Effectiveness of Structured Care Coordination for Children With Medical Complexity: The Complex Care for Kids Ontario (CCKO) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Children with medical complexity (CMC) have chronic conditions and high health needs and may experience fragmented care. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a structured complex care program, Complex Care for Kids Ontario (CCKO), with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial used a waitlist variation for randomizing patients from 12 complex care clinics in Ontario, Canada, over 2 years. The study was conducted from December 2016 to June 2021. Participants were identified based on complex care clinic referral and randomly allocated into an intervention group, seen at the next available clinic appointment, or a control group that was placed on a waitlist to receive the intervention after 12 months. Intervention: Assignment of a nurse practitioner-pediatrician dyad partnering with families in a structured complex care clinic to provide intensive care coordination and comprehensive plans of care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary outcomes, assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months postrandomization, were service delivery indicators from the Family Experiences With Coordination of Care that scored (1) coordination of care among health care professionals, (2) coordination of care between health care professionals and families, and (3) utility of care planning tools. Secondary outcomes included child and parent health outcomes and child health care system utilization and cost. Results: Of 144 participants randomized, 141 had complete health administrative data, and 139 had complete baseline surveys. The median (IQR) age of the participants was 29 months (9-102); 83 (60%) were male. At 12 months, scores for utility of care planning tools improved in the intervention group compared with the waitlist group (adjusted odds ratio, 9.3; 95% CI, 3.9-21.9; P < .001), with no difference between groups for the other 2 co-primary outcomes. There were no group differences for secondary outcomes of child outcomes, parent outcomes, and health care system utilization and cost. At 24 months, when both groups were receiving the intervention, no primary outcome differences were observed. Total health care costs in the second year were lower for the intervention group (median, CAD$17 891; IQR, 6098-61 346; vs CAD$37 524; IQR, 9338-119 547 [US $13 415; IQR, 4572-45 998; vs US $28 136; IQR, 7002-89 637]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The CCKO program improved the perceived utility of care planning tools but not other outcomes at 1 year. Extended evaluation periods may be helpful in assessing pediatric complex care interventions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02928757.

Active Lives South Australia health economic analysis: an evidence base for the potential of health promotion strategies supporting physical activity guidelines to reduce public health costs while improving wellbeing.

Aim: The COVID-19 pandemic has threatened individual and population wellbeing and strategies to jointly address these challenges within budget constraints are required. The aim of our research is to analyse evidence from the Active Lives South Australia study to consider the potential of physical activity (PA) health promotion strategies to be health-system cost saving while addressing wellbeing challenges. Methods: The Active Lives South Australia study compares adult populations who meet and do not meet physical activity (PA) guidelines (150+ minutes of weekly physical activity) with respect to their subjective wellbeing and health care utilisation. Subject and results: Adults who met PA guidelines had better wellbeing across all aspects with and without adjustment for age, sex and income covariates. Analysis showed significant associations between meeting guidelines and lower probabilities of visiting and utilisation of GPs, specialist doctors, other health professionals, hospital inpatient admissions, outpatient clinic and emergency department visits, and an overall A$1760 lower cost per person annually. Controlling for age, sex and income, health expenditure for adults who met PA guidelines was significantly lower by A$1393 per person annually. That translated to A$804 million potential annual SA health system cost saving by shifting all adults to meeting PA guidelines. Conclusion: There is significant potential for effective health promotion strategies to be net cost saving while addressing wellbeing challenges of COVID-19 recovery where they can shift target populations from not meeting to meeting PA guidelines.

Coached, Coordinated, Enhanced Neonatal Transition (CCENT): protocol for a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial of transition-to-home support for parents of high-risk infants.

