Safety and efficacy of whole-body chlorhexidine gluconate cleansing with or without emollient in hospitalised neonates (NeoCHG): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections account for substantial neonatal in-hospital mortality. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) whole body skin application could reduce sepsis by lowering bacterial colonisation density, although safety and optimal application regimen is unclear. Emollients, including sunflower oil, may independently improve skin condition, thereby reducing sepsis. We aimed to inform which concentration and frequency of CHG, with or without emollient, would best balance safety and the surrogate marker of efficacy of reduction in bacterial colonisation, to be taken forward in a future pragmatic trial evaluating clinical outcomes of sepsis and mortality. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial, neonates in two hospital sites (South Africa, Bangladesh) aged 1-6 days with gestational age ≥ 28 weeks and birthweight 1000-1999 g were randomly assigned in a factorial design stratified by site to three different concentrations of CHG (0.5%, 1%, and 2%), with or without emollient (sunflower oil) applied on working days vs alternate working days. A control arm received neither product. Caregivers were unblinded although laboratory staff were blinded to randomisation Co-primary outcomes were safety (change in neonatal skin condition score incorporating dryness, erythema, and skin breakdown) and efficacy in reducing bacterial colonisation density (change in total skin bacterial log10 CFU from randomisation to day-3 and day-8). The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 69836999. Findings: Between Apr 12 2021 and Jan 18 2022, 208 infants were randomised and 198 were included in the final analysis. Skin condition scores were low with mean 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 208) at baseline, 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 199) at day 3 and 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 189) at day 8, with no evidence of differences between concentration (1% CHG vs 0.5% estimate = -0.3, 95% CI = (-1.2, 0.6), p = 0.55. 2% CHG vs 0.5% CHG estimate = 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4), p = 0.30), increasing frequency (estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-1.1, 0.4), p = 0.33), emollient (estimate = -0.5, (-1.2, 0.3), p = 0.23) or with control (estimate = -0.9, (-2.3, 0.4), p = 0.18). Mean log10 CFU was 4.9 (sd = 3.0; N = 208) at baseline, 6.3 (sd = 3.1; N = 198) at day 3 and 8.4 (sd = 2.6; N = 183) with no evidence of differences between concentration (1% CHG vs 0.5% estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-1.1, 0.23); p = 0.23. 2% CHG vs 0.5% CHG estimate = 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6), p = 0.96), with increasing frequency (estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-0.9, 0.2); p = 0.17), with emollient (estimate = 0.4, 95% CI = (-0.2, 0.9); p = 0.18) or with control (estimate = -0.2, 95% CI = (-1.3, 0.9); p = 0.73). By day-8, overall 158/183 (86%) of neonates were colonised with Enterobacterales, and 72/183 (39%) and 69/183 (9%) with Klebsiella spp resistant to third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenems, respectively. There were no CHG-related SAEs, emollient-related SAEs, grade 3 or 4 skin scores or grade 3 or 4 hypothermias. Interpretation: In this pilot trial of CHG with or without sunflower oil, no safety issues were identified, and further trials examining clinical outcomes are warranted. The relatively late start application of emollient, at a mean of 3.8 days of life, may have reduced the impact of the intervention although no subgroup effects were detected. There was no clear evidence in favour of a specific concentration of chlorhexidine, and there was rapid colonisation with Enterobacterales with frequent antimicrobial resistance, regardless of skin application regimen. Funding: The MRC Joint Applied Global Health award, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), MRC Clinical Trials Unit core funding (UKRI) and St. George's, University of London.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care: ARTIC-PC RCT.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections, but there is little randomised evidence to support the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating these infections, either overall or relating to key clinical subgroups in which antibiotic prescribing is common (chest signs; fever; physician rating of unwell; sputum/rattly chest; shortness of breath). Objectives: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children both overall and in clinical subgroups. Design: Placebo-controlled trial with qualitative, observational and cost-effectiveness studies. Setting: UK general practices. Participants: Children aged 1-12 years with acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the duration in days of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary). Secondary outcomes were symptom severity on days 2-4 (0 = no problem to 6 = as bad as it could be); symptom duration until very little/no problem; reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms; complications; side effects; and resource use. Methods: Children were randomised to receive 50 mg/kg/day of oral amoxicillin in divided doses for 7 days, or placebo using pre-prepared packs, using computer-generated random numbers by an independent statistician. Children who were not randomised could participate in a parallel observational study. Semistructured telephone interviews explored the views of 16 parents and 14 clinicians, and the data were analysed using thematic analysis. Throat swabs were analysed using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Results: A total of 432 children were randomised (antibiotics, n = 221; placebo, n = 211). The primary analysis imputed missing data for 115 children. The duration of moderately bad symptoms was similar in the antibiotic and placebo groups overall (median of 5 and 6 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.42), with similar results for subgroups, and when including antibiotic prescription data from the 326 children in the observational study. Reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms (29.7% and 38.2%, respectively; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.05), illness progression requiring hospital assessment or admission (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and side effects (38% vs. 34%) were similar in the two groups. Complete-case (n = 317) and per-protocol (n = 185) analyses were similar, and the presence of bacteria did not mediate antibiotic effectiveness. NHS costs per child were slightly higher (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), with no difference in non-NHS costs (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). A model predicting complications (with seven variables: baseline severity, difference in respiratory rate from normal for age, duration of prior illness, oxygen saturation, sputum/rattly chest, passing urine less often, and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped area under the receiver operator curve 0.83) and calibration. Parents found it difficult to interpret symptoms and signs, used the sounds of the child's cough to judge the severity of illness, and commonly consulted to receive a clinical examination and reassurance. Parents acknowledged that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary', and clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Limitations: The study was underpowered to detect small benefits in key subgroups. Conclusion: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective or to reduce health or societal costs. Parents need better access to information, as well as clear communication about the self-management of their child's illness and safety-netting. Future work: The data can be incorporated in the Cochrane review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN79914298. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Children are commonly prescribed antibiotics for chest infections, but such infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics, and it is not clear if antibiotics work in treating them. A total of 432 children who saw their general practitioner with a chest infection were given either an antibiotic (amoxicillin) or a placebo (no antibiotic) for 7 days. Symptom diaries documented the infection's duration and its side effects. Children not in the placebo study were able to participate in another study that documented the same outcomes (an 'observational study'). We interviewed parents, doctors and nurses about their observations and concerns. Our patient and public involvement and engagement work with parents indicated that a 3-day symptom reduction was required to justify giving antibiotics. After seeing the doctor, parents whose children received antibiotics rated infective symptoms as moderately bad or worse for 5 days, and parents whose children received the placebo rated these for 6 days. Side effects and complications were similar in the two groups. Findings were similar when including the results of the observational study, and for children in whose chest the doctor could hear wheeze or rattles; who had fever; who were rated by the doctor as more unwell, who were short of breath, or who had had bacteria detected in the throat. The costs to the NHS per child were similar (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), and the wider costs to society were the same (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). Parents found it difficult to interpret their child's symptoms, and commonly used the sound of the cough to judge severity. Parents commonly consulted to receive an examination and reassurance, and accepted that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary'. Clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Amoxicillin for chest infections in children is unlikely to be effective. General practitioners should support parents to self-manage at home and give clear communication about when and how to seek medical help if they continue to be concerned.

