Pediatric drug data in Canadian drug monographs: a descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimal drug therapy in children relies on the availability of pediatric-specific information. We aimed to describe the current status of pediatric pharmacotherapy data in monographs of new drugs approved by Health Canada. METHODS: In this descriptive analysis, we reviewed the quality and quantity of monographs of new drugs approved by Health Canada between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2016. We excluded drugs withdrawn from the Canadian market and drugs with primary indications irrelevant to pediatrics. We determined the percentage of included drug monographs that listed pediatric-specific information. RESULTS: During this study period, Health Canada approved 281 drugs, 270 of which met our inclusion criteria. Pediatric-specific information and indication were present in 127 (47.1%) and 75 (27.8%) of the drug monographs, respectively. Of all pediatric age groups, neonates had the lowest number of indications listed in the product monographs (7, 2.6%). Only 9 (60%) oral drugs indicated for children 6 years of age or younger were available in child-friendly, age-appropriate dosage forms. INTERPRETATION: Most of the new drugs approved by Health Canada do not contain pediatric or neonatal indications in their product monographs, and therefore, are used "off-label." Regulatory mechanisms are required to promote both neonatal and pediatric drug development and submission of available pediatric data by manufacturers to Health Canada.

PICU-Based Rehabilitation and Outcomes Assessment: A Survey of Pediatric Critical Care Physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Characterize current practices for PICU-based rehabilitation, and physician perceptions and attitudes, barriers, resources, and outcome assessment in contemporary PICU settings. DESIGN: International, self-administered, quantitative, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Online survey distributed from March 2017 to April 2017. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Pediatric critical care physicians who subscribed to email distribution lists of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators, the Pediatric Neurocritical Care Research Group, or the Prevalence of Acute Critical Neurological Disease in Children: A Global Epidemiological Assessment study group, and visitors to the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies website. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 170 subjects who began the survey, 148 completed it. Of those who completed the optional respondent information, most reported working in an academic medical setting and were located in the United States. The main findings were 1) a large majority of PICU physicians reported working in institutions with no guidelines for PICU-based rehabilitation, but expressed interest in developing and implementing such guidelines; 2) despite this lack of guidelines, an overwhelming majority of respondents reported that their current practices would involve consultation of multiple rehabilitation services for each case example provided; 3) PICU physicians believed that additional research evidence is needed to determine efficacy and optimal implementation of PICU-based rehabilitation; 4) PICU physicians reported significant barriers to implementation of PICU-based rehabilitation across centers; and 5) low routine assessment of long-term functional outcomes of PICU patients, although some centers have developed multidisciplinary follow-up programs. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians lack PICU-based rehabilitation guidelines despite great interest and current practices involving a high degree of PICU-based rehabilitation consultation. Data are needed to identify best practices and necessary resources in the delivery of ICU-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation and long-term functional outcomes assessment to optimize recovery of children and families affected by critical illness.

High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials in Pediatric Critical Care: A Survey of Barriers and Facilitators.

OBJECTIVES: High-quality, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are needed to inform the care of critically ill children. Unfortunately, such evidence is not always available. Our objective was to identify barriers and facilitators of conducting high-quality randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care, from the perspective of trialists in this field. DESIGN: Self-administered online survey. Respondents rated the importance of barriers and effectiveness of facilitators on seven-point scales. SETTING: Authors of 294 pediatric critical care randomized controlled trials (published 1986 to June 2015). SUBJECTS: One hundred sixteen researchers from 25 countries participated. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respondents reported a median (Q1, Q3) of 21 years (15, 26 yr) of experience and 41 (36%) had authored more than one randomized controlled trial. More survey respondents, compared with nonrespondents, had published more than one trial (35% vs 26%; p = 0.002) and their trials were more often cited (median citations/yr, 2.4 vs 1.5; p < 0.001). Of the barriers listed, the five most important were primarily related to lack of funding. The five facilitators perceived as most effective were protected time for research, ability to recruit participants 24 hours per day/7 days per week, conducting randomized controlled trials in collaboration with a research network, funding from government agencies specifically for randomized controlled trials in critically ill children, and academic department support for conducting randomized controlled trials. Respondent experience and country income level were associated with differences in importance ratings for eight of 41 barriers. There were fewer such differences for facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of funding and time are major barriers to conducting pediatric critical care randomized controlled trials worldwide. Although barriers varied among country income levels, the facilitators of such trials were more consistent. In addition to increased funding, respondents identified other strategies such as research networks that are within the purview of the pediatric critical care research community, to facilitate the conduct of rigorous randomized controlled trials.

