Impact of the COVID-19 era on preventative primary care for children 0-5 years old: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread disruptions to primary healthcare delivery and shifts to virtual care. Reduced in-person paediatric primary care visit rates have been reported. However, the extent to which access to primary preventative care has been impacted remains unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to characterise the utilisation of preventative primary care and its association with child development for children ages 0-5 years old during the COVID-19 era. In addition, we will determine if specific groups of children are at greater risk for reduced access to care. METHODS: A systematic search will be conducted for studies published between March 11, 2020, and October 2023 in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL and CDSR), Web of Science, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). This scoping review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and updated by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Studies related to primary preventative care of children aged 0-5 years old conducted in English and in high-income countries will be screened. Studies published before March 11, 2020, in acute care and low-middle-income settings will be excluded. Results will be summarised for appointments attended, delayed, and missed. In addition, we will summarise findings on the impact of COVID-19 on child development. Findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. DISCUSSION: Further investigation is required to better understand the relationship between attendance of preventative primary care for children and its effects on child development. The findings obtained from this review will offer essential context to guide policy-making and healthcare service planning for the period following the pandemic.

The comparison of alendronate and raloxifene after denosumab (CARD) study: A comparative efficacy trial.

Denosumab discontinuation results in accelerated bone remodeling, decreased bone mineral density (BMD), and an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates are at least partially effective at inhibiting these consequences but there have been no randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of alternative antiresorptives. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of alendronate and the SERM, raloxifene, in preventing the post-denosumab high-turnover bone loss. METHODS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in which 51 postmenopausal women at increased risk of fracture were randomized with equal probability to receive 12-months of denosumab 60-mg 6-monthly followed by 12-months of either alendronate 70-mg weekly or raloxifene 60-mg daily. Serum bone remodeling markers were measured at 0,6,12,15,18, and 24 and areal BMD of the distal radius, spine, and hip were measured at 0,12,18 and 24 months. RESULTS: After denosumab discontinuation, serum markers of bone remodeling remained suppressed when followed by alendronate, but gradually increased to baseline when followed by raloxifene. In the denosumab-to-alendronate group, denosumab-induced BMD gains were maintained at all sites whereas in the denosumab-to-raloxifene group, BMD decreased at the spine by 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to -0.8, P = 0.003) and at the total hip by 1.2% (-2.1 to -0.4%, P = 0.008), but remained stable at the femoral neck and distal radius and above the original baseline at all sites. The decreases in spine and total hip BMD in the denosumab-to-raloxifene group (but not the femoral neck or distal radius) were significant when compared to the denosumab-to-alendronate group. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that after one year of denosumab, one year of alendronate is better able to maintain the inhibition of bone remodeling and BMD gains than raloxifene.