INTRODUCTION: Having an infant admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is associated with increased parental stress, anxiety and depression. Enhanced support for parents may decrease parental stress and improve subsequent parent and child outcomes. The Coached, Coordinated, Enhanced Neonatal Transition (CCENT) programme is a novel bundled intervention of psychosocial support delivered by a nurse navigator that includes Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based coaching, care coordination and anticipatory education for parents of high-risk infants in the NICU through the first year at home. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of the intervention on parent stress at 12 months. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial with 1:1 allocation to the CCENT model versus control (standard neonatal follow-up). Parents of high-risk infants (n=236) will be recruited from seven NICUs across three Canadian provinces. Intervention participants are assigned a nurse navigator who will provide the intervention for 12 months. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 4, 12 and 18 months. The primary outcome measure is the total score of the Parenting Stress Index Fourth Edition Short Form at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include parental mental health, empowerment and health-related quality of life for calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A cost-effectiveness analysis will examine the incremental cost of CCENT versus usual care per QALY gained. Qualitative interviews will explore parent and healthcare provider experiences with the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval was obtained from Clinical Trials Ontario, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Ethics Board (REB), The Hospital for Sick Children REB, UBC Children's and Women's REB and McGill University Health Centre REB. Results will be shared with Canadian level III NICUs, neonatal follow-up programmes and academic forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03350243).

Intermittent vs Continuous Pulse Oximetry in Hospitalized Infants With Stabilized Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is low level of evidence and substantial practice variation regarding the use of intermittent or continuous monitoring in infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. Objective: To compare the effect of intermittent vs continuous pulse oximetry on clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included infants 4 weeks to 24 months of age who were hospitalized with bronchiolitis from November 1, 2016, to May 31, 2019, with or without supplemental oxygen after stabilization at community and children's hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Interventions: Intermittent (every 4 hours, n = 114) or continuous (n = 115) pulse oximetry, using an oxygen saturation target of 90% or higher. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay from randomization to discharge. Secondary outcomes included length of stay from inpatient unit admission to discharge and outcomes measured from randomization: medical interventions, safety (intensive care unit transfer and revisits), parent anxiety and workdays missed, and nursing satisfaction. Results: Among 229 infants enrolled (median [IQR] age, 4.0 [2.2-8.5] months; 136 [59.4%] male; 101 [44.1%] from community hospital sites), the median length of hospital stay from randomization to discharge was 27.6 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 18.8-49.6 hours) in the intermittent group and 25.4 hours (IQR, 18.3-47.6 hours) in the continuous group (difference of medians, 2.2 hours; 95% CI, -1.9 to 6.3 hours; P = .17). No significant differences were observed between the intermittent and continuous groups in the median length of stay from inpatient unit admission to discharge: 49.1 (IQR, 37.2-87.0) hours vs 46.0 (IQR, 32.5-73.8) hours (P = .13) or in frequencies or durations of hospital interventions, such as oxygen supplementation initiation: 4 of 114 (3.5%) vs. 9 of 115 (7.8%) (P = .16) and median duration of oxygen supplementation: 20.6 (IQR, 7.6-46.1) hours vs. 21.4 (11.6-52.9) hours (P = .66). Similarly, there were no significant differences in frequencies of intensive care unit transfer: 1 of 114 (0.9%) vs 2 of 115 (2.7%) (P = .76); readmission to hospital: 3 of 114 (2.6%) in the intermittent group vs 4 of 115 (3.5%) in the continuous group (P > .99); parent anxiety: mean (SD) parent anxiety score, 2.9 (0.9) in the intermittent group vs 2.8 (0.9) in the continuous group (P = .40); or parent workdays missed: median workdays missed, 1.5 (IQR, 0.5-3.0) vs 1.5 (IQR, 0.5-2.5) (P = .36). Mean (SD) nursing satisfaction with monitoring was significantly greater in the intermittent group: 8.6 (1.7) vs 7.1 (2.8) of 10 workdays; the mean difference was 1.5 (95% CI, 0.9-2.2; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, among infants hospitalized with stabilized bronchiolitis with and without hypoxia and managed using an oxygen saturation target of 90% or higher, clinical outcomes, including length of hospital stay and safety, were similar with intermittent vs continuous pulse oximetry. Nursing satisfaction was greater with intermittent monitoring. Given that other important clinical practice considerations favor less intense monitoring, these findings support the standard use of intermittent pulse oximetry in stable infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02947204.

