Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for critical asthma: A single center, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the use of dexamethasone for pediatric critical asthma is limited. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone among children hospitalized in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) for critical asthma. METHODS: A prospective, single center, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, nonrandomized trial among children ages 5-17 years hospitalized within the PICU from April 2019 to December 2021 for critical asthma consented to receive methylprednisolone (standard care) or dexamethasone (intervention) at a 2:1 allocation ratio, respectively. The intervention arm received intravenous dexamethasone 0.25 mg/kg/dose (max: 15 mg/dose) every 6 h for 48 h and the standard care arm intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg/dose every 6 h (max dose: 60 mg/dose) for 5 days. Study endpoints were clinical efficacy (i.e., length of stay [LOS], continuous albuterol duration, and a composite of adjunctive asthma interventions) and safety (i.e., corticosteroid-related adverse events). RESULTS: Ninety-two participants were analyzed of whom 31 were allocated to the intervention arm and 61 the standard care arm. No differences in demographics, clinical characteristics, or acute/chronic asthma severity indices were observed. Regarding efficacy and safety endpoints, no differences in hospital LOS, continuous albuterol duration, adjunctive asthma intervention rates, or corticosteroid-related adverse events were noted. Compared to the intervention arm, participants in the standard care arm more frequently were prescribed corticosteroids at discharge (72% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among children hospitalized for critical asthma, dexamethasone appears safe and warrants further investigation to fully assess clinical efficacy and potential advantages over commonly applied agents such as methylprednisolone.

Dexamethasone for Pediatric Critical Asthma: A Multicenter Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are vital to critical asthma management. While intravenous methylprednisolone is routinely used in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) setting, recent data supports dexamethasone as an alternative. Using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) registry, we assessed trends and variation in corticosteroid prescribing among children hospitalized for critical asthma. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study using PHIS data among children 3-17 years of age admitted for critical asthma from 2011 through 2019. Primary outcomes were corticosteroid prescribing rates by year and participating sites. Exploratory outcomes were corticosteroid-related adverse effects, rates of adjunctive pharmaceutical and respiratory interventions, mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: Of the 49 children's hospitals assessed, 26 907 encounters were included for study. Mean dexamethasone exposure rates were 18.1 ± 2.4% where 2.4 ± 1.2% represented dexamethasone-alone prescribing. Dexamethasone alone prescribing exhibited a linear trend (annual increase of 0.5 ± 0.1% annually R2 = 0.845) without correlation to cumulative site critical asthma admission rates. Compared to encounters prescribed solely methylprednisolone or a combination of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone, subjects provided dexamethasone alone had reduced asthma severity indices, length of stay, and exposure rates to adjunctive asthma interventions. Adverse events were rare and the dexamethasone-alone group less frequently experienced gastritis and hyperglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter retrospective study from 49 children's hospitals, dexamethasone prescribing rates appear increasing for pediatric critical asthma. Observed variability in corticosteroid prescribing implies a continued need for controlled prospective comparative analyses to define ideal corticosteroid regimens for pediatric critical asthma.

