BCG vaccination to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in healthcare workers: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial (BRACE trial).

INTRODUCTION: BCG vaccination modulates immune responses to unrelated pathogens. This off-target effect could reduce the impact of emerging pathogens. As a readily available, inexpensive intervention that has a well-established safety profile, BCG is a good candidate for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) and other vulnerable groups against COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international multicentre phase III randomised controlled trial aims to determine if BCG vaccination reduces the incidence of symptomatic and severe COVID-19 at 6 months (co-primary outcomes) compared with no BCG vaccination. We plan to randomise 10 078 HCWs from Australia, The Netherlands, Spain, the UK and Brazil in a 1:1 ratio to BCG vaccination or no BCG (control group). The participants will be followed for 1 year with questionnaires and collection of blood samples. For any episode of illness, clinical details will be collected daily, and the participant will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The secondary objectives are to determine if BCG vaccination reduces the rate, incidence, and severity of any febrile or respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2), as well as work absenteeism. The safety of BCG vaccination in HCWs will also be evaluated. Immunological analyses will assess changes in the immune system following vaccination, and identify factors associated with susceptibility to or protection against SARS-CoV-2 and other infections. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and governance approval will be obtained from participating sites. Results will be published in peer-reviewed open-access journals. The final cleaned and locked database will be deposited in a data sharing repository archiving system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04327206.

Protocol for a single patient therapy plan: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trial to assess the efficacy of cannabidiol in patients with intractable epilepsy.

AIM: This paper describes the use of the single patient therapy plan (SPTP). The SPTP has been designed to assess the efficacy at an individual level of a commercially available cannabinoid product, cannabidiol, in reducing seizure frequency in paediatric patients with intractable epilepsy. METHODS: The SPTP is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trial designed to assess the efficacy of treatment in a neurology outpatient setting. The primary objective of the SPTP is to assess the efficacy of cannabidiol in reducing seizure frequency in each patient with intractable epilepsy, with change in seizure frequency being the primary outcome of interest. The analysis adopts a Bayesian approach, which provides results in the form of posterior probabilities that various levels of benefit (based on the primary outcome measure, seizure frequency) have been achieved under active treatment compared to placebo, accompanied by decision rules that provide thresholds for deciding whether treatment has been successful in the individual patient. The SPTP arrangement is most accurately considered part of clinical practice rather than research, since it is aimed at making clinical treatment decisions for individual patients and is not testing a hypothesis or collecting aggregate data. Therefore, Human Research Ethics Committee approval was considered not to be required, although it is recommended that hospital Clinical Ethics Committees provide ethical oversight. CONCLUSION: These SPTP resources are made available so that they may inform clinical practice in the treatment of severe epilepsy or adapted for use in other conditions.

Oral Ondansetron to Reduce Vomiting in Children Receiving Intranasal Fentanyl and Inhaled Nitrous Oxide for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Intranasal fentanyl and inhaled nitrous oxide are increasingly combined to provide procedural sedation and analgesia in the pediatric emergency setting. This regimen is attractive because of its nonparenteral administration, but is associated with a higher incidence of vomiting than nitrous oxide alone. We seek to assess whether prophylactic oral ondansetron use could reduce the incidence of vomiting associated with intranasal fentanyl and nitrous oxide for procedural sedation compared with placebo. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of oral ondansetron versus placebo conducted at a single tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Children aged 3 to 18 years with planned sedation with intranasal fentanyl and nitrous oxide were randomized to receive oral ondansetron or placebo 30 to 60 minutes before nitrous oxide administration. The primary outcome was early vomiting associated with procedural sedation, defined as occurring during or up to 1 hour after nitrous oxide administration. Secondary outcomes included vomiting 1 to 24 hours after procedural sedation, procedural sedation duration, adverse events, and quality of sedation across the 2 groups. RESULTS: We recruited 442 participants and 436 were included for analysis. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, early vomiting associated with procedural sedation, between the groups: ondansetron 12% versus placebo 16%, with a difference in proportions of -4.6% (95% confidence interval -11% to 2.0%; P=.18). Most sedations were reported as optimal by treating clinicians (91%). Only 2 minor adverse events occurred, both in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Oral ondansetron does not significantly reduce vomiting during or shortly after procedural sedation with combined intranasal fentanyl and inhaled nitrous oxide.

Protocol for a double blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial using ondansetron to reduce vomiting in children receiving intranasal fentanyl and inhaled nitrous oxide for procedural sedation in the emergency department (the FON trial).

INTRODUCTION: Intranasal fentanyl and nitrous oxide (N2O) can be combined to create a non-parenteral procedural sedation regimen for children in the paediatric emergency department. This combination of intranasal fentanyl and N2O provides effective pain relief for more painful procedures, but is associated with a higher incidence of vomiting than N2O alone. Our aim is to assess whether ondansetron used preventatively reduces the incidence of vomiting associated with intranasal fentanyl and N2O for procedural sedation compared with placebo. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a double blind, randomised placebo-controlled superiority trial. This is a single-centre trial of 442 children aged 3-18 years presenting to a tertiary care Paediatric Emergency Department at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH), Melbourne, Australia, requiring procedural sedation with intranasal fentanyl and N2O. After written consent, eligible participants are randomised to receive ondansetron or placebo along with intranasal fentanyl, 30-60 min prior to N2O administration. The primary outcome is vomiting during or up to 1 hour after procedural sedation. Secondary outcomes include: number of vomits and retching during procedural sedation, vomiting 1-24 hours after procedural sedation, procedural sedation duration and associated adverse events, procedure abandonment, parental satisfaction and the value parents place on the prevention of vomiting. This trial will allow refinement of a non-parenteral sedation regimen for children requiring painful procedures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethics approval at the RCH, Melbourne, protocol number 36174. The results from this trial will be submitted to conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616001213437).