Making decisions about medications in critically ill children: a survey of Canadian pediatric critical care clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Changing clinician practice in pediatric critical care is often difficult. Tailored knowledge translation interventions may be more effective than other types of interventions. To inform the design of tailored interventions, the primary objective of this survey was to describe the importance of specific factors that influence physicians and pharmacists when they make decisions about medications in critically ill children. DESIGN: In this postal survey, respondents used 7-point scales to rate the importance of specific factors that influence their decisions in the following scenarios: corticosteroids for shock, intensive insulin therapy, stress ulcer prophylaxis, surfactant for acute respiratory distress syndrome, and sedation interruption. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between the importance of specific factors influencing decision making and the scenario and respondents' practice, views, and demographics. SETTING: Canadian PICUs. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seventeen physicians and pharmacists practicing in 18 PICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 61%. The three factors reported to most strongly influence clinician decision making overall were: severity of illness (mean [SD] 5.8 [1.8]), physiologic rationale (5.2 [1.3]), and adverse effects (5.1 [1.9]). Factors least likely to influence decision making were drug costs (2.0 [1.5]), unit policies (2.9 [1.9]), and non-critical care randomized controlled trials (3.1 [1.9]). The relative importance of 8 of the 10 factors varied significantly among the five scenarios: only randomized controlled trials in critically ill children and other clinical research did not vary. Clinician characteristics associated with the greatest difference in importance ratings were: frequent use of the intervention in that scenario (seven factors), profession (five factors), and respondents' assessment of the quality of evidence (five factors). CONCLUSIONS: The relative importance of many factors that clinicians consider when making decisions about medications varies by demographics, and depends on the clinical problem. This variability should be considered in quality improvement and knowledge translation interventions in this setting.

Barriers and facilitators of thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical intensive care unit patients: a multicenter survey.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify the self-reported barriers to and facilitators of prescribing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted an interviewer-administered survey of 4 individuals per ICU (the ICU director, a bedside pharmacist, a thromboprophylaxis research coordinator, and physician site investigator) regarding LMWH thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical patients in 27 ICUs in Canada and the United States. Items were generated by the research team and adapted from previous surveys, audits, qualitative studies, and quality improvement research. Respondents rated the barriers to LMWH use, facilitators (effectiveness, affordability, and acceptability thereof), and perceptions regarding LMWH use. RESULTS: Respondents had 14.5 (SD, 7.7) years of ICU experience (response rate, 99%). The 5 most common barriers in descending order were as follows: drug acquisition cost, fear of bleeding, lack of resident education, concern about bioaccumulation in renal failure, and habit. The top 5 rated facilitators were preprinted orders, education, daily reminders, audit and feedback, and local quality improvement committee endorsement. Centers using preprinted orders (mean difference [P<.01]) and computerized physician order entry (P<.01) compared with those centers not using those tools reported higher affordability for these 2 facilitators. Compared with physicians and pharmacists, research coordinators considered ICU-specific audit and feedback of thromboprophylaxis rates to be a more effective, acceptable, and affordable facilitator (odds ratio, 6.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-22.53; P<.01). Facilitator acceptability ratings were similar within centers but differed across centers (P≤.01). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter survey found several barriers to use of LMWH including cost, concern about bleeding, and lack of resident knowledge of effectiveness. The diversity of reported facilitators suggests that large scale programs may address generic barriers but also need site-specific interprofessional knowledge translation activities.

Rapid, easy, and cheap randomization: prospective evaluation in a study cohort.

BACKGROUND: When planning a randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigators must select randomization and allocation procedures based upon a variety of factors. While third party randomization is cited as being among the most desirable randomization processes, many third party randomization procedures are neither feasible nor cost-effective for small RCTs, including pilot RCTs. In this study we present our experience with a third party randomization and allocation procedure that utilizes current technology to achieve randomization in a rapid, reliable, and cost-effective manner. METHODS: This method was developed by the investigators for use in a small 48-participant parallel group RCT with four study arms. As a nested study, the reliability of this randomization procedure was prospectively evaluated in this cohort. The primary outcome of this nested study was the proportion of subjects for whom allocation information was obtained by the Research Assistant within 15 min of the initial participant randomization request. A secondary outcome was the average time for communicating participant group assignment back to the Research Assistant. Descriptive information regarding any failed attempts at participant randomization as well as costs attributable to use of this method were also recorded. Statistical analyses included the calculation of simple proportions and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants were successfully randomized and group allocation instruction was received for 46 (96%) within 15 min of the Research Assistant placing the initial randomization request. Time elapsed in minutes until receipt of participant allocation instruction was Mean (SD) 3.1 +/- 3.6; Median (IQR) 2 (2,3); Range (1-20) for the entire cohort of 48. For the two participants for whom group allocation information was not received by the Research Assistant within the 15-min pass threshold, this information was obtained following a second request at 18 and 20 min, respectively. The method described here produced an email audit trail, which proved useful to the primary study. CONCLUSIONS: We report a method of third party randomization that uses current technology to operationalize randomization and allocation in a rapid, easy, and cost-effective manner. Other investigators may find this method useful, particularly for small RCTs, including pilot RCTs, on a tight budget.