Applying clinical decision aids for the assessment and management of febrile infants presenting to emergency care in the UK and Ireland: Febrile Infant Diagnostic Assessment and Outcome (FIDO) Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Febrile infants 90 days and younger are at risk of invasive bacterial infections (bacteraemia and meningitis) and urinary tract infections. Together this is previously termed serious bacterial infection with an incidence of approximately 10-20%. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance advocates a cautious approach with most infants requiring septic screening, parenteral broad-spectrum antibiotics and hospital admission. Internationally, variations exist in the approach to febrile infants, with European and North American guidance advocating a tailored approach based on clinical features and biomarker testing. None of the available international clinical decision aids (CDAs) has been validated in the UK and Irish cohorts. The aim of the Febrile Infant Diagnostic Assessment and Outcome (FIDO) Study is to prospectively validate a range of CDAs in a UK and Irish population including CDAs that use procalcitonin testing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FIDO Study is a prospective multicentre mixed-methods cohort study conducted in UK and Irish hospitals. All infants aged 90 days and younger presenting with fever or history of fever (≥38°C) are eligible for inclusion. Infants will receive standard emergency clinical care without delay. Clinical data and blood samples will be collected, and consent will be obtained at the earliest appropriate opportunity using research without prior consent methodology. The performance and cost-effectiveness of CDAs will be assessed. An embedded qualitative study will explore clinician and caregiver views on different approaches to care and perceptions of risk. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was reviewed and approved by the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland-Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee B, Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care Scotland, and Children's Health Ireland Research and Ethics Committee Ireland. The results of this study will be presented at academic conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05259683.

Amoxicillin duration and dose for community-acquired pneumonia in children: the CAP-IT factorial non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the optimal dose and duration of amoxicillin treatment for community-acquired pneumonia in children. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy, safety and impact on antimicrobial resistance of shorter (3-day) and longer (7-day) treatment with amoxicillin at both a lower and a higher dose at hospital discharge in children with uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: A multicentre randomised double-blind 2 × 2 factorial non-inferiority trial in secondary care in the UK and Ireland. SETTING: Paediatric emergency departments, paediatric assessment/observation units and inpatient wards. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged > 6 months, weighing 6-24 kg, with a clinical diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia, in whom treatment with amoxicillin as the sole antibiotic was planned on discharge. INTERVENTIONS: Oral amoxicillin syrup at a dose of 35-50 mg/kg/day compared with a dose of 70-90 mg/kg/day, and 3 compared with 7 days' duration. Children were randomised simultaneously to each of the two factorial arms in a 1 : 1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was clinically indicated systemic antibacterial treatment prescribed for respiratory tract infection (including community-acquired pneumonia), other than trial medication, up to 28 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included severity and duration of parent/guardian-reported community-acquired pneumonia symptoms, drug-related adverse events (including thrush, skin rashes and diarrhoea), antimicrobial resistance and adherence to trial medication. RESULTS: A total of 824 children were recruited from 29 hospitals. Ten participants received no trial medication and were excluded. Participants [median age 2.5 (interquartile range 1.6-2.7) years; 52% male] were randomised to either 3 (n = 413) or 7 days (n = 401) of trial medication at either lower (n = 410) or higher (n = 404) doses. There were 51 (12.5%) and 49 (12.5%) primary end points in the 3- and 7-day arms, respectively (difference 0.1%, 90% confidence interval -3.8% to 3.9%) and 51 (12.6%) and 49 (12.4%) primary end points in the low- and high-dose arms, respectively (difference 0.2%, 90% confidence interval -3.7% to 4.0%), both demonstrating non-inferiority. Resolution of cough was faster in the 7-day arm than in the 3-day arm for cough (10 days vs. 12 days) (p = 0.040), with no difference in time to resolution of other symptoms. The type and frequency of adverse events and rate of colonisation by penicillin-non-susceptible pneumococci were comparable between arms. LIMITATIONS: End-of-treatment swabs were not taken, and 28-day swabs were collected in only 53% of children. We focused on phenotypic penicillin resistance testing in pneumococci in the nasopharynx, which does not describe the global impact on the microflora. Although 21% of children did not attend the final 28-day visit, we obtained data from general practitioners for the primary end point on all but 3% of children. