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.

Multi-dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis: study Protocol for the multi-DOSE oral ondansetron for pediatric Acute GastroEnteritis (DOSE-AGE) pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options that clinicians can provide to children presenting to emergency departments with vomiting secondary to acute gastroenteritis. Based on evidence of effectiveness and safety, clinicians now routinely administer ondansetron in the emergency department to promote oral rehydration therapy success. However, clinicians are also increasingly providing multiple doses of ondansetron for home use, creating unquantified cost and health system resource use implications without any evidence to support this expanding practice. METHODS/DESIGN: DOSE-AGE is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, six-center, pragmatic clinical trial being conducted in six Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs). In September 2019 the study began recruiting children aged 6 months to 18 years with a minimum of three episodes of vomiting in the 24 h preceding enrollment, <72 h of gastroenteritis symptoms and who were administered a dose of ondansetron during their ED visit. We are recruiting 1030 children (1:1 allocation via an internet-based, third-party, randomization service) to receive a 48-h supply (i.e., six doses) of ondansetron oral solution or placebo, administered on an as-needed basis. All participants, caregivers and outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Outcome data will be collected by surveys administered to caregivers 24, 48 and 168 h following enrollment. The primary outcome is the development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis in the 7 days following the ED visit as measured by a validated clinical score (the Modified Vesikari Scale). Secondary outcomes include duration and frequency of vomiting and diarrhea, proportions of children experiencing unscheduled health care visits and intravenous rehydration, caregiver satisfaction with treatment and safety. A preplanned economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: Definitive data are lacking to guide the clinical use of post-ED visit multidose ondansetron in children with acute gastroenteritis. Usage is increasing, despite the absence of supportive evidence. The incumbent additional costs associated with use, and potential side effects such as diarrhea and repeat visits, create an urgent need to evaluate the effect and safety of multiple doses of ondansetron in children focusing on post-emergency department visit and patient-centered outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03851835. Registered on 22 February 2019.

Innovative approaches to investigator-initiated, multicentre paediatric clinical trials in Canada.

Data from clinical trials are needed to guide the safe and effective use of medicines in children. Clinical trials are challenging to design and implement in all populations, and children present additional considerations. Several regions including the UK, USA and Europe have established clinical trial infrastructure to capitalise on expertise and promote clinical trials enrolling children. Our objective is to describe the partnerships and operational considerations for the development of paediatric clinical trials infrastructure in Canada. We describe the design and conduct of four emergency room paediatric trials, with four separate sponsors, across four provinces in parallel. Operations discussed include multisite contract development, centralised risk-based data monitoring, ethical review and patient engagement. We conclude with lessons learnt, additional challenges and potential solutions to facilitate drug development for children in Canada.

Cost Consequence Analysis of Implementing the Low Risk Ankle Rule in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Implementation of the Low Risk Ankle Rule can safely reduce radiographs for children with acute ankle injuries. The main objective of this study is to examine the costs and consequences of implementing the rule. METHODS: For children aged 3 to 16 years and with an acute ankle injury, we collected data on health care provider visits, imaging, and treatment at the index emergency department (ED) visit and days 7 and 28 post-ED discharge. This was done during 3 consecutive 6-month phases at 6 EDs. After the baseline phase 1, the Low Risk Ankle Rule was introduced in phases 2 and 3 in 3 intervention EDs, but not in the 3 pair-matched control EDs. We compared the effect of the Low Risk Ankle Rule on health care and patient-paid costs, the proportion of radiographs ordered, the proportion of missed clinically important fractures, and the follow-up use of health care resources. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,151 children with ankle injuries, 1,055 at the intervention and 1,096 at the control EDs. Health care costs were $36.93 less per patient at intervention compared with control sites (P=.02). Out-of-pocket costs to the patients were $2.09 more per patient at intervention sites (P=.30). In intervention versus control sites, the main contributor to cost reduction was the 22.9% reduction in ankle radiography. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the frequency of missed clinically important fractures (0.1% versus 0.9%) or follow-up use of health care resources. CONCLUSION: Widespread implementation of the Low Risk Ankle Rule may lead to reduction of unnecessary radiographs for children and result in cost savings.

