From Field and Study: James Drummond and the Black Kangaroo Paw [Macropidia fuliginosa]

Volume: 25Start Page: 57End Page: 5

New species and varieties of Styhdium from Western Australia

Volume: 1Start Page: 7End Page: 2

Paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome incidence and epidemiology (PARDIE): an international, observational study

BackgroundPaediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) is associated with high mortality in children, but until recently no paediatric-specific diagnostic criteria existed. The Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC) definition was developed to overcome limitations of the Berlin definition, which was designed and validated for adults. We aimed to determine the incidence and outcomes of children who meet the PALICC definition of PARDS.MethodsIn this international, prospective, cross-sectional, observational study, 145 paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) from 27 countries were recruited, and over a continuous 5 day period across 10 weeks all patients were screened for enrolment. Patients were included if they had a new diagnosis of PARDS that met PALICC criteria during the study week. Exclusion criteria included meeting PARDS criteria more than 24 h before screening, cyanotic heart disease, active perinatal lung disease, and preparation or recovery from a cardiac intervention. Data were collected on the PICU characteristics, patient demographics, and elements of PARDS (ie, PARDS risk factors, hypoxaemia severity metrics, type of ventilation), comorbidities, chest imaging, arterial blood gas measurements, and pulse oximetry. The primary outcome was PICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90 day mortality, duration of invasive mechanical and non-invasive ventilation, and cause of death.FindingsBetween May 9, 2016, and June 16, 2017, during the 10 study weeks, 23 280 patients were admitted to participating PICUs, of whom 744 (3·2%) were identified as having PARDS. 95% (708 of 744) of patients had complete data for analysis, with 17% (121 of 708; 95% CI 14-20) mortality, whereas only 32% (230 of 708) of patients met Berlin criteria with 27% (61 of 230) mortality. Based on hypoxaemia severity at PARDS diagnosis, mortality was similar among those who were non-invasively ventilated and with mild or moderate PARDS (10-15%), but higher for those with severe PARDS (33% [54 of 165; 95% CI 26-41]). 50% (80 of 160) of non-invasively ventilated patients with PARDS were subsequently intubated, with 25% (20 of 80; 95% CI 16-36) mortality. By use of PALICC PARDS definition, severity of PARDS at 6 h after initial diagnosis (area under the curve [AUC] 0·69, 95% CI 0·62-0·76) discriminates PICU mortality better than severity at PARDS diagnosis (AUC 0·64, 0·58-0·71), and outperforms Berlin severity groups at 6 h (0·64, 0·58-0·70; p=0·01).InterpretationThe PALICC definition identified more children as having PARDS than the Berlin definition, and PALICC PARDS severity groupings improved the stratification of mortality risk, particularly when applied 6 h after PARDS diagnosis. The PALICC PARDS framework should be considered for use in future epidemiological and therapeutic research among children with PARDS.FundingUniversity of Southern California Clinical Translational Science Institute, Sainte Justine Children's Hospital, University of Montreal, Canada, Réseau en Santé Respiratoire du Fonds de Recherche Quebec-Santé, and Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine

Performance of the PEdiatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 score in critically ill children requiring plasma transfusions

BackgroundOrgan dysfunction scores, based on physiological parameters, have been created to describe organ failure. In a general pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) population, the PEdiatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 score (PELOD-2) score had both a good discrimination and calibration, allowing to describe the clinical outcome of critically ill children throughout their stay. This score is increasingly used in clinical trials in specific subpopulation. Our objective was to assess the performance of the PELOD-2 score in a subpopulation of critically ill children requiring plasma transfusions.MethodsThis was an ancillary study of a prospective observational study on plasma transfusions over a 6-week period, in 101 PICUs in 21 countries. All critically ill children who received at least one plasma transfusion during the observation period were included. PELOD-2 scores were measured on days 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12 after plasma transfusion. Performance of the score was assessed by the determination of the discrimination (area under the ROC curve: AUC) and the calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow test).ResultsFour hundred and forty-three patients were enrolled in the study (median age and weight: 1 year and 9.1 kg, respectively). Observed mortality rate was 26.9 % (119/443). For PELOD-2 on day 1, the AUC was 0.76 (95 % CI 0.71–0.81) and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test was p = 0.76. The serial evaluation of the changes in the daily PELOD-2 scores from day 1 demonstrated a significant association with death, adjusted for the PELOD-2 score on day 1.ConclusionsIn a subpopulation of critically ill children requiring plasma transfusion, the PELOD-2 score has a lower but acceptable discrimination than in an entire population. This score should therefore be used cautiously in this specific subpopulation.</p

Factors influencing plasma transfusion practices in paediatric intensive care units around the world

Background and Objectives Plasma transfusions are a frequent treatment worldwide, but many studies have reported a wide variation in the indications to transfuse. Recently, an international paediatric study also showed wide variation in frequency in the use of plasma transfusions: 25% of the centres transfused plasma to >5% of their patients, whereas another 25% transfused plasma to <1% of their patients. The objective of this study was to explore the factors associated with different plasma transfusion practices in these centres. Materials and Methods Online survey sent to the local investigators of the 101 participating centres, in February 2016. Four areas were explored: beliefs regarding plasma transfusion, patients’ case‐mix in each unit, unit's characteristics, and local blood product transfusion policies and processes. Results The response rate was 82% (83/101). 43% of the respondents believed that plasma transfusions can arrest bleeding, whereas 27% believe that plasma transfusion can prevent bleeding. Centres with the highest plasma transfusion rate were more likely to think that hypovolaemia and mildly abnormal coagulation tests are appropriate indications for plasma transfusions (P = 0·02 and P = 0·04, respectively). Case‐mix, centre characteristics or local transfusion services were not identified as significant relevant factors. Conclusion Factors influencing plasma transfusion practices reflect beliefs about indications and the efficacy of transfusion in the prevention and management of bleeding as well as effects on coagulation tests. Educational and other initiatives to target these beliefs should be the focus of research

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

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