Opioid analgesia in mechanically ventilated children: results from the multicenter Measuring Opioid Tolerance Induced by Fentanyl study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical factors associated with increased opioid dose among mechanically ventilated children in the pediatric intensive care unit. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study with 100% accrual of eligible patients. SETTING: Seven pediatric intensive care units from tertiary-care children's hospitals in the Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network. PATIENTS: Four hundred nineteen children treated with morphine or fentanyl infusions. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on opioid use, concomitant therapy, demographic and explanatory variables were collected. Significant variability occurred in clinical practices, with up to 100-fold differences in baseline opioid doses, average daily or total doses, or peak infusion rates. Opioid exposure for 7 or 14 days required doubling of the daily opioid dose in 16% patients (95% confidence interval 12%-19%) and 20% patients (95% confidence interval 16%-24%), respectively. Among patients receiving opioids for longer than 3 days (n = 225), this occurred in 28% (95% confidence interval 22%-33%) and 35% (95% confidence interval 29%-41%) by 7 or 14 days, respectively. Doubling of the opioid dose was more likely to occur following opioid infusions for 7 days or longer (odds ratio 7.9, 95% confidence interval 4.3-14.3; p < 0.001) or co-therapy with midazolam (odds ratio 5.6, 95% confidence interval 2.4-12.9; p < 0.001), and it was less likely to occur if morphine was used as the primary opioid (vs. fentanyl) (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.92; p = 0.03), for patients receiving higher initial doses (odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98; p < 0.001), or if patients had prior pediatric intensive care unit admissions (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.89; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Mechanically ventilated children require increasing opioid doses, often associated with prolonged opioid exposure or the need for additional sedation. Efforts to reduce prolonged opioid exposure and clinical practice variation may prevent the complications of opioid therapy.

Demonstration Project: Transitioning a Research Network to New Single IRB Platforms.

Since the 2016 National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandate to use a single IRB (sIRB) in multicenter research, institutions have struggled to operationalize the process. In this demonstration project, the University of Utah Trial Innovation Center assisted the Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network to transition from using individually negotiated reliance agreements and paper-based documentation to a new sIRB master agreement and an informatics platform to capture reliance documentation. Lessons learned that can guide other academic institutions and IRBs as they operationalize sIRBs included the need for sites to understand what type of engagement or reliance is required and their need to understand the difference between reliance and activation. Requirements around local review remain poorly understood. Further research is needed to determine approaches that can achieve the NIH vision of reviews becoming more efficient and improving study start-up times, relieving administrative burden while advancing human research protections.

Implementing a Central IRB Model in a Multicenter Research Network.

Implementing the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) new single institutional review board (IRB) policy has caused a paradigm shift in IRB review across the country. IRBs and human research protection programs are looking more closely at their processes for ceding review and developing procedures to handle local review when relying on a single IRB. This article describes an NIH-funded network that proactively instituted a central IRB (CIRB) in 2012, anticipating the NIH future mandate. Lessons learned are described. There was a steep learning curve for IRBs and participating sites. IRB submission workload burden shifted from study teams to the data coordinating center, which created new workflow challenges, especially preparing hundreds of consent documents centrally. Despite difficulties encountered with CIRB review, this network is now fully functioning under a CIRB model. Further review and experience are needed to determine whether this shift in IRB review has eliminated duplicative review or regulatory burden from study teams.