Cost-effectiveness of epinephrine and dexamethasone in children with bronchiolitis.

OBJECTIVE: Using data from the Canadian Bronchiolitis Epinephrine Steroid Trial we assessed the cost-effectiveness of treatments with epinephrine and dexamethasone for infants between 6 weeks and 12 months of age with bronchiolitis. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted from both the societal and health care system perspectives including all costs during 22 days after enrollment. The effectiveness of therapy was measured by the duration of symptoms of feeding problems, sleeping problems, coughing, and noisy breathing. Comparators were nebulized epinephrine plus oral dexamethasone, nebulized epinephrine alone, oral dexamethasone alone, and no active treatment. Uncertainty around estimates was assessed through nonparametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: The combination of nebulized epinephrine plus oral dexamethasone was dominant over the other 3 comparators in that it was both the most effective and least costly. Average societal costs were $1115 (95% credible interval [CI]: 919-1325) for the combination therapy, $1210 (95% CI: 1004-1441) for no active treatment, $1322 (95% CI: 1093-1571) for epinephrine alone, and $1360 (95% CI: 1124-1624) for dexamethasone alone. The average time to curtailment of all symptoms was 12.1 days (95% CI: 11-13) for the combination therapy, 12.7 days (95% CI: 12-13) for no active treatment, 13.0 days (95% CI: 12-14) for epinephrine alone, and 12.6 days (95% CI: 12-13) for dexamethasone alone. CONCLUSION: Treating infants with bronchiolitis with a combination of nebulized epinephrine plus oral dexamethasone is the most cost-effective treatment option, because it is the most effective in controlling symptoms and is associated with the least costs.

Absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in the management of traumatic lacerations and surgical wounds: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To complete a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare the cosmetic outcomes and complications of traumatic lacerations and surgical incisions closed with absorbable sutures versus nonabsorbable sutures. DESIGN/METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central to identify all RCTs comparing absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures that assessed cosmetic outcomes or complications. Reference lists of all identified trials were also searched. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for eligibility, extracted study data, and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third party. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-eight citations were retrieved, of which 7 met inclusion criteria. Studies were heterogeneous with respect to specific interventions and outcome measures; sample sizes ranged from 44 to 166. There was no statistically significant difference between absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures in short- or long-term cosmetic score, scar hypertrophy, infection rate, wound dehiscence, and wound redness/swelling. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests a lack of large, methodologically sound RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures. Although our analysis demonstrates that nonabsorbable sutures seem to be no better than absorbable sutures in the management of wound repair, a large methodologically sound RCT is needed to adequately answer this question.

Dating of bruises in children: an assessment of physician accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether physicians can estimate accurately the age of an accidental bruise on direct physical examination. METHODS: Children who presented to the emergency department of a children's hospital with accidental bruises of known age and origin had demographic data and information about their injury recorded. History-blinded emergency pediatricians, other physicians, and trainees (fellows, residents, and medical students) independently examined the bruised area and recorded injury characteristics and age estimation and ranked characteristics that influenced their estimation. RESULTS: Fifty children with accidental bruises were enrolled. Emergency pediatricians' accuracy of age estimation within 24 hours of actual age was 47.6%. Individual emergency pediatrician's accuracy ranged from 0% to 100%, and the interobserver reliability was poor (kappa = -0.03). Accuracy within 24 hours of actual age was 29.4% for other physicians and 36.8% for trainees, which was similar to the emergency pediatricians. Observers reported using color primarily to estimate age, followed by tenderness and then swelling; however, none of these factors was significantly correlated with accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Physician estimates of bruise age are highly inaccurate within 24 hours of the actual age of the injury. Large individual variability and poor interrater reliability also suggest that caution must be used when interpreting these estimates. This study supports earlier studies, urging extreme caution in estimating bruise age, even when such estimates are based on direct examination of the injured area.