The "Petechiae in children" (PiC) study: Evaluating potential clinical decision rules for the management of feverish children with non-blanching rashes, including the role of point of care testing for Procalcitonin & Neisseria meningitidis DNA - a stu

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Children commonly present to Emergency Departments (ED) with a non-blanching rash in the context of a feverish illness. While most have a self-limiting viral illness, this combination of features potentially represents invasive serious bacterial infection, including meningococcal septicaemia. A paucity of definitive diagnostic testing creates diagnostic uncertainty for clinicians; a safe approach mandates children without invasive disease are often admitted and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conversely, a cohort of children still experience significant mortality and morbidity due to late diagnosis. Current management is based on evidence which predates (i) the introduction of meningococcal B and C vaccines and (ii) availability of point of care testing (POCT) for procalcitonin (PCT) and Neisseria meningitidis DNA. Methods: This PiC study is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating (i) rapid POCT for PCT and N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) performance of existing clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for feverish children with non-blanching rash. All children presenting to the ED with a history of fever and non-blanching rash are eligible. Children are managed as normal, with detailed prospective collection of data pertinent to CPGs, and a throat swab and blood used for rapid POCT. The study is running over 2years and aims to recruit 300 children. Primary objective: Report on the diagnostic accuracy of POCT for (i) N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) PCT in the diagnosis of early MD Discussion: The PiC study will provide important information for policy makers regarding the value of POCT and on the utility and cost of emerging diagnostic strategies. The study will also identify which elements of existing CPGs may merit inclusion in any future study to derive clinical decision rules for this population

National survey of feasibility of NIV trials for management of children with bronchiolitis.

Background: Bronchiolitis is a major cause of admission to hospital in children. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is routinely used for infants in the UK with bronchiolitis. Objective: To establish UK paediatric practice regarding management of bronchiolitis, and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a potential future randomised controlled trial of NIV. Design: Screening logs were completed in hospitals in England capturing information on paediatric bronchiolitis admissions. An online national survey of clinical practice was disseminated to healthcare professionals (HCPs) across the UK to ascertain current management strategies. Results: Screening logs captured data on 393 infants from 8 hospitals. Reasons for admission were most commonly respiratory distress and/or poor fluid intake. Oxygen was administered for 54% of admissions. Respiratory (CPAP and HFNC) and non-respiratory support administered varied considerably. The national survey was completed by 111 HCPs from 76 hospitals. Data were obtained on criteria used to commence and wean NIV, responsibilities for altering NIV settings, minimum training requirements for staff managing a child on NIV, and numbers of trained staff. Most centres were interested in and capable of running a trial of NIV, even out of normal office hours. Conclusions: Respiratory and non-respiratory management of bronchiolitis in UK centres varies widely. A trial of HFNC oxygen therapy in this group of patients is feasible and HCPs would be willing to randomise patients into such a trial. Future work should focus on defining trial eligibility criteria

Need for recovery amongst emergency physicians in the UK and Ireland: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the need for recovery (NFR) among emergency physicians and to identify demographic and occupational characteristics associated with higher NFR scores. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: Emergency departments (EDs) (n=112) in the UK and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency physicians, defined as any registered physician working principally within the ED, responding between June and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: NFR Scale, an 11-item self-administered questionnaire that assesses how work demands affect intershift recovery. RESULTS: The median NFR Score for all 4247 eligible, consented participants with a valid NFR Score was 70.0 (95% CI: 65.5 to 74.5), with an IQR of 45.5-90.0. A linear regression model indicated statistically significant associations between gender, health conditions, type of ED, clinical grade, access to annual and study leave, and time spent working out-of-hours. Groups including male physicians, consultants, general practitioners (GPs) within the ED, those working in paediatric EDs and those with no long-term health condition or disability had a lower NFR Score. After adjusting for these characteristics, the NFR Score increased by 3.7 (95% CI: 0.3 to 7.1) and 6.43 (95% CI: 2.0 to 10.8) for those with difficulty accessing annual and study leave, respectively. Increased percentage of out-of-hours work increased NFR Score almost linearly: 26%-50% out-of-hours work=5.7 (95% CI: 3.1 to 8.4); 51%-75% out-of-hours work=10.3 (95% CI: 7.6 to 13.0); 76%-100% out-of-hours work=14.5 (95% CI: 11.0 to 17.9). CONCLUSION: Higher NFR scores were observed among emergency physicians than reported in any other profession or population to date. While out-of-hours working is unavoidable, the linear relationship observed suggests that any reduction may result in NFR improvement. Evidence-based strategies to improve well-being such as proportional out-of-hours working and improved access to annual and study leave should be carefully considered and implemented where feasible