Neonatal invasive candidiasis in low- and middle-income countries: Data from the NeoOBS study.

Neonatal invasive candidiasis (NIC) has significant morbidity and mortality. Reports have shown a different profile of those neonates affected with NIC and of fluconazole-resistant Candida spp. isolates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared to high-income countries (HICs). We describe the epidemiology, Candida spp. distribution, treatment, and outcomes of neonates with NIC from LMICs enrolled in a global, prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study (NeoOBS) of hospitalized infants <60 days postnatal age with sepsis (August 2018-February 2021). A total of 127 neonates from 14 hospitals in 8 countries with Candida spp. isolated from blood culture were included. Median gestational age of affected neonates was 30 weeks (IQR: 28-34), and median birth weight was 1270 gr (interquartile range [IQR]: 990-1692). Only a minority had high-risk criteria, such as being born <28 weeks, 19% (24/127), or birth weight <1000 gr, 27% (34/127). The most common Candida species were C. albicans (n = 45, 35%), C. parapsilosis (n = 38, 30%), and Candida auris (n = 18, 14%). The majority of C. albicans isolates were fluconazole susceptible, whereas 59% of C. parapsilosis isolates were fluconazole-resistant. Amphotericin B was the most common antifungal used [74% (78/105)], followed by fluconazole [22% (23/105)]. Death by day 28 post-enrollment was 22% (28/127). To our knowledge, this is the largest multi-country cohort of NIC in LMICs. Most of the neonates would not have been considered at high risk for NIC in HICs. A substantial proportion of isolates was resistant to first choice fluconazole. Understanding the burden of NIC in LMIC is essential to guide future research and treatment guidelines.

