Analysis of guideline recommendations for treatment of asthma exacerbations in children: a Pediatric Emergency Research Networks (PERN) study.

RATIONALE: There is significant practice variation in acute paediatric asthma, particularly severe exacerbations. It is unknown whether this is due to differences in clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare the content and quality of clinical guidelines for the management of acute exacerbations of asthma in children between geographic regions. METHODS: Observational study of guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma from institutions across a global collaboration of six regional paediatric emergency research networks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 158 guidelines were identified. Half provided recommendations for at least two age groups, and most guidelines provided treatment recommendations according to asthma severity.There were consistent recommendations for the use of inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids. Inhaled anticholinergic therapy was recommended in most guidelines for severe and critical asthma, but there were inconsistent recommendations for its use in mild and moderate exacerbations. Other inhaled therapies such as helium-oxygen mixture (Heliox) and nebulised magnesium were inconsistently recommended for severe and critical illness.Parenteral bronchodilator therapy and epinephrine were mostly reserved for severe and critical asthma, with intravenous magnesium most recommended. There were regional differences in the use of other parenteral bronchodilators, particularly aminophylline.Guideline quality assessment identified high ratings for clarity of presentation, scope and purpose, but low ratings for stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, applicability and editorial independence. CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma exacerbations have substantial deficits in important quality domains and provide limited and inconsistent guidance for severe exacerbations.

International perspective on research priorities and outcome measures of importance in the care of children with acute exacerbations of asthma: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of asthma are common in children, however, treatment decisions for severe exacerbations are challenging due to a lack of robust evidence. In order to create more robust research, a core set of outcome measures needs to be developed. In developing these outcomes, it is important to understand the views of clinicians who care for these children in particular, views that relate to outcome measures and research priorities. METHODS: To determine the views of clinicians, a total of 26 semistructured interviews based on the theoretical domains framework were conducted. These included experienced clinicians from emergency, intensive care and inpatient paediatrics across 17 countries. The interviews were recorded, and later transcribed. All data analyses were conducted in Nvivo by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The length of stay in hospital and patient-focused parameters, such as timing to return to school and normal activity, were the most frequently highlighted outcome measures, with clinicians identifying the need to achieve a consensus on key core outcome measure sets. Most research questions focused on understanding the best treatment options, including the role of novel therapies and respiratory support. CONCLUSION: Our study provides an insight into what research questions and outcome measures clinicians view as important. In addition, information on how clinicians define asthma severity and measure treatment success will assist with methodological design in future trials. The current findings will be used in parallel with a further Paediatric Emergency Research Network study focusing on the child and family perspectives and will contribute to develop a core outcome set for future research.

Treatment patterns and frequency of key outcomes in acute severe asthma in children: a Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) multicentre cohort study.

RATIONALE: Severe acute paediatric asthma may require treatment escalation beyond systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators and low-flow oxygen. Current large asthma datasets report parenteral therapy only. OBJECTIVES: To identify the use and type of escalation of treatment in children presenting to hospital with acute severe asthma. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of children with an emergency department diagnosis of asthma or wheeze at 18 Australian and New Zealand hospitals. The main outcomes were use and type of escalation treatment (defined as any of intensive care unit admission, nebulised magnesium, respiratory support or parenteral bronchodilator treatment) and hospital length of stay (LOS). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 14 029 children (median age 3 (IQR 1-3) years; 62.9% male), 1020 (7.3%, 95% CI 6.9% to 7.7%) had treatment escalation. Children with treatment escalation had a longer LOS (44.2 hours, IQR 27.3-63.2 hours) than children without escalation 6.7 hours, IQR 3.5-16.3 hours; p<0.001). The most common treatment escalations were respiratory support alone (400; 2.9%, 95% CI 2.6% to 3.1%), parenteral bronchodilator treatment alone (380; 2.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 3.0%) and both respiratory support and parenteral bronchodilator treatment (209; 1.5%, 95% CI 1.3% to 1.7%). Respiratory support was predominantly nasal high-flow therapy (99.0%). The most common intravenous medication regimens were: magnesium alone (50.4%), magnesium and aminophylline (24.6%) and magnesium and salbutamol (10.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 7.3% children with acute severe asthma received some form of escalated treatment, with 4.2% receiving parenteral bronchodilators and 4.3% respiratory support. There is wide variation treatment escalation.