Amoxicillin duration and dose for community-acquired pneumonia in children: the CAP-IT factorial non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the optimal dose and duration of amoxicillin treatment for community-acquired pneumonia in children. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy, safety and impact on antimicrobial resistance of shorter (3-day) and longer (7-day) treatment with amoxicillin at both a lower and a higher dose at hospital discharge in children with uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: A multicentre randomised double-blind 2 × 2 factorial non-inferiority trial in secondary care in the UK and Ireland. SETTING: Paediatric emergency departments, paediatric assessment/observation units and inpatient wards. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged > 6 months, weighing 6-24 kg, with a clinical diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia, in whom treatment with amoxicillin as the sole antibiotic was planned on discharge. INTERVENTIONS: Oral amoxicillin syrup at a dose of 35-50 mg/kg/day compared with a dose of 70-90 mg/kg/day, and 3 compared with 7 days' duration. Children were randomised simultaneously to each of the two factorial arms in a 1 : 1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was clinically indicated systemic antibacterial treatment prescribed for respiratory tract infection (including community-acquired pneumonia), other than trial medication, up to 28 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included severity and duration of parent/guardian-reported community-acquired pneumonia symptoms, drug-related adverse events (including thrush, skin rashes and diarrhoea), antimicrobial resistance and adherence to trial medication. RESULTS: A total of 824 children were recruited from 29 hospitals. Ten participants received no trial medication and were excluded. Participants [median age 2.5 (interquartile range 1.6-2.7) years; 52% male] were randomised to either 3 (n = 413) or 7 days (n = 401) of trial medication at either lower (n = 410) or higher (n = 404) doses. There were 51 (12.5%) and 49 (12.5%) primary end points in the 3- and 7-day arms, respectively (difference 0.1%, 90% confidence interval -3.8% to 3.9%) and 51 (12.6%) and 49 (12.4%) primary end points in the low- and high-dose arms, respectively (difference 0.2%, 90% confidence interval -3.7% to 4.0%), both demonstrating non-inferiority. Resolution of cough was faster in the 7-day arm than in the 3-day arm for cough (10 days vs. 12 days) (p = 0.040), with no difference in time to resolution of other symptoms. The type and frequency of adverse events and rate of colonisation by penicillin-non-susceptible pneumococci were comparable between arms. LIMITATIONS: End-of-treatment swabs were not taken, and 28-day swabs were collected in only 53% of children. We focused on phenotypic penicillin resistance testing in pneumococci in the nasopharynx, which does not describe the global impact on the microflora. Although 21% of children did not attend the final 28-day visit, we obtained data from general practitioners for the primary end point on all but 3% of children. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic retreatment, adverse events and nasopharyngeal colonisation by penicillin-non-susceptible pneumococci were similar with the higher and lower amoxicillin doses and the 3- and 7-day treatments. Time to resolution of cough and sleep disturbance was slightly longer in children taking 3 days' amoxicillin, but time to resolution of all other symptoms was similar in both arms. FUTURE WORK: Antimicrobial resistance genotypic studies are ongoing, including whole-genome sequencing and shotgun metagenomics, to fully characterise the effect of amoxicillin dose and duration on antimicrobial resistance. The analysis of a randomised substudy comparing parental electronic and paper diary entry is also ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76888927, EudraCT 2016-000809-36 and CTA 00316/0246/001-0006. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

A prospective observational study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for children presenting to emergency departments after head injuries (protocol): The Australasian Paediatric Head Injury Rules Study (APHIRST)