Our study describes neonates from low- and middle-income countries with neonatal invasive candidiasis (NIC). Most of them were outside the groups considered at high risk for NIC described in high-income countries. Candida spp. epidemiology was also different. The mortality was high (22%). Further research in these settings is required.

Antibiotics needed to treat multidrug-resistant infections in neonates.

Infections remain a leading cause of death in neonates. The sparse antibiotic development pipeline and challenges in conducting neonatal research have resulted in few effective antibiotics being adequately studied to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR) infections in neonates, despite the increasing global mortality burden caused by antimicrobial resistance. Of 40 antibiotics approved for use in adults since 2000, only four have included dosing information for neonates in their labelling. Currently, 43 adult antibiotic clinical trials are recruiting patients, compared with only six trials recruiting neonates. We review the World Health Organization (WHO) priority pathogens list relevant to neonatal sepsis and propose a WHO multiexpert stakeholder meeting to promote the development of a neonatal priority antibiotic development list. The goal is to develop international, interdisciplinary consensus for an accelerated neonatal antibiotic development programme. This programme would enable focused research on identified priority antibiotics for neonates to reduce the excess morbidity and mortality caused by MDR infections in this vulnerable population.

Les infections demeurent l'une des principales causes de décès chez les nouveau-nés. Les rares projets de développement d'antibiotiques et les défis posés par la recherche néonatale ont entraîné une pénurie d'antibiotiques efficaces spécialement étudiés pour traiter les infections multirésistantes (MR) chez les nouveau-nés, en dépit d'une mortalité galopante due à une résistance accrue aux antimicrobiens. Sur 40 antibiotiques autorisés pour les adultes depuis 2000, quatre à peine sont munis d'un étiquetage indiquant la posologie adaptée aux nouveau-nés. Actuellement, 43 essais cliniques portant sur des antibiotiques recrutent des patients du côté des adultes, contre six seulement du côté des nouveau-nés. Dans le présent document, nous passons en revue la liste prioritaire d'agents pathogènes établie par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS) pour soigner la septicémie néonatale et proposons de réunir, sous l'égide de l'OMS, des parties prenantes issues de plusieurs domaines d'expertise afin de promouvoir la création d'une liste prioritaire de développement d'antibiotiques destinés aux nouveau-nés. Objectif: parvenir à un consensus international et interdisciplinaire visant à accélérer le programme de mise au point d'antibiotiques à usage néonatal. Ce programme permettrait d'orienter les recherches vers des antibiotiques identifiés comme prioritaires pour les nouveau-nés, en vue de faire baisser les taux de morbidité et de mortalité excessifs qu'engendrent les infections MR au sein de cette population vulnérable.

Las infecciones siguen siendo una de las principales causas de muerte en los recién nacidos. Debido al escaso desarrollo de los antibióticos y a las dificultades para llevar a cabo la investigación neonatal, son pocos los antibióticos eficaces que se estudian de manera adecuada para tratar las infecciones multirresistentes (MR) en los recién nacidos, a pesar de la creciente carga de mortalidad mundial causada por la resistencia a los antimicrobianos. De los 40 antibióticos aprobados para su uso en adultos desde el 2000, solo cuatro han incluido información sobre la dosis para recién nacidos en su etiquetado. En la actualidad, 43 ensayos clínicos con antibióticos para adultos están reclutando pacientes, en comparación con solo seis ensayos que reclutan recién nacidos. Se revisa la lista de patógenos prioritarios de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) relevantes para la sepsis neonatal y se propone una reunión de la OMS con múltiples expertos para promover el desarrollo de una lista de antibióticos prioritarios para los recién nacidos. El objetivo es desarrollar un consenso internacional e interdisciplinario para establecer un programa acelerado de desarrollo de antibióticos neonatales. Este programa permitiría centrar la investigación en los antibióticos prioritarios identificados para los recién nacidos con el fin de reducir el exceso de morbilidad y mortalidad causado por las infecciones MR en esta población vulnerable.