Effect of Nebulized Magnesium vs Placebo Added to Albuterol on Hospitalization Among Children With Refractory Acute Asthma Treated in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: While intravenous magnesium decreases hospitalizations in refractory pediatric acute asthma, it is variably used because of invasiveness and safety concerns. The benefit of nebulized magnesium to prevent hospitalization is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of nebulized magnesium in children with acute asthma remaining in moderate or severe respiratory distress after initial therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized double-blind parallel-group clinical trial from September 26, 2011, to November 19, 2019, in 7 tertiary-care pediatric emergency departments in Canada. The participants were otherwise healthy children aged 2 to 17 years with moderate to severe asthma defined by a Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) score of 5 or greater (on a 12-point scale) after a 1-hour treatment with an oral corticosteroid and 3 inhaled albuterol and ipratropium treatments. Of 5846 screened patients, 4332 were excluded for criteria, 273 declined participation, 423 otherwise excluded, 818 randomized, and 816 analyzed. Interventions: Participants were randomized to 3 nebulized albuterol treatments with either magnesium sulfate (n = 410) or 5.5% saline placebo (n = 408). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospitalization for asthma within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included PRAM score; respiratory rate; oxygen saturation at 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes; blood pressure at 20, 40, 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes; and albuterol treatments within 240 minutes. Results: Among 818 randomized patients (median age, 5 years; 63% males), 816 completed the trial (409 received magnesium; 407, placebo). A total of 178 of the 409 children who received magnesium (43.5%) were hospitalized vs 194 of the 407 who received placebo (47.7%) (difference, -4.2%; absolute risk difference 95% [exact] CI, -11% to 2.8%]; P = .26). There were no significant between-group differences in changes from baseline to 240 minutes in PRAM score (difference of changes, 0.14 points [95% CI, -0.23 to 0.50]; P = .46); respiratory rate (0.17 breaths/min [95% CI, -1.32 to 1.67]; P = .82); oxygen saturation (-0.04% [95% CI, -0.53% to 0.46%]; P = .88); systolic blood pressure (0.78 mm Hg [95% CI, -1.48 to 3.03]; P = .50); or mean number of additional albuterol treatments (magnesium: 1.49, placebo: 1.59; risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.11]; P = .47). Nausea/vomiting or sore throat/nose occurred in 17 of the 409 children who received magnesium (4%) and 5 of the 407 who received placebo (1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among children with refractory acute asthma in the emergency department, nebulized magnesium with albuterol, compared with placebo with albuterol, did not significantly decrease the hospitalization rate for asthma within 24 hours. The findings do not support use of nebulized magnesium with albuterol among children with refractory acute asthma. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01429415.

Bayesian methods for pilot studies.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of pilot studies to help inform the design of randomized controlled trials has increased significantly over the last couple of decades. A pilot study can provide estimates of feasibility parameters, such as the recruitment, compliance and follow-up probabilities. The use of frequentist confidence intervals of these estimates fails to provide a meaningful measure of the uncertainty as it pertains to the design of the associated randomized controlled trial. The objective of this article is to introduce Bayesian methods for the analysis of pilot studies for determining the feasibility of an associated randomized controlled trial. METHODS: An example from the literature is used to illustrate the advantages of a Bayesian approach for accounting for the uncertainty in pilot study results when assessing the feasibility of an associated randomized controlled trial. Vague beta distribution priors for the feasibility parameters are used. Based on the results from a feasibility study, simulation methods are used to determine the expected power of specified recruitment strategies for an associated randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: The vague priors used for the feasibility parameters are demonstrated to be considerably robust. Beta distribution posteriors for the feasibility parameters lead to beta-binomial predictive distributions for an associated randomized controlled trial regarding the number of patients randomized, the number of patients who are compliant and the number of patients who complete follow-up. Ignoring the uncertainty in pilot study results can lead to inadequate power for an associated randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSION: Applying Bayesian methods to pilot studies' results provides direct inference about the feasibility parameters and quantifies the uncertainty regarding the feasibility of an associated randomized controlled trial in an intuitive and meaningful way. Furthermore, Bayesian methods can identify recruitment strategies that yield the desired power for an associated randomized controlled trial.

Impacting child health outcomes in congenital heart disease: Cluster randomized controlled trial protocol of in-clinic physical activity counselling.