Background: Head injuries in children are responsible for a large number of emergency department visits. Failure to identify a clinically significant intracranial injury in a timely fashion may result in long term neurodisability and death. Whilst cranial computed tomography (CT) provides rapid and definitive identification of intracranial injuries, it is resource intensive and associated with radiation induced cancer. Evidence based head injury clinical decision rules have been derived to aid physicians in identifying patients at risk of having a clinically significant intracranial injury. Three rules have been identified as being of high quality and accuracy: the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) from Canada, the Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE) from the UK, and the prediction rule for the identification of children at very low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) from the USA. This study aims to prospectively validate and compare the performance accuracy of these three clinical decision rules when applied outside the derivation setting.Methods/design: This study is a prospective observational study of children aged 0 to less than 18 years presenting to 10 emergency departments within the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) research network in Australia and New Zealand after head injuries of any severity. Predictor variables identified in CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN clinical decision rules will be collected. Patients will be managed as per the treating clinicians at the participating hospitals. All patients not undergoing cranial CT will receive a follow up call 14 to 90 days after the injury. Outcome data collected will include results of cranial CTs (if performed) and details of admission, intubation, neurosurgery and death. The performance accuracy of each of the rules will be assessed using rule specific outcomes and inclusion and exclusion criteria.Discussion: This study will allow the simultaneous comparative application and validation of three major paediatric head injury clinical decision rules outside their derivation setting.Trial registration: The study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)- ACTRN12614000463673 (registered 2 May 2014). © 2014 Babl et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: Results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Objective To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). Design Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. Setting 13 hospitals in England. Patients Children presenting to emergency departments with suspected infection and shock after 20 mL/kg fluid. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to further 10 or 20 mL/kg fluid boluses every 15 min for up to 4 hours if still in shock. Main outcome measures These were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, separation, potential trial outcome measures, and parent and staff perspectives. Results Seventy-five participants were randomised; two were withdrawn. 23 (59%) of 39 in the 10 mL/kg arm and 25 (74%) of 34 in the 20 mL/kg arm required a single trial bolus before the shock resolved. 79% of boluses were delivered per protocol in the 10 mL/kg arm and 55% in the 20 mL/kg arm. The volume of study bolus fluid after 4 hours was 44% lower in the 10 mL/kg group (mean 14.5 vs 27.5 mL/kg). The Paediatric Index of Mortality-2 score was 2.1 (IQR 1.6-2.7) in the 10 mL/kg group and 2.0 (IQR 1.6-2.5) in the 20 mL/kg group. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and PICU-free days at 30 days did not differ significantly between the groups. In the perspectives study, the trial was generally supported, although some problems with protocol adherence were described. Conclusions Participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Trial registration number ISRCTN15244462

External validation of the Scandinavian guidelines for management of minimal, mild and moderate head injuries in children

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Clinical decision rules (CDRs) aid in the management of children with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recently, the Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee (SNC) has published practical, evidence-based guidelines for children with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 9-15. This study aims to validate these guidelines and to compare them with other CDRs. Methods: A large prospective cohort of children (< 18 years) with TBI of all severities, from ten Australian and New Zealand hospitals, was used to assess the SNC guidelines. Firstly, a validation study was performed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the SNC guideline. Secondly, we compared the accuracy of SNC, CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN CDRs in patients with GCS 13-15 only. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for outcome measures of need for neurosurgery, clinically important TBI (ciTBI) and brain injury on CT. Results: The SNC guideline could be applied to 19,007/20,137 of patients (94.4%) in the validation process. The frequency of ciTBI decreased significantly with stratification by decreasing risk according to the SNC guideline. Sensitivities for the detection of neurosurgery, ciTBI and brain injury on CT were 100.0% (95% CI 89.1-100.0; 32/32), 97.8% (94.5-99.4; 179/183) and 95% (95% CI 91.6-97.2; 262/276), respectively, with a CT/admission rate of 42% (mandatory CT rate of 5%, 18% CT or admission and 19% only admission). Four patients with ciTBI were missed; none needed specific intervention. In the homogenous comparison cohort of 18,913 children, the SNC guideline performed similar to the PECARN CDR, when compared with the other CDRs. Conclusion: The SNC guideline showed a high accuracy in a large external validation cohort and compares well with published CDRs for the management of paediatric TBI

Emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children-the EcLiPSE study: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