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic retreatment, adverse events and nasopharyngeal colonisation by penicillin-non-susceptible pneumococci were similar with the higher and lower amoxicillin doses and the 3- and 7-day treatments. Time to resolution of cough and sleep disturbance was slightly longer in children taking 3 days' amoxicillin, but time to resolution of all other symptoms was similar in both arms. FUTURE WORK: Antimicrobial resistance genotypic studies are ongoing, including whole-genome sequencing and shotgun metagenomics, to fully characterise the effect of amoxicillin dose and duration on antimicrobial resistance. The analysis of a randomised substudy comparing parental electronic and paper diary entry is also ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76888927, EudraCT 2016-000809-36 and CTA 00316/0246/001-0006. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pneumonia (an acute lung infection) is a common diagnosis in young children worldwide. To cure this, some children are given antibiotics, but we do not currently know the best amount (dose) to give and the ideal number of days (duration) of treatment. Taking antibiotics causes changes in bacteria, making them more resistant to treatment. This may be affected by the dose and duration, and is important because resistant bacteria are harder to treat and could spread to other people. Amoxicillin is the most common antibiotic treatment for children with pneumonia. CAP-IT (Community-Acquired Pneumonia: a protocol for a randomIsed controlled Trial) tested if lower doses and shorter durations of amoxicillin are as good as higher doses and longer durations, and whether or not these affect the presence of resistant bacteria. In total, 824 children in the UK and Ireland with pneumonia participated. They received either high- or low-dose amoxicillin for 3 or 7 days following discharge from hospital. To ensure that neither doctors nor parents were influenced by knowing which group a child was in, we included dummy drugs (placebo). We measured how often children were given more antibiotics for respiratory infections in the 4 weeks after starting the trial medicine. To check for resistant bacteria, a nose swab was collected before starting treatment and again after 4 weeks. One in every eight participating children was given additional antibiotics. We found no important difference in this proportion between 3 days and 7 days of amoxicillin treatment, or between lower or higher doses. Although children's coughs took slightly longer to go away when they received only 3 days of antibiotics, rash was reported slightly more often in children taking 7 days of antibiotics. There was no effect of dose of amoxicillin on any of the symptom measurements. No effect of duration of treatment or dose was observed for antibiotic resistance in bacteria living in the nose and throat.

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network: A Decade of Global Research Cooperation in Pediatric Emergency Care.

OBJECTIVES: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in pediatric emergency care to organize globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks. METHODS: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network has grown from 5- to 8-member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed, and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children. RESULTS: Beginning as a pandemic response with a high-quality retrospective case-controlled study of H1N1 influenza risk factors, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomized controlled trials. As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In light of the ongoing need for translation of research knowledge into equitable clinical practice and to promote health equity, PERN is committed to a coordinated international effort to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of common and treatable acute conditions in all emergency department settings. CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network's successes with global research, measured by prospective observational and interventional studies, mean that the network can now move to improve its ability to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice. Achieving this goal will involve focus in 4 areas: (1) expanding the capacity for global randomized controlled trials; (2) deepening the focus on implementation science; (3) increasing attention to healthcare disparities and their origins, with growing momentum toward equity; and (4) expanding PERN's global reach through addition of sites and networks from resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN will be able to build on successes to face the challenges ahead and meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.

Levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin for second-line emergency treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Convulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children. Its management is important to avoid or minimise neurological morbidity and death. The current first-choice second-line drug is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), for which there is no robust scientific evidence. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) is the more clinically effective intravenous second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus and to help better inform its management. DESIGN: A multicentre parallel-group randomised open-label superiority trial with a nested mixed-method study to assess recruitment and research without prior consent. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 30 paediatric emergency departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Participants aged 6 months to 17 years 11 months, who were presenting with convulsive status epilepticus and were failing to respond to first-line treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) or intravenous phenytoin (20 mg/kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - time from randomisation to cessation of all visible signs of convulsive status epilepticus. Secondary outcomes - further anticonvulsants to manage the convulsive status epilepticus after the initial agent, the need for rapid sequence induction owing to ongoing convulsive status epilepticus, admission to critical care and serious adverse reactions. RESULTS: Between 17 July 2015 and 7 April 2018, 286 participants were randomised, treated and consented. A total of 152 participants were allocated to receive levetiracetam and 134 participants to receive phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) participants who were allocated to levetiracetam and 86 (64%) participants who were allocated to phenytoin. Median time from randomisation to convulsive status epilepticus cessation was 35 (interquartile range 20-not assessable) minutes in the levetiracetam group and 45 (interquartile range 24-not assessable) minutes in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.60; p = 0.2). Results were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses, including time from treatment commencement to convulsive status epilepticus termination and competing risks. One phenytoin-treated participant experienced serious adverse reactions. LIMITATIONS: First, this was an open-label trial. A blinded design was considered too complex, in part because of the markedly different infusion rates of the two drugs. Second, there was subjectivity in the assessment of 'cessation of all signs of continuous, rhythmic clonic activity' as the primary outcome, rather than fixed time points to assess convulsive status epilepticus termination. However, site training included simulated demonstration of seizure cessation. Third, the time point of randomisation resulted in convulsive status epilepticus termination prior to administration of trial treatment in some cases. This affected both treatment arms equally and had been prespecified at the design stage. Last, safety measures were a secondary outcome, but the trial was not powered to demonstrate difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Levetiracetam was not statistically superior to phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus termination rate, time taken to terminate convulsive status epilepticus or frequency of serious adverse reactions. The results suggest that it may be an alternative to phenytoin in the second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. Simple trial design, bespoke site training and effective leadership were found to facilitate practitioner commitment to the trial and its success. We provide a framework to optimise recruitment discussions in paediatric emergency medicine trials. FUTURE WORK: Future work should include a meta-analysis of published studies and the possible sequential use of levetiracetam and phenytoin or sodium valproate in the second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22567894 and European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT number 2014-002188-13. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Most epileptic tonic­clonic seizures, also called convulsions, last for < 4 minutes and stop spontaneously. A convulsion that lasts for > 5 minutes is called convulsive status epilepticus. This may cause neurological abnormalities or, rarely, death. There is good scientific evidence for the best first-line medicine, called a benzodiazepine, to stop convulsive status epilepticus. When a benzodiazepine has not stopped status, a second-line medicine is given. The usual second-line medicine, which has been used for > 50 years, is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA). However, it stops status in only half of children. It must be given slowly because it can cause unpleasant and potentially serious side effects. A new medicine called levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) may be more effective. It seems to have less serious side effects than phenytoin. However, there is no good scientific evidence as to whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is better. A randomised controlled trial is the best scientific way to decide which of these two medicines is better. The Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children (EcLiPSE) trial was a randomised controlled trial that compared levetiracetam with phenytoin. A total of 152 children were randomised to receive levetiracetam and a total of 134 children were randomised to receive phenytoin. Research without prior consent was shown to be acceptable to parents, doctors and nurses. Parents' consent to use their child's data and continue in the trial was provided after the emergency situation was resolved. Convulsive status epilepticus stopped in 70.4% of the levetiracetam-treated children and in 64% of the phenytoin-treated children. The median time to status stopping was 35 minutes in the levetiracetam-treated children and 45 minutes in the phenytoin-treated children. Only one participant on phenytoin (vs. none on levetiracetam) experienced serious side effects that were thought to be caused by their treatment. None of the results showed any statistically significant or meaningful difference between levetiracetam and phenytoin. However, the results suggest that levetiracetam might be an alternative choice to phenytoin.

Anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops to reduce antibiotic consumption in children with acute otitis media: the CEDAR RCT.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing in children. Options for improved pain control may influence antibiotic prescribing and consumption. OBJECTIVE: The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) investigated whether or not providing anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops reduced antibiotic consumption in children with AOM. Secondary objectives included pain control and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, parallel-group (two-group initially, then three-group) trial. SETTING: Primary care practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 1- to 10-year-old children presenting within 1 week of suspected AOM onset with ear pain during the preceding 24 hours and not requiring immediate antibiotics. Participating children were logged into the study and allocated using a remote randomisation service. INTERVENTIONS: Two-group trial - unblinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus usual care. Three-group trial - blinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus placebo ear drops and unblinded comparison with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was parent-reported antibiotic use by the child over 8 days following enrolment. Secondary measures included ear pain at day 2 and NHS and societal costs over 8 days. RESULTS: Owing to a delay in provision of the placebo drops, the recruitment period was shortened and most participants were randomly allocated to the two-group study (n = 74) rather than the three-group study (n = 32). Comparing active drops with usual care in the combined two-group and three-group studies, 1 out of 39 (3%) children allocated to the active drops group and 11 out of 38 (29%) children allocated to the usual-care group consumed antibiotics in the 8 days following enrolment [unadjusted odds ratio 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.55; p = 0.009; adjusted for delayed prescribing odds ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.87; p = 0.035]. A total of 43% (3/7) of patients in the placebo drops group consumed antibiotics by day 8, compared with 0% (0/10) of the three-group study active drops groups (p = 0.051). The economic analysis of NHS costs (£12.66 for active drops and £11.36 for usual care) leads to an estimated cost of £5.19 per antibiotic prescription avoided, but with a high degree of uncertainty. A reduction in ear pain at day 2 in the placebo group (n = 7) compared with the active drops group (n = 10) (adjusted difference in means 0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 2.79; p = 0.51) is consistent with chance. No adverse events were reported in children receiving active drops. LIMITATIONS: Estimated treatment effects are imprecise because the sample size target was not met. It is not clear if delayed prescriptions of an antibiotic were written prior to randomisation. Few children received placebo drops, which hindered the investigation of ear pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that reduced antibiotic use can be achieved in children with AOM by combining a no or delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy with anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops. Whether or not the active drops relieved ear pain was not established. FUTURE WORK: The observed reduction in antibiotic consumption following the prescription of ear drops requires replication in a larger study. Future work should establish if the effect of ear drops is due to pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09599764. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Alastair D Hay was funded by a NIHR Research Professorship (funding identifier NIHR-RP-02-12-012).

Ear infections are common in children < 10 years of age, with 40% of these children suffering from an ear infection at least once per year. During the infection, germs multiply in the confined space of the middle ear, resulting in a build-up of pressure that pushes on and stretches the ear drum. This causes severe pain and distress to the child, which in turn leads to disrupted family life. Although there is world-class evidence showing that antibiotics do not help, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advises against their use, > 85% of UK children with middle ear infections (acute otitis media) are prescribed an antibiotic, which is a higher percentage than for any other childhood infection. Antibiotics do not treat the child's pain and, in most cases, they do not help to treat the infection (because many ear infections are caused by viruses that do not respond to antibiotics), but they can cause side effects (such as diarrhoea) and increase the problem of antibiotic resistance, which is a major public health concern. The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) wanted to find out whether or not painkilling ear drops [benzocaine­phenazone otic solution (Auralgan^®) currently manufactured by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare(Pfizer Inc., New York, NY USA)] can, by treating children's ear pain, reduce the number of parents giving their children antibiotics for acute otitis media. Children were given the painkilling drops, placebo (dummy) drops or usual care. The study found that, if the children were given the painkilling drops, significantly fewer of them were given antibiotics. Unfortunately, there were not enough children who took part in the study to change advice on how doctors treat ear infections. However, these results suggest that ear drops help reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and should be investigated in a further larger study.