BACKGROUND: Most (>90%) children with congenital health defects are not active enough for optimal health. Proactively promoting physical activity during every clinic visit is recommended, but rarely implemented due to a lack of appropriate resources. METHODS: This cluster randomized controlled trial will implement an evidence-based, multi-faceted physical activity intervention. All eligible patients at small (London, ON), medium (Ottawa, ON) and large (Edmonton, AB) pediatric cardiac clinics will be approached, with randomization to intervention/control by clinic and week. Intervention patients will be counselled with 5 key physical activity messages, have questions about physical activity answered, and have access to a custom web site with personalized activity suggestions and support from a Registered Kinesiologist. The primary outcome is daily physical activity (number of steps, minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity) assessed via pedometer one week per month for 6-months. Standardized questionnaires assess activity motivation and quality of life at baseline and end of study. Healthcare outcomes will be clinic visit time and contacts for physical activity concerns. Repeated measures ANCOVA will compare control/intervention pedometer outcomes, adjusting for covariates (alpha=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This trial aims to determine whether providing resources and protocols enables clinicians to counsel about physical activity as part of every pediatric cardiology appointment. Evaluations of healthcare system impact and intervention delivery in small, medium and large clinics will assess applicability for implementation in all pediatric cardiac clinics. The impact on physical activity motivation and participation will evaluate the effectiveness of this standardized approach for increasing physical activity in children with congenital heart defects.

A cluster randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Implementation of Infant Pain Practice Change (ImPaC) Resource to improve pain practices in hospitalized infants: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized infants undergo multiple painful procedures daily. Despite the significant evidence, procedural pain assessment and management continues to be suboptimal. Repetitive and untreated pain at this vital developmental juncture is associated with negative behavioral and neurodevelopmental consequences. To address this knowledge to practice gap, we developed the web-based Implementation of Infant Pain Practice Change (ImPaC) Resource to guide change in healthcare professionals' pain practice behaviors. This protocol describes the evaluation of the intervention effectiveness and implementation of the Resource and how organizational context influences outcomes. METHODS: An effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 1 design, blending a cluster randomized clinical trial and a mixed-methods implementation study will be used. Eighteen Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) across Canada will be randomized to intervention (INT) or standard practice (SP) groups. NICUs in the INT group will receive the Resource for six months; those in the SP group will continue with practice as usual and will be offered the Resource after a six-month waiting period. Data analysts will be blinded to group allocation. To address the intervention effectiveness, the INT and SP groups will be compared on clinical outcomes including the proportion of infants who have procedural pain assessed and managed, and the frequency and nature of painful procedures. Data will be collected at baseline (before randomization) and at completion of the intervention (six months). Implementation outcomes (feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, and reach) will be measured at completion of the intervention. Sustainability will be assessed at six and 12 months following the intervention. Organizational context will be assessed to examine its influence on intervention and implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: This mixed-methods study aims to determine the effectiveness and the implementation of a multifaceted online strategy for changing healthcare professionals' pain practices for hospitalized infants. Implementation strategies that are easily and effectively implemented are important for sustained change. The results will inform healthcare professionals and decision-makers on how to address the challenges of implementing the Resource within various organizational contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03825822. Registered 31 January 2019.

Oral Ondansetron Administration to Dehydrated Children in Pakistan: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron is an effective antiemetic employed to prevent vomiting in children with gastroenteritis in high-income countries; data from low- and middle-income countries are sparse. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial in 2 pediatric emergency departments in Pakistan. Dehydrated children aged 6 to 60 months with ≥1 diarrheal (ie, loose or liquid) stool and ≥1 vomiting episode within the preceding 4 hours were eligible to participate. Participants received a single weight-based dose of oral ondansetron (8-15 kg: 2 mg; >15 kg: 4 mg) or identical placebo. The primary outcome was intravenous administration of ≥20 mL/kg over 4 hours of an isotonic fluid within 72 hours of random assignment. RESULTS: All 918 (100%) randomly assigned children completed follow-up. Intravenous rehydration was administered to 14.7% (68 of 462) and 19.5% (89 of 456) of those administered ondansetron and placebo, respectively (difference: -4.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.7% to 0.0%). In multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for other antiemetic agents, antibiotics, zinc, and the number of vomiting episodes in the preceding 24 hours, children administered ondansetron had lower odds of the primary outcome (odds ratio: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.00). Fewer children in the ondansetron, relative to the placebo group vomited during the observation period (difference: -12.9%; 95% CI, -18.0% to -7.8%). The median number of vomiting episodes (P < .001) was lower in the ondansetron group. CONCLUSIONS: Among children with gastroenteritis-associated vomiting and dehydration, oral ondansetron administration reduced vomiting and intravenous rehydration use. Ondansetron use may be considered to promote oral rehydration therapy success among dehydrated children in low- and middle-income countries.