High-flow nasal cannula and bilevel positive airway pressure for pediatric status asthmaticus: a single center, retrospective descriptive and comparative cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to describe patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for children hospitalized for status asthmaticus (SA) receiving high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). METHODS: We performed a single center, retrospective cohort study among 39 children admitted for SA aged 5-17 years from January 2016 to May 2019 to a quaternary pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Cohorts were defined by BiPAP versus HFNC exposure and assessed to determine if differences existed in demographics, anthropometrics, comorbidities, asthma severity indices, historical factors, duration of noninvasive ventilation, and asthma-related clinical outcomes (i.e. length of stay, mechanical ventilation rates, exposure to concurrent sedatives/anxiolysis, and rate of adjunctive therapy exposure). RESULTS: Thirty-three percent (n = 13) received HFNC (33%) and 67% (n = 26) BiPAP. Children receiving BiPAP had greater age (10.9 ± 3.7 vs. 6.8 ± 2.2 years, P < 0.01), asthma severity (proportion with severe NHLBI classification: 38% vs. 0%, P < 0.01; median pediatric asthma severity score: 13[12,14] vs. 10[9,12], P < 0.01), previous PICU admissions (62% vs. 15%, P = 0.01), frequency of prescribed anxiolysis/sedation (42% vs. 8%, P = 0.02), and median duration of continuous albuterol (1.7[1,3.1] vs. 0.9[0.7,1.6] days, P = 0.03) compared to those on HFNC. Those on HFNC more commonly were treated comorbid bacterial pneumonia (69% vs. 19%, P < 0.01). No differences in NIV duration, mortality, mechanical ventilation rates, or LOS were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a trial of BiPAP or HFNC appears well tolerated in children with SA. Prospective trials are needed to establish modality superiority and identify patient or clinical characteristics that prompt use of HFNC over BiPAP.

Pediatric asthma severity scores distinguish suitable inpatient level of care for children admitted for status asthmaticus.

Objective: To determine if the Pediatric Asthma Severity Score (PASS) can distinguish "late-rescues" (transfer to the pediatric intensive care unit [PICU] within 24-hours of general pediatric floor admission), "PICU readmissions" (readmission within 24-h after transfer to a lower inpatient level of care), and unplanned 30-day hospital readmission in children admitted with status asthmaticus.Methods: We performed a single center, retrospective cohort study in 328 children admitted for asthma exacerbation aged 5-18 years from May 2015 to October 2017. We sought to determine if PASS values preceding admission from the emergency department or transfer to the general pediatric unit will be greater in children with late rescues and PICU readmissions and if a cutoff PASS values exist to discriminate these events prior to intrafacility transfer.Results: Nine (5%) late-rescues and 5 (3%) PICU readmissions accounted for 14/328 (4%) composite outcomes. PASS values were greater in children with these events (8 [IQR:5-8] vs. 5 [IQR:3-6], p < .01). Logistic regression of PASS on composite outcome yielded an odds ratio of 1.4 (1.1-1.8, p < .01) and ROC curve of PASS on a composite outcome yielded an AUC of 0.74 (0.61-0.87) with a threshold of ≥ 9. Nine (3%) children experienced unplanned 30-day hospital readmissions but PASS preceding hospital discharge was neither discriminative nor associated with hospital readmission.Conclusions: PASS values ≥ 9 identify children at increased risk for late-rescue and PICU readmission. Applied with traditionally criteria for selection of inpatient level of care, PASS may assist providers in reducing acute inpatient disposition errors.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in children with status asthmaticus receiving systemic corticosteroids: a descriptive study assessing frequency of clinically important bleeding.

Objective: To determine the frequency of clinically important bleeding (CIB) among children hospitalized for status asthmaticus with and without exposure to stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP).Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort in 217 children admitted for asthma exacerbation aged 5-18 years from May 2015 to May 2017. We assessed cohorts with and without exposure to SUP to determine if differences in frequency of CIB exist. Study outcomes included frequency of CIB, gastrointestinal complications (occult bleeding, macroscopic bleeding, gastric perforation, and acquired gastritis), and SUP-related adverse events (ventilator associated pneumonia, C. difficile colitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and acute thrombocytopenia).Results: Ninety-two (42%) children received SUP of which 82 were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). There were no differences in asthma severity or known risk factors for CIB in children with and without SUP in the PICU subcohort. We observed no CIB or SUP-related adverse events. Two subjects acquired gastritis in the no-SUP cohort and one additional subject experienced occult gastrointestinal bleeding with spontaneous symptom resolution.Conclusion: Children admitted for status asthmaticus with and without SUP had no observed incidence of CIB. In this specific population, we propose a prerequisite assessment for the presence of known stress ulcer related gastrointestinal bleeding risk factors prior to the blanket administration of SUP.