Efficacy, safety and impact on antimicrobial resistance of duration and dose of amoxicillin treatment for young children with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: a protocol for a randomIsed controlled Trial (CAP-IT).

INTRODUCTION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common indication for antibiotic treatment in young children. Data are limited regarding the ideal dose and duration of amoxicillin, leading to practice variation which may impact on treatment failure and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Community-Acquired Pneumonia: a randomIsed controlled Trial (CAP-IT) aims to determine the optimal amoxicillin treatment strategies for CAP in young children in relation to efficacy and AMR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CAP-IT trial is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2×2 factorial non-inferiority trial of amoxicillin dose and duration. Children are enrolled in paediatric emergency and inpatient environments, and randomised to receive amoxicillin 70-90 or 35-50 mg/kg/day for 3 or 7 days following hospital discharge. The primary outcome is systemic antibacterial treatment for respiratory tract infection (including CAP) other than trial medication up to 4 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse events, severity and duration of parent-reported CAP symptoms, adherence and antibiotic resistance. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat. Assuming a 15% primary outcome event rate, 8% non-inferiority margin assessed against an upper one-sided 95% CI, 90% power and 15% loss to follow-up, 800 children will be enrolled to demonstrate non-inferiority for the primary outcome for each of duration and dose. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CAP-IT trial and relevant materials were approved by the National Research Ethics Service (reference: 16/LO/0831; 30 June 2016). The CAP-IT trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and in a report published by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Oral and poster presentations will be given to national and international conferences, and participating families will be notified of the results if they so wish. Key messages will be constructed in partnership with families, and social media will be used in their dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76888927, EudraCT2016-000809-36.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. METHODS: This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894. FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). INTERPRETATION: Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Criteria led discharge of wheezy children from a short stay assessment unit.

Implementation and evaluation of criteria led discharge from a short stay assessment unit for children with wheeze.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Clinical Decision Rules PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE With Usual Care for the Management of Pediatric Head Injury.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of 3 clinical decision rules in comparison to Australian and New Zealand usual care: the Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE), the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN), and the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH). METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed from the Australian health care system perspective to compare costs and outcomes of the 3 clinical decision rules compared with Australian and New Zealand usual care. The study involved multicenter recruitment from 10 Australian and New Zealand hospitals; recruitment was based on the Australian Pediatric Head Injury Rules Study involving 18,913 children younger than 18 years and with a head injury, and with Glasgow Coma Scale score 13 to 15 on presentation to emergency departments (EDs). We determined the cost-effectiveness of the 3 clinical decision rules compared with usual care. RESULTS: Usual care, CHALICE, PECARN, and CATCH strategies cost on average AUD $6,390, $6,423, $6,433, and $6,457 per patient, respectively. Usual care was more effective and less costly than all other strategies and is therefore the dominant strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that when simulated 1,000 times, usual care dominated all clinical decision rules in 61%, 62%, and 60% of simulations (CHALICE, PECARN, and CATCH, respectively). The difference in cost between all rules was less than $36 (95% confidence interval -$7 to $77) and the difference in quality-adjusted life-years was less than 0.00097 (95% confidence interval 0.0015 to 0.00044). Results remained robust under sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: This evaluation demonstrated that the 3 published international pediatric head injury clinical decision rules were not more cost-effective than usual care in Australian and New Zealand tertiary EDs. Understanding the usual care context and the likely cost-effectiveness is useful before investing in implementation of clinical decision rules or incorporation into a guideline.

Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: There has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) of fluid bolus therapy in paediatric sepsis in the developed world despite evidence that excess fluid may be associated with harm. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) trial - a RCT comparing restricted fluid bolus (10 ml/kg) with current practice (20 ml/kg) in children with septic shock in the UK. DESIGN: (1) Qualitative feasibility study exploring parents' views about the pilot RCT. (2) Pilot RCT over a 9-month period, including integrated parental and staff perspectives study. SETTING: (1) Recruitment took place across four NHS hospitals in England and on social media. (2) Recruitment took place across 13 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: (1) Parents of children admitted to a UK hospital with presumed septic shock in the previous 3 years. (2) Children presenting to an emergency department with clinical suspicion of infection and shock after 20 ml/kg of fluid. Exclusion criteria were receipt of > 20 ml/kg of fluid, conditions requiring fluid restriction and the patient not for full active treatment (i.e. palliative care plan in place). Site staff and parents of children in the pilot were recruited to the perspectives study. INTERVENTIONS: (1) None. (2) Children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to 10- or 20-ml/kg fluid boluses every 15 minutes for 4 hours if in shock. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Acceptability of FiSh trial, proposed consent model and potential outcome measures. (2) Outcomes were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between the groups, and collection and distribution of potential outcome measures. RESULTS: (1) Twenty-one parents were interviewed. All would have consented for the pilot study. (2) Seventy-five children were randomised, 40 to the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 35 to the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Two children were withdrawn. Although the anticipated recruitment rate was achieved, there was variability across the sites. Fifty-nine per cent of children in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 74% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group required only a single trial bolus before shock resolved. The volume of fluid (in ml/kg) was 35% lower in the first hour and 44% lower over the 4-hour period in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Fluid boluses were delivered per protocol (volume and timing) for 79% of participants in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and for 55% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group, mainly as a result of delivery not being completed within 15 minutes. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfers, and days alive and PICU free did not differ significantly between the groups. Two adverse events were reported in each group. A questionnaire was completed by 45 parents, 20 families and seven staff were interviewed and 20 staff participated in focus groups. Although a minority of site staff lacked equipoise in favour of more restricted boluses, all supported the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Even though a successful feasibility and pilot RCT were conducted, participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. FUTURE WORK: Further observational work is required to determine the epidemiology of severe childhood infection in the UK in the postvaccine era. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15244462. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The "Petechiae in children" (PiC) study: evaluating potential clinical decision rules for the management of feverish children with non-blanching rashes, including the role of point of care testing for Procalcitonin & Neisseria meningitidis DNA - a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Children commonly present to Emergency Departments (ED) with a non-blanching rash in the context of a feverish illness. While most have a self-limiting viral illness, this combination of features potentially represents invasive serious bacterial infection, including meningococcal septicaemia. A paucity of definitive diagnostic testing creates diagnostic uncertainty for clinicians; a safe approach mandates children without invasive disease are often admitted and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conversely, a cohort of children still experience significant mortality and morbidity due to late diagnosis. Current management is based on evidence which predates (i) the introduction of meningococcal B and C vaccines and (ii) availability of point of care testing (POCT) for procalcitonin (PCT) and Neisseria meningitidis DNA. METHODS: This PiC study is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating (i) rapid POCT for PCT and N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) performance of existing clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for feverish children with non-blanching rash. All children presenting to the ED with a history of fever and non-blanching rash are eligible. Children are managed as normal, with detailed prospective collection of data pertinent to CPGs, and a throat swab and blood used for rapid POCT. The study is running over 2 years and aims to recruit 300 children. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Report on the diagnostic accuracy of POCT for (i) N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) PCT in the diagnosis of early MD Report on the diagnostic accuracy of POCT for PCT in the diagnosis of Invasive bacterial infection Secondary objectives: Evaluate the performance accuracy of existing CPGs Evaluate cost-effectiveness of available diagnostic testing strategies Explore views of (i) families and (ii) clinicians on research without prior consent using qualitative methodology Report on the aetiology of NBRs in children with a feverish illness DISCUSSION: The PiC study will provide important information for policy makers regarding the value of POCT and on the utility and cost of emerging diagnostic strategies. The study will also identify which elements of existing CPGs may merit inclusion in any future study to derive clinical decision rules for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03378258 . Retrospectively registered on December 19, 2017.