Complex care for kids Ontario: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial of a population-level care coordination initiative for children with medical complexity.

INTRODUCTION: Technological and medical advances have led to a growing population of children with medical complexity (CMC) defined by substantial medical needs, healthcare utilisation and morbidity. These children are at a high risk of missed, fragmented and/or inappropriate care, and families bear extraordinary financial burden and stress. While small in number (<1% of children), this group uses ~1/3 of all child healthcare resources, and need coordinated care to optimise their health. Complex care for kids Ontario (CCKO) brings researchers, families and healthcare providers together to develop, implement and evaluate a population-level roll-out of care for CMC in Ontario, Canada through a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. The intervention includes dedicated key workers and the utilisation of coordinated shared care plans. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our primary objective is to evaluate the CCKO intervention using a randomised waitlist control design. The waitlist approach involves rolling out an intervention over time, whereby all participants are randomised into two groups (A and B) to receive the intervention at different time points determined at random. Baseline measurements are collected at month 0, and groups A and B are compared at months 6 and 12. The primary outcome is the family-prioritized Family Experiences with Coordination of Care (FECC) survey at 12 months. The FECC will be compared between groups using an analysis of covariance with the corresponding baseline score as the covariate. Secondary outcomes include reports of child and parent health outcomes, health system utilisation and process outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval has been obtained for this multicentre RCT. This trial will assess the effect of a large population-level complex care intervention to determine whether dedicated key workers and coordinated care plans have an impact on improving service delivery and quality of life for CMC and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02928757.

Oral Ondansetron Administration to Nondehydrated Children With Diarrhea and Associated Vomiting in Emergency Departments in Pakistan: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether single-dose oral ondansetron administration to children with vomiting as a result of acute gastroenteritis without dehydration reduces administration of intravenous fluid rehydration. METHODS: In this 2-hospital, double-blind, placebo-controlled, emergency department-based, randomized trial conducted in Karachi Pakistan, we recruited children aged 0.5 to 5.0 years, without dehydration, who had diarrhea and greater than or equal to 1 episode of vomiting within 4 hours of arrival. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), through an Internet-based randomization service using a stratified variable-block randomization scheme, to single-dose oral ondansetron or placebo. The primary endpoint was intravenous rehydration (administration of ≥20 mL/kg of an isotonic fluid during 4 hours) within 72 hours of randomization. RESULTS: Participant median age was 15 months (interquartile range 10 to 26) and 59.4% (372/626) were male patients. Intravenous rehydration use was 12.1% (38/314) and 11.9% (37/312) in the placebo and ondansetron groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.61; difference 0.2%; 95% CI of the difference -4.9% to 5.4%). Bolus fluid administration occurred within 72 hours of randomization in 10.8% (34/314) and 10.3% (27/312) of children administered placebo and ondansetron, respectively (odds ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59). A multivariable regression model fitted with treatment group and adjusted for antiemetic administration, antibiotics, zinc prerandomization, and vomiting frequency prerandomization yielded similar results (odds ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.53). There was no interaction between treatment group and age, greater than or equal to 3 stools in the preceding 24 hours, or greater than or equal to 3 vomiting episodes in the preceding 24 hours. CONCLUSION: Oral administration of a single dose of ondansetron did not result in a reduction in intravenous rehydration use. In children without dehydration, ondansetron does not improve clinical outcomes.

Planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for women in spontaneous labor with a twin pregnancy: A secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study.