The WHO essential medicines list AWaRe book: from a list to a quality improvement system.

Antibiotics are often prescribed inappropriately, either when they are not necessary or with an unnecessarily broad spectrum of activity. AWaRe (AccessWatchReserve) is a system developed by WHO to classify antibiotics based on their spectrum of activity and potential for favouring the development of antibiotic resistance (Access: narrow spectrum/low potential for resistance; Watch: broader spectrum/higher potential for resistance; Reserve: last resort antibiotics to use very selectively). The WHO target is that by 2023, at least 60% of prescribed antibiotics globally should be from the Access category. The WHO AWaRe Book aims to improve empiric antibiotic prescribing by providing simple guidance for common infections based on the principles of AWaRe in alignment with the Model Lists of Essential Medicines for adults and children.

Antibiotic Prescription Patterns in the Paediatric Primary Care Setting before and after the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: An Analysis Using the AWaRe Metrics.

The containment measures following COVID-19 pandemic drastically reduced airway infections, but they also limited the access of patients to healthcare services. We aimed to assess the antibiotic prescription patterns in the Italian paediatric primary care setting before and after the containment measures implementation. For this retrospective analysis, we used a population database, Pedianet, collecting data of patients aged 0-14 years enrolled with family paediatricians (FP) from March 2019 to March 2021. Antibiotic prescriptions were classified according to WHO AWaRe classification. An interrupted time series evaluating the impact of the containment measures implementation on the monthly antibiotic index, on the access to watch index, and on the amoxicillin to co-amoxiclav index stratified by diagnosis was performed. Overall, 121,304 antibiotic prescriptions were retrieved from 134 FP, for a total of 162,260 children. From March 2020, the antibiotic index dropped by more than 80% for respiratory infections. The Access to Watch trend did not change after the containment measures, reflecting the propensity to prescribe more broad-spectrum antibiotics for respiratory infections even during the pandemic. Similarly, co-amoxiclav was prescribed more often than amoxicillin alone for all the diagnoses, with a significant variation in the trend slope for upper respiratory tract infections prescriptions.

Antibiotic resistance: calling time on the 'silent pandemic'.

It is time to stop referring to the antibiotic resistance pandemic as 'silent'. Continuing to use such a term denies the reality that antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, driven by misuse and abuse of antibiotics by humans against microbial ecosystems that we should be living in symbiosis with, is wrong. Both our terminology and who the real 'enemy' is in relation to antibiotic resistance demands serious reconsideration.

