Contribution of thirdhand smoke to overall tobacco smoke exposure in pediatric patients: study protocol.

BackgroundThirdhand smoke (THS) is the persistent residue resulting from secondhand smoke (SHS) that accumulates in dust, objects, and on surfaces in homes where tobacco has been used, and is reemitted into air. Very little is known about the extent to which THS contributes to children's overall tobacco smoke exposure (OTS) levels, defined as their combined THS and SHS exposure. Even less is known about the effect of OTS and THS on children's health. This project will examine how different home smoking behaviors contribute to THS and OTS and if levels of THS are associated with respiratory illnesses in nonsmoking children.MethodsThis project leverages the experimental design from an ongoing pediatric emergency department-based tobacco cessation trial of caregivers who smoke and their children (NIHR01HD083354). At baseline and follow-up, we will collect urine and handwipe samples from children and samples of dust and air from the homes of smokers who smoke indoors, have smoking bans or who have quit smoking. These samples will be analyzed to examine to what extent THS pollution at home contributes to OTS exposure over and above SHS and to what extent THS continues to persist and contribute to OTS in homes of smokers who have quit or have smoking bans. Targeted and nontargeted chemical analyses of home dust samples will explore which types of THS pollutants are present in homes. Electronic medical record review will examine if THS and OTS levels are associated with child respiratory illness. Additionally, a repository of child and environmental samples will be created.DiscussionThe results of this study will be crucial to help close gaps in our understanding of the types, quantity, and clinical effects of OTS, THS exposure, and THS pollutants in a unique sample of tobacco smoke-exposed ill children and their homes. The potential impact of these findings is substantial, as currently the level of risk in OTS attributable to THS is unknown. This research has the potential to change how we protect children from OTS, by recognizing that SHS and THS exposure needs to be addressed separately and jointly as sources of pollution and exposure.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02531594 . Date of registration: August 24, 2015

Healthy families: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of a screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment intervention for caregivers to reduce secondhand smoke exposure among pediatric emergency patients

Background: Involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke (SHSe) is an important cause of morbidity in children who present to the pediatric emergency department (PED) and urgent care (UC). SHSe interventions delivered in the PED and UC would benefit both the smoker and child, but there have been no large trials testing the efficacy of such interventions. The Healthy Families program is the first randomized controlled trial to test whether a screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) intervention delivered in the PED and UC will be effective in decreasing SHSe in children and increasing cessation in smokers. Methods/design: This trial uses a randomized, two-group design in which caregiver-smokers of children 0-17 years old are recruited from the PED and UC. Eligible caregiver-smokers are randomized to either the: 1) SBIRT Condition with face-to-face, tailored counseling that focuses on the child's illness, the importance of reducing child SHSe, caregiver smoking cessation, and the option to receive nicotine replacement therapy; or 2) Healthy Habits Control Condition which includes face-to-face, tailored attention control "5-2-1-0" counseling that focuses on improving the child's health. Dyadic assessments are conducted in-person at baseline, and via email, phone, or in-person at 6-weeks and 6-months. The primary outcomes are biochemically-verified, 7-day point prevalence and prolonged smoking abstinence. Secondary outcomes are cigarettes smoked per week, 24 h quit attempts, and biochemically validated child SHSe at each time point. The costs of this intervention will also be analyzed. Discussion: This study will test an innovative, multilevel intervention designed to reduce child SHSe and increase smoking cessation in caregivers. If effective and routinely used, this SBIRT model could reach at least one million smokers a year in the U.S., resulting in significant reductions in caregivers' tobacco use, SHSe-related pediatric illness, and healthcare costs in this population of children.National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development [R01HD083354]open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Severity grading system for acute allergic reactions: A multidisciplinary Delphi study

Background: There is no widely adopted severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions, thus limiting the ability to optimize and standardize management practices and advance research. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a severity grading system for acute allergic reactions for use in clinical care and research. Methods: From May to September 2020, we convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of allergy and emergency care experts; 9 members formed a writing group to critically appraise and assess the strengths and limitations of prior severity grading systems and develop the structure and content for an optimal severity grading system. The entire study panel then revised the grading system and sought consensus by utilizing Delphi methodology. Results: The writing group recommended that an optimal grading system encompass the severity of acute allergic reactions on a continuum from mild allergic reactions to anaphylactic shock. Additionally, the severity grading system must be able to discriminate between clinically important differences in reaction severity to be relevant in research while also being intuitive and straightforward to apply in clinical care. Consensus was reached for all elements of the proposed severity grading system. Conclusion: We developed a consensus severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions. Successful international validation, refinement, dissemination, and application of the grading system will improve communication among providers and patients about the severity of allergic reactions and will help advance future research

Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: A consensus report

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. METHODS: We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale. RESULTS: The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis