Unintentional Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Children.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure increases the prevalence and severity of sinopulmonary diseases in children. The primary source of SHS exposure in children is through adults who live in the same house; however, the level of exposure may vary based on the adult smoking habits at home. This prospective cross-sectional study in Alberta, Canada, investigated the relationship between self-reported caregiver smoking, location, outdoor temperature and children's' urine cotinine: creatinine ratio (CCR), a marker of nicotine metabolism. Participants aged 0−9 were recruited from the Child Health Clinics at the Misericordia Community Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, from 8 January to 24 February 2016 and 30 June to 18 August 2016. Participant CCR levels were compared to caregiver-reported smoking location and environmental factors such as temperature and season. Of the 233 participants who reported smoking status, 21% reported smoking, in keeping with local smoking rates. More participants smoked indoors during the winter than the summer; however, some families limited indoor smoking to a garage. Of the 133 parent−child dyads who provided smoking information and a child urine sample, 18 had an elevated cotinine:creatinine ratio, suggestive of significant tobacco smoke exposure, 15 of whom were from homes that reported smoking. Age < 1 year and number of cigarettes smoked in the home weekly were risks for significant exposure while season, outdoor temperature and smoking location in the home did not reach significance. Smokers should be counseled to protect children, particularly infants, from exposure by limiting the number of cigarettes smoked and isolating smoking to outside the home. Segregated areas such as a garage may provide a useful harm mitigation strategy for indoor smokers, provided the garage does not share ventilation or is not in close proximity to high-traffic areas of the home.

Comparison of Publication of Pediatric Probiotic vs Antibiotic Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Importance: The published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials. Objectives: To compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020. Exposures: Probiotic or antibiotic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated. Results: A total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.