely related to patient comfort in the recovery phase. Length of stay, duration of organ support and mortality were similar between groups. No pre-specified serious adverse events occurred. Staff (n = 48) and parents (n = 60) were supportive of the trial, including RWPC. Suggestions were made to only include invasively ventilated children for the duration of intubation. Conclusion: Uncertainty around the optimal fever threshold for antipyretic intervention is relevant to many emergency PICU admissions. A more permissive approach was associated with a modest increase in mean maximum temperature. A definitive trial should focus on the most seriously ill cases in whom antipyretics are rarely used for their analgesic effects alone. Trial registration: ISRCTN16022198. Registered on 14 August 2017

Casirivimab and imdevimab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Casirivimab and imdevimab are non-competing monoclonal antibodies that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, blocking viral entry into host cells. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab administered in combination in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: RECOVERY is a randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing several possible treatments with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 127 UK hospitals took part in the evaluation of casirivimab and imdevimab. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 12 years admitted to hospital with clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual care plus casirivimab 4 g and imdevimab 4 g administered together in a single intravenous infusion. Investigators and data assessors were masked to analyses of the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality assessed by intention to treat, first only in patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomisation (ie, those who were seronegative) and then in the overall population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received casirivimab and imdevimab. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between Sept 18, 2020, and May 22, 2021, 9785 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible for casirivimab and imdevimab, of which 4839 were randomly assigned to casirivimab and imdevimab plus usual care and 4946 to usual care alone. 3153 (32%) of 9785 patients were seronegative, 5272 (54%) were seropositive, and 1360 (14%) had unknown baseline antibody status. 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 452 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·69–0·91; p=0·0009). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 943 (19%) of 4839 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 1029 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·86–1·02; p=0·14). The proportional effect of casirivimab and imdevimab on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity=0·002). There were no deaths attributed to the treatment, or meaningful between-group differences in the pre-specified safety outcomes of cause-specific mortality, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, or major bleeding events. Serious adverse reactions reported in seven (<1%) participants were believed by the local investigator to be related to treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab. Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced 28-day mortality in patients who were seronegative (and therefore had not mounted their own humoral immune response) at baseline but not in those who were seropositive at baseline. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). FINDINGS: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids

Attitudes towards fever amongst UK paediatric intensive care staff

The role played by fever in the outcome of critical illness in children is unclear. This survey of medical and nursing staff in 35 paediatric intensive care units and transport teams in the United Kingdom and Ireland established attitudes towards the management of children with fever. Four hundred sixty-two medical and nursing staff responded to a web-based survey request. Respondents answered eight questions regarding thresholds for temperature control in usual clinical practice, indications for paracetamol use, and readiness to participate in a clinical trial of permissive temperature control. The median reported threshold for treating fever in clinical practice was 38 °C (IQR 38-38.5 °C). Paracetamol was reported to be used as an analgesic and antipyretic but also for non-specific comfort indications. There was a widespread support for a clinical trial of a permissive versus a conservative approach to fever in paediatric intensive care units. Within a trial, 58% of the respondents considered a temperature of 39 °C acceptable without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Staff on paediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom and Ireland tends to treat temperatures within the febrile range. There was a willingness to conduct a randomized controlled trial of treatment of fever. WHAT IS KNOWN: The effect of fever on the outcome in paediatric critical illness is unknown; Paediatricians have traditionally been reluctant to allow fever in sick children. WHAT IS NEW: Paediatric intensive care staff report a tendency towards treating fever, with a median reported treatment threshold of 38 °C; There is widespread support amongst PICU staff in the UK for a randomized controlled trial of temperature in critically ill children; Within a trial setting, PICU staff attitudes to fever are more permissive than in clinical practice

Discordant identification of pediatric severe sepsis by research and clinical definitions in the SPROUT international point prevalence study

Introduction: Consensus criteria for pediatric severe sepsis have standardized enrollment for research studies. However, the extent to which critically ill children identified by consensus criteria reflect physician diagnosis of severe sepsis, which underlies external validity for pediatric sepsis research, is not known. We sought to determine the agreement between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis across a network of international pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Methods: We conducted a point prevalence study involving 128 PICUs in 26 countries across 6 continents. Over the course of 5 study days, 6925 PICU patients &lt;18 years of age were screened, and 706 with severe sepsis defined either by physician diagnosis or on the basis of 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference consensus criteria were enrolled. The primary endpoint was agreement of pediatric severe sepsis between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria as measured using Cohen's ?. Secondary endpoints included characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients identified using physician diagnosis versus consensus criteria. Results: Of the 706 patients, 301 (42.6 %) met both definitions. The inter-rater agreement (? ± SE) between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria was 0.57 ± 0.02. Of the 438 patients with a physician's diagnosis of severe sepsis, only 69 % (301 of 438) would have been eligible to participate in a clinical trial of pediatric severe sepsis that enrolled patients based on consensus criteria. Patients with physician-diagnosed severe sepsis who did not meet consensus criteria were younger and had lower severity of illness and lower PICU mortality than those meeting consensus criteria or both definitions. After controlling for age, severity of illness, number of comorbid conditions, and treatment in developed versus resource-limited regions, patients identified with severe sepsis by physician diagnosis alone or by consensus criteria alone did not have PICU mortality significantly different from that of patients identified by both physician diagnosis and consensus criteria. Conclusions: Physician diagnosis of pediatric severe sepsis achieved only moderate agreement with consensus criteria, with physicians diagnosing severe sepsis more broadly. Consequently, the results of a research study based on consensus criteria may have limited generalizability to nearly one-third of PICU patients diagnosed with severe sepsis

Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2010: III. ARDS and ALI, mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, weaning, endotracheal intubation, lung ultrasound and paediatrics

SCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Identification of regulatory variants associated with genetic susceptibility to meningococcal disease

Non-coding genetic variants play an important role in driving susceptibility to complex diseases but their characterization remains challenging. Here, we employed a novel approach to interrogate the genetic risk of such polymorphisms in a more systematic way by targeting specific regulatory regions relevant for the phenotype studied. We applied this method to meningococcal disease susceptibility, using the DNA binding pattern of RELA - a NF-kB subunit, master regulator of the response to infection - under bacterial stimuli in nasopharyngeal epithelial cells. We designed a custom panel to cover these RELA binding sites and used it for targeted sequencing in cases and controls. Variant calling and association analysis were performed followed by validation of candidate polymorphisms by genotyping in three independent cohorts. We identified two new polymorphisms, rs4823231 and rs11913168, showing signs of association with meningococcal disease susceptibility. In addition, using our genomic data as well as publicly available resources, we found evidences for these SNPs to have potential regulatory effects on ATXN10 and LIF genes respectively. The variants and related candidate genes are relevant for infectious diseases and may have important contribution for meningococcal disease pathology. Finally, we described a novel genetic association approach that could be applied to other phenotypes