BACKGROUND: The Twin Birth Study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, found no differences in neonatal outcomes in women with twins randomized to planned cesarean or vaginal delivery. Nevertheless, women who present in spontaneous labor might expect a better outcome following a trial of vaginal delivery than undergoing cesarean delivery. In this secondary analysis, we aimed to compare neonatal outcomes of women who presented in spontaneous labor in the two arms of the Twin Birth Study. METHODS: Women in whom the first twin was in the cephalic presentation were randomized between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks to planned vaginal delivery or cesarean. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: Of the 2804 women included in the Twin Birth Study, 823 women in the planned vaginal delivery arm and 612 in the planned cesarean arm presented in spontaneous labor. Although the odds ratio favored planned vaginal delivery, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of primary outcome between the vaginal delivery and cesarean arms (1.8% vs 2.7%, respectively; P = 0.16; OR 1.49; 95% CI, 0.87-2.55). Similarly, the rates of the individual components of the primary outcome and of maternal adverse outcome were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: In women with twins who present in spontaneous labor between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks' gestation, where the first twin is cephalic, a policy of planned vaginal delivery or cesarean is not associated with significant differences in neonatal or maternal outcomes.

Multicenter Trial of a Combination Probiotic for Children with Gastroenteritis.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteritis accounts for approximately 1.7 million visits to the emergency department (ED) by children in the United States every year. Data to determine whether the use of probiotics improves outcomes in these children are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 886 children 3 to 48 months of age with gastroenteritis who presented to six pediatric EDs in Canada. Participants received a 5-day course of a combination probiotic product containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052, at a dose of 4.0×109 colony-forming units twice daily or placebo. The primary outcome was moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, which was defined according to a post-enrollment modified Vesikari scale symptom score of 9 or higher (scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating more severe disease). Secondary outcomes included the duration of diarrhea and vomiting, the percentage of children who had unscheduled physician visits, and the presence or absence of adverse events. RESULTS: Moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis within 14 days after enrollment occurred in 108 of 414 participants (26.1%) who were assigned to probiotics and 102 of 413 participants (24.7%) who were assigned to placebo (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.46; P=0.72). After adjustment for trial site, age, detection of rotavirus in stool, and frequency of diarrhea and vomiting before enrollment, trial-group assignment did not predict moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.49; P=0.74). There were no significant differences between the probiotic group and the placebo group in the median duration of diarrhea (52.5 hours [interquartile range, 18.3 to 95.8] and 55.5 hours [interquartile range, 20.2 to 102.3], respectively; P=0.31) or vomiting (17.7 hours [interquartile range, 0 to 58.6] and 18.7 hours [interquartile range, 0 to 51.6], P=0.18), the percentages of participants with unscheduled visits to a health care provider (30.2% and 26.6%; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.62; P=0.27), and the percentage of participants who reported an adverse event (34.8% and 38.7%; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.11; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In children who presented to the emergency department with gastroenteritis, twice-daily administration of a combined L. rhamnosus-L. helveticus probiotic did not prevent the development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis within 14 days after enrollment. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PROGUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01853124 .).

Vitamin D Supplementation in Pregnancy and Lactation and Infant Growth.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether maternal vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy and lactation improves fetal and infant growth in regions where vitamin D deficiency is common. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Bangladesh to assess the effects of weekly prenatal vitamin D supplementation (from 17 to 24 weeks of gestation until birth) and postpartum vitamin D supplementation on the primary outcome of infants' length-for-age z scores at 1 year according to World Health Organization (WHO) child growth standards. One group received neither prenatal nor postpartum vitamin D (placebo group). Three groups received prenatal supplementation only, in doses of 4200 IU (prenatal 4200 group), 16,800 IU (prenatal 16,800 group), and 28,000 IU (prenatal 28,000 group). The fifth group received prenatal supplementation as well as 26 weeks of postpartum supplementation in the amount of 28,000 IU (prenatal and postpartum 28,000 group). RESULTS: Among 1164 infants assessed at 1 year of age (89.5% of 1300 pregnancies), there were no significant differences across groups in the mean (±SD) length-for-age z scores. Scores were as follows: placebo, -0.93±1.05; prenatal 4200, -1.11±1.12; prenatal 16,800, -0.97±0.97; prenatal 28,000, -1.06±1.07; and prenatal and postpartum 28,000, -0.94±1.00 (P=0.23 for a global test of differences across groups). Other anthropometric measures, birth outcomes, and morbidity did not differ significantly across groups. Vitamin D supplementation had expected effects on maternal and infant serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and calcium concentrations, maternal urinary calcium excretion, and maternal parathyroid hormone concentrations. There were no significant differences in the frequencies of adverse events across groups, with the exception of a higher rate of possible hypercalciuria among the women receiving the highest dose. CONCLUSIONS: In a population with widespread prenatal vitamin D deficiency and fetal and infant growth restriction, maternal vitamin D supplementation from midpregnancy until birth or until 6 months post partum did not improve fetal or infant growth. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01924013 .).

