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.

Why some children hospitalized for pneumonia do not consult with a general practitioner before the day of hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Early consultation in primary care may provide an opportunity for early intervention in children developing pneumonia, but little is known about why some children do not consult a general practitioner (GP) before hospitalization. OBJECTIVES: To identify differences between children who consulted a GP and children who did not consult a GP before the day of hospital presentation with pneumonia or empyema. METHODS: Carers of children aged six months to 16 years presenting to hospital with pneumonia or empyema completed a questionnaire, with a subset participating in an interview to identify physical, organizational and psychological barriers to consultation. Responses from those who had consulted a GP before the day of hospital presentation were compared with those who had not on a range of medical, social and environmental variables. RESULTS: Fifty seven (38%) of 151 participants had not consulted a GP before the day of hospital presentation. On multivariate analysis, illness duration ≥ 3 days (odds ratio [OR] 4.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67-11.39), prior antibiotic use (OR: 10.35, 95% CI: 2.16-49.55) and home ownership (OR: 3.17, 95% CI: 1.07-9.37) were significantly associated with early GP consultation (P < 0.05). Interviews with 28 carers whose children had not seen a GP before the day of presentation revealed that most had not considered it and/or did not think their child's initial symptoms were serious or unusual; 11 (39.3%) had considered consulting a GP but reported barriers to access. CONCLUSION: Lack of early GP consultation was strongly associated with rapid evolution of pneumonia.

A cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine use by children and adolescents attending the University Hospital of Wales.

BACKGROUND: A high prevalence of CAM use has been documented worldwide in children and adolescents with chronic illnesses. Only a small number of studies, however, have been conducted in the United Kingdom. The primary aim of this study was to examine the use of CAM by children and adolescents with a wide spectrum of acute and chronic medical problems in a tertiary children's hospital in Wales. METHODS: Structured personal interviews of 100 inpatients and 400 outpatients were conducted over a 2-month period in 2004. The yearly and monthly prevalence of CAM use were assessed and divided into medicinal and non-medicinal therapies. This use was correlated with socio-demographic factors. RESULTS: There were 580 patients approached to attain 500 completed questionnaires. The use of at least one type of CAM in the past year was 41% (95% CI 37-46%) and past month 26% (95% CI 23-30%). The yearly prevalence of medicinal CAM was 38% and non-medicinal 12%. The users were more likely to have parents that were tertiary educated (mother: OR = 2.3, 95%CI 1.6-3.3) and a higher family income (Pearson chi-square for trend = 14.3, p < 0.001). The most common medicinal types of CAM were non-prescribed vitamins and minerals (23%) and herbal therapies (10%). Aromatherapy (5%) and reflexology (3%) were the most prevalent non-medicinal CAMs. None of the inpatient medical records documented CAM use in the past month. Fifty-two percent of medicinal and 38% of non-medicinal CAM users felt their doctor did not need to know about CAM use. Sixty-six percent of CAM users did not disclose the fact to their doctor. Three percent of all participants were using herbs and prescription medicines concurrently. CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of CAM use in our study population. Paediatricians need to ensure that they ask parents and older children about their CAM usage and advise caution with regard to potential interactions.CAM is a rapidly expanding industry that requires further evidence-based research to provide more information on the effectiveness and safety of many CAM therapies. Statutory or self-regulation of the different segments of the industry is important. Integration of CAM with allopathic western medicine through education and better communication is slowly progressing.

Lack of agreement in classification of the severity of acute asthma between emergency physician assessment and classification using the National Asthma Council Australia guidelines (1998).

AIMS: To determine the level of agreement in classification of the severity of acute asthma at presentation to the emergency department, between emergency physician global assessment and severity classification according to the National Asthma Council Guidelines, Australia 1998 (NACG). METHODS: Prospective observational study in emergency departments throughout Australia, participating in the Asthma Snapshot 2000 project. Patients between the ages of one and 60 years presenting to participating emergency departments with acute asthma between 21 August and 3 September 2000 were included. Data collected were emergency physician global assessment of asthma severity and severity classification according to the National Asthma Council Guidelines and disposition. RESULTS: Five hundred and five subjects had completed data for emergency physician assessment of severity and for calculation of severity classification according to the National Asthma Council Guidelines. Weighted kappa for agreement in classification was 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.40, 0.56). Emergency physicians assess asthma as less severe compared to the National Asthma Council Guidelines assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between physician assessment of severity of acute asthma and severity classification according to National Asthma Council Guidelines is only moderate. This may have implications in treatment and disposition. This also suggests that emergency physicians may be using other methods to classify acute asthma than the National Asthma Council Guidelines classification.