© The Author(s). 2017. Background: Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening neurological emergency in childhood. These children are also at risk of significant morbidity, with acute and chronic impact on the family and the health and social care systems. The current recommended first-choice, second-line treatment in children aged 6 months and above is intravenous phenytoin (fosphenytoin in the USA), although there is a lack of evidence for its use and it is associated with significant side effects. Emerging evidence suggests that intravenous levetiracetam may be effective as a second-line agent for CSE, and fewer adverse effects have been described. This trial therefore aims to determine whether intravenous phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective, and safer, in treating childhood CSE. Methods/design: This is a phase IV, multi-centre, parallel group, randomised controlled, open-label trial. Following treatment for CSE with first-line treatment, children with ongoing seizures are randomised to receive either phenytoin (20 mg/kg, maximum 2 g) or levetiracetam (40 mg/kg, maximum 2.5 g) intravenously. The primary outcome measure is the cessation of all visible signs of CSE as determined by the treating clinician. Secondary outcome measures include the need for further anti-seizure medications or rapid sequence induction for ongoing CSE, admission to critical care areas, and serious adverse reactions. Patients are recruited without prior consent, with deferred consent sought at an appropriate time for the family. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is a time to event outcome and a sample size of 140 participants in each group will have 80% power to detect an increase in CSE cessation rates from 60% to 75%. Our total sample size of 308 randomised and treated participants will allow for 10% loss to follow-up. Discussion: This clinical trial will determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective as an intravenous second-line agent for CSE, and provide evidence for management recommendations. In addition, this trial will also provide data on which of these therapies is safer in this setting

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop

Objectives The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials. Design and setting The study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop. Results Thirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS. Conclusion We have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined

Amoxicillin duration and dose for community-acquired pneumonia in children: the CAP-IT factorial non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the optimal dose and duration of amoxicillin treatment for community-acquired pneumonia in children. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy, safety and impact on antimicrobial resistance of shorter (3-day) and longer (7-day) treatment with amoxicillin at both a lower and a higher dose at hospital discharge in children with uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: A multicentre randomised double-blind 2 × 2 factorial non-inferiority trial in secondary care in the UK and Ireland. SETTING: Paediatric emergency departments, paediatric assessment/observation units and inpatient wards. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged > 6 months, weighing 6-24 kg, with a clinical diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia, in whom treatment with amoxicillin as the sole antibiotic was planned on discharge. INTERVENTIONS: Oral amoxicillin syrup at a dose of 35-50 mg/kg/day compared with a dose of 70-90 mg/kg/day, and 3 compared with 7 days' duration. Children were randomised simultaneously to each of the two factorial arms in a 1 : 1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was clinically indicated systemic antibacterial treatment prescribed for respiratory tract infection (including community-acquired pneumonia), other than trial medication, up to 28 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included severity and duration of parent/guardian-reported community-acquired pneumonia symptoms, drug-related adverse events (including thrush, skin rashes and diarrhoea), antimicrobial resistance and adherence to trial medication. RESULTS: A total of 824 children were recruited from 29 hospitals. Ten participants received no trial medication and were excluded. Participants [median age 2.5 (interquartile range 1.6-2.7) years; 52% male] were randomised to either 3 (n = 413) or 7 days (n = 401) of trial medication at either lower (n = 410) or higher (n = 404) doses. There were 51 (12.5%) and 49 (12.5%) primary end points in the 3- and 7-day arms, respectively (difference 0.1%, 90% confidence interval -3.8% to 3.9%) and 51 (12.6%) and 49 (12.4%) primary end points in the low- and high-dose arms, respectively (difference 0.2%, 90% confidence interval -3.7% to 4.0%), both demonstrating non-inferiority. Resolution of cough was faster in the 7-day arm than in the 3-day arm for cough (10 days vs. 12 days) (p = 0.040), with no difference in time to resolution of other symptoms. The type and frequency of adverse events and rate of colonisation by penicillin-non-susceptible pneumococci were comparable between arms. LIMITATIONS: End-of-treatment swabs were not taken, and 28-day swabs were collected in only 53% of children. We focused on phenotypic penicillin resistance testing in pneumococci in the nasopharynx, which does not describe the global impact on the microflora. Although 21% of children did not attend the final 28-day visit, we obtained data from general practitioners for the primary end point on all but 3% of children. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic retreatment, adverse events and nasopharyngeal colonisation by penicillin-non-susceptible pneumococci were similar with the higher and lower amoxicillin doses and the 3- and 7-day treatments. Time to resolution of cough and sleep disturbance was slightly longer in children taking 3 days' amoxicillin, but time to resolution of all other symptoms was similar in both arms. FUTURE WORK: Antimicrobial resistance genotypic studies are ongoing, including whole-genome sequencing and shotgun metagenomics, to fully characterise the effect of amoxicillin dose and duration on antimicrobial resistance. The analysis of a randomised substudy comparing parental electronic and paper diary entry is also ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76888927, EudraCT 2016-000809-36 and CTA 00316/0246/001-0006. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information