Intermittent versus continuous oxygen saturation monitoring for infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants in developed countries. The main focus of hospital care is on supportive care, such as monitoring for hypoxia and supplemental oxygen administration, as active therapies lack effectiveness. Pulse oximetry is used to monitor hypoxia in hospitalised infants and is used either intermittently or continuously. Observational studies have suggested that continuous pulse oximetry use leads to a longer length of hospital stay in stable infants. The use of continuous pulse oximetry may lead to unnecessary clinical intervention due to readings that are of little clinical significance, false-positive readings and less reliance on the clinical status. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide which pulse oximetry monitoring strategy, intermittent or continuous, is superior in infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis with respect to patient and policy-relevant outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing two strategies for pulse oximetry monitoring in infants hospitalised for bronchiolitis. Infants aged 1 month to 2 years presenting to Canadian tertiary and community hospitals will be randomised after stabilisation to receive either intermittent or continuous oxygen saturation monitoring on the inpatient unit until discharge. The primary outcome is length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes include additional measures of effectiveness, acceptability, safety and cost. We will need to enrol 210 infants in order to detect a 12-hour difference in length of stay with a type 1 error rate of 5% and a power of 90%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval has been obtained for this trial. This trial will provide data to guide hospitals and clinicians on the optimal pulse oximetry monitoring strategy in infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publication, professional societies and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02947204.

Effect of a Pediatric Early Warning System on All-Cause Mortality in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients: The EPOCH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is limited evidence that the use of severity of illness scores in pediatric patients can facilitate timely admission to the intensive care unit or improve patient outcomes. Objective: To determine the effect of the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System (BedsidePEWS) on all-cause hospital mortality and late admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac arrest, and ICU resource use. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter cluster randomized trial of 21 hospitals located in 7 countries (Belgium, Canada, England, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, and the Netherlands) that provided inpatient pediatric care for infants (gestational age ≥37 weeks) to teenagers (aged ≤18 years). Participating hospitals had continuous physician staffing and subspecialized pediatric services. Patient enrollment began on February 28, 2011, and ended on June 21, 2015. Follow-up ended on July 19, 2015. Interventions: The BedsidePEWS intervention (10 hospitals) was compared with usual care (no severity of illness score; 11 hospitals). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was a significant clinical deterioration event, which was defined as a composite outcome reflecting late ICU admission. Regression analyses accounted for hospital-level clustering and baseline rates. Results: Among 144 539 patient discharges at 21 randomized hospitals, there were 559 443 patient-days and 144 539 patients (100%) completed the trial. All-cause hospital mortality was 1.93 per 1000 patient discharges at hospitals with BedsidePEWS and 1.56 per 1000 patient discharges at hospitals with usual care (adjusted between-group rate difference, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.80 to 0.81 per 1000 patient discharges]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.61 to 1.69]; P = .96). Significant clinical deterioration events occurred during 0.50 per 1000 patient-days at hospitals with BedsidePEWS vs 0.84 per 1000 patient-days at hospitals with usual care (adjusted between-group rate difference, -0.34 [95% CI, -0.73 to 0.05 per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.97]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System compared with usual care did not significantly decrease all-cause mortality among hospitalized pediatric patients. These findings do not support the use of this system to reduce mortality. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01260831.

Conducting EQ-5D Valuation Studies in Resource-Constrained Countries: The Potential Use of Shrinkage Estimators to Reduce Sample Size.