Acute severe paediatric asthma: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set, a Pediatric Emergency Reserarch Networks (PERN) study.

BACKGROUND: Acute severe childhood asthma is an infrequent, but potentially life-threatening emergency condition. There is a wide range of different approaches to this condition, with very little supporting evidence, leading to significant variation in practice. To improve knowledge in this area, there must first be consensus on how to conduct clinical trials, so that valid comparisons can be made between future studies. We have formed an international working group comprising paediatricians and emergency physicians from North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Central America, Australasia and the United Kingdom. METHODS/DESIGN: A 5-stage approach will be used: (1) a comprehensive list of outcomes relevant to stakeholders will be compiled through systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with patients, families, and clinicians; (2) Delphi methodology will be applied to reduce the comprehensive list to a core outcome set; (3) we will review current clinical practice guidelines, existing clinical trials, and literature on bedside assessment of asthma severity. We will then identify practice differences in tne clinical assessment of asthma severity, and determine whether further prospective work is needed to achieve agreement on inclusion criteria for clinical trials in acute paediatric asthma in the emergency department (ED) setting; (4) a retrospective chart review in Australia and New Zealand will identify the incidence of serious clinical complications such as intubation, ICU admission, and death in children hospitalized with acute severe asthma. Understanding the incidence of such outcomes will allow us to understand how common (and therefore how feasible) particular outcomes are in asthma in the ED setting; and finally (5) a meeting of the Pediatric Emergency Research Networks (PERN) asthma working group will be held, with invitation of other clinicians interested in acute asthma research, and patients/families. The group will be asked to achieve consensus on a core set of outcomes and to make recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials in acute severe asthma. If this is not possible, the group will agree on a series of prioritized steps to achieve this aim. DISCUSSION: The development of an international consensus on core outcomes is an important first step towards the development of consensus guidelines and standardised protocols for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this population. This will enable us to better interpret and compare future studies, reduce risks of study heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias, and improve the evidence base for the management of this important condition.

Variability of outcome measures in trials of intravenous therapy in acute severe paediatric asthma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the variability of primary and secondary outcomes used in trials of intravenous bronchodilators in children with acute severe paediatric asthma. METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomised trials in children (less than18 years) with acute severe paediatric asthma comparing intravenous bronchodilator therapy to another treatment. Initial search was performed on 7 January 2016 with an updated search performed on 6 September 2018. Primary and secondary outcomes were collated. RESULTS: We identified 35 published papers and four registered study protocols. 56 primary outcomes were found, the most common being a clinical asthma score (23/56; 41%). Other identified primary outcomes included bedside tests of respiratory function (11/56; 20%) and measures of length of stay (9/56; 16%). There were a total of 60 different secondary outcomes, the most common were various length of stay measures (24/60; 40%) and adverse events (11/60; 18%). CONCLUSION: Studies comparing intravenous treatment modalities for children with acute severe paediatric asthma exhibit great variation in the type, number and timing of outcome measures used. There are no patient or family-specific outcomes reported. There is a need to develop international consensus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017055331.

Successful treatment of refractory immune thrombocytopenia with rituximab in a 10-week-old infant.

Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) that is unresponsive to conventional treatment is uncommon. In this situation, additional therapeutic options are limited and management is challenging. We describe the case of a 10-week-old infant that developed life-threatening ITP that was unresponsive to immunoglobulin and corticosteroids that was successfully managed with the monoclonal antibody rituximab. The literature on the use of rituximab in nonresponsive ITP is reviewed.