BACKGROUND: Resource-constrained countries have difficulty conducting large EQ-5D valuation studies, which limits their ability to conduct cost-utility analyses using a value set specific to their own population. When estimates of similar but related parameters are available, shrinkage estimators reduce uncertainty and yield estimators with smaller mean square error (MSE). We hypothesized that health utilities based on shrinkage estimators can reduce MSE and mean absolute error (MAE) when compared to country-specific health utilities. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study (1,000 iterations) based on the observed means and standard deviations (or standard errors) of the EQ-5D-3L valuation studies from 14 counties. In each iteration, the simulated data were fitted with the model based on the country-specific functional form of the scoring algorithm to create country-specific health utilities ("naïve" estimators). Shrinkage estimators were calculated based on the empirical Bayes estimation methods. The performance of shrinkage estimators was compared with those of the naïve estimators over a range of different sample sizes based on MSE, MAE, mean bias, standard errors and the width of confidence intervals. RESULTS: The MSE of the shrinkage estimators was smaller than the MSE of the naïve estimators on average, as theoretically predicted. Importantly, the MAE of the shrinkage estimators was also smaller than the MAE of the naïve estimators on average. In addition, the reduction in MSE with the use of shrinkage estimators did not substantially increase bias. The degree of reduction in uncertainty by shrinkage estimators is most apparent in valuation studies with small sample size. CONCLUSION: Health utilities derived from shrinkage estimation allow valuation studies with small sample size to "borrow strength" from other valuation studies to reduce uncertainty.

Integrated collaborative care teams to enhance service delivery to youth with mental health and substance use challenges: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Among youth, the prevalence of mental health and addiction (MHA) disorders is roughly 20%, yet youth are challenged to access evidence-based services in a timely fashion. To address MHA system gaps, this study tests the benefits of an Integrated Collaborative Care Team (ICCT) model for youth with MHA challenges. A rapid, stepped-care approach geared to need in a youth-friendly environment is expected to result in better youth MHA outcomes. Moreover, the ICCT approach is expected to decrease service wait-times, be more youth-friendly and family-friendly, and be more cost-effective, providing substantial public health benefits. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In partnership with four community agencies, four adolescent psychiatry hospital departments, youth and family members with lived experience of MHA service use, and other stakeholders, we have developed an innovative model of collaborative, community-based service provision involving rapid access to needs-based MHA services. A total of 500 youth presenting for hospital-based, outpatient psychiatric service will be randomised to ICCT services or hospital-based treatment as usual, following a pragmatic randomised controlled trial design. The primary outcome variable will be the youth's functioning, assessed at intake, 6 months and 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include clinical change, youth/family satisfaction and perception of care, empowerment, engagement and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Intent-to-treat analyses will be used on repeated-measures data, along with cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, to determine intervention effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Board approval has been received from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, as well as institutional ethical approval from participating community sites. This study will be conducted according to Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Participants will provide informed consent prior to study participation and data confidentiality will be ensured. A data safety monitoring panel will monitor the study. Results will be disseminated through community and peer-reviewed academic channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02836080.

The effect of induction method in twin pregnancies: a secondary analysis for the twin birth study.

BACKGROUND: This secondary analysis for the Twin Birth Study, an international, multicenter trial, aimed to compare the cesarean section rates and safety between methods of induction of labor in twin pregnancies. METHODS: Women with twin pregnancies where the first twin was in a cephalic presentation and who presented for labor induction, were non-randomly assigned to receive prostaglandin or amniotomy and/or oxytocin. Main outcome measures were the rates of unplanned cesarean section and neonatal and maternal mortality or serious morbidity. RESULTS: 153 (41.5%) were induced by prostaglandin (prostaglandin group) and 215 (58.5%) were induced by amniotomy and/or oxytocin alone (no prostaglandin group). Induction using prostaglandin was more common in countries with a low perinatal mortality rate <10/1000 (45.7 versus 32.5%, p = 0.02). Cesarean section rates were similar in the two groups: 62/153 (40.5%) in the prostaglandin group and 87/215 (40.5%) in the no prostaglandin group (odds ratio 1, 95% CI 0.65-1.5). Nulliparity, late maternal age, non-cephalic presentation of twin B and high country's perinatal mortality rate were found to be independently associated with the induction to end with an unplanned cesarean section. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The need for cervical ripening by prostaglandin had no effect on the incidence of cesarean delivery or an abnormal outcome. There is a significant risk of unplanned cesarean section independent of chosen induction method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Register (identifier ISRCTN74420086 ; December 9, 2003) and retrospectively registered at the www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT 00187369 ; September 12, 2005).

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Appendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed. METHODS: Multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5-16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12 hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (> or <48 hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1 year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children. DISCUSSION: The APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016.