Optimised versus standard dosing of vancomycin in infants with Gram-positive sepsis (NeoVanc): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is the most widely used antibiotic for neonatal Gram-positive sepsis, but clinical outcome data of dosing strategies are scarce. The NeoVanc programme comprised extensive preclinical studies to inform a randomised controlled trial to assess optimised vancomycin dosing. We compared the efficacy of an optimised regimen to a standard regimen in infants with late onset sepsis that was known or suspected to be caused by Gram-positive microorganisms. METHODS: NeoVanc was an open-label, multicentre, phase 2b, parallel-group, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing the efficacy and toxicity of an optimised regimen of vancomycin to a standard regimen in infants aged 90 days or younger. Infants with at least three clinical or laboratory sepsis criteria or confirmed Gram-positive sepsis with at least one clinical or laboratory criterion were enrolled from 22 neonatal intensive care units in Greece, Italy, Estonia, Spain, and the UK. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the optimised regimen (25 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 15 mg/kg every 12 h or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age, for 5 ± 1 days) or the standard regimen (no loading dose; 15 mg/kg every 24 h, 12 h, or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age for 10 ± 2 days). Vancomycin was administered intravenously via 60 min infusion. Group allocation was not masked to local investigators or parents. The primary endpoint was success at the test of cure visit (10 ± 1 days after the end of actual vancomycin therapy) in the per-protocol population, where success was defined as the participant being alive at the test of cure visit, having a successful outcome at the end of actual vancomycin therapy, and not having a clinically or microbiologically significant relapse or new infection requiring antistaphylococcal antibiotics for more than 24 h within 10 days of the end of actual vancomycin therapy. The non-inferiority margin was -10%. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02790996). FINDINGS: Between March 3, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 242 infants were randomly assigned to the standard regimen group (n=122) or the optimised regimen group (n=120). Primary outcome data in the per-protocol population were available for 90 infants in the optimised group and 92 in the standard group. 64 (71%) of 90 infants in the optimised group and 73 (79%) of 92 in the standard group had success at test of cure visit; non-inferiority was not confirmed (adjusted risk difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 2]). Incomplete resolution of clinical or laboratory signs after 5 ± 1 days of vancomycin therapy was the main factor contributing to clinical failure in the optimised group. Abnormal hearing test results were recorded in 25 (30%) of 84 infants in the optimised group and 12 (15%) of 79 in the standard group (adjusted risk ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·07 to 3·59], p=0·030). There were six vancomycin-related adverse events in the optimised group (one serious adverse event) and four in the standard group (two serious adverse events). 11 infants in the intention-to-treat population died (six [6%] of 102 infants in the optimised group and five [5%] of 98 in the standard group). INTERPRETATION: In the largest neonatal vancomycin efficacy trial yet conducted, no clear clinical impact of a shorter duration of treatment with a loading dose was demonstrated. The use of the optimised regimen cannot be recommended because a potential hearing safety signal was identified; long-term follow-up is being done. These results emphasise the importance of robust clinical safety assessments of novel antibiotic dosing regimens in infants. FUNDING: EU Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care in England (ARTIC PC): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Antibiotics are very commonly prescribed for children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antibiotics, both overall or among key clinical subgroups. In ARTIC PC, we assessed whether amoxicillin reduces the duration of moderately bad symptoms in children presenting with uncomplicated (non-pneumonic) LRTI in primary care, overall and in key clinical subgroups. METHODS: ARTIC PC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 56 general practices in England. Eligible children were those aged 6 months to 12 years presenting in primary care with acute uncomplicated LRTI judged to be infective in origin, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, with symptoms for less than 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day or placebo oral suspension, in three divided doses orally for 7 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary) for up to 28 days or until symptoms resolved. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN79914298). FINDINGS: Between Nov 9, 2016, and March 17, 2020, 432 children (not including six who withdrew permission for use of their data after randomisation) were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group (n=221) or the placebo group (n=211). Complete data for symptom duration were available for 317 (73%) patients; missing data were imputed for the primary analysis. Median durations of moderately bad or worse symptoms were similar between the groups (5 days [IQR 4-11] in the antibiotics group vs 6 days [4-15] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 0·90-1·42]). No differences were seen for the primary outcome between the treatment groups in the five prespecified clinical subgroups (patients with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and short of breath). Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data analysis. INTERPRETATION: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated chest infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective either overall or for key subgroups in whom antibiotics are commonly prescribed. Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should provide safety-netting advice but not prescribe antibiotics for most children presenting with chest infections. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Progress towards antibiotic use targets in eight high-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare antibiotic sales in eight high-income countries using the 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) Access, Watch and Reserve (AWaRe) classification and the target of 60% consumption of Access category antibiotics. METHODS: We analysed data from a commercial database of sales of systemic antibiotics in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America over the years 2013-2018. We classified antibiotics according to the 2019 AWaRe categories: Access, Watch, Reserve and Not Recommended. We measured antibiotic sales per capita in standard units (SU) per capita and calculated Access group sales as a percentage of total antibiotic sales. FINDINGS: In 2018, per capita antibiotic sales ranged from 7.4 SU (Switzerland) to 20.0 SU (France); median sales of Access group antibiotics were 10.9 SU per capita (range: 3.5-15.0). Per capita sales declined moderately over 2013-2018. The median percentage of Access group antibiotics was 68% (range: 22-77 %); the Access group proportion increased in most countries between 2013 and 2018. Five countries exceeded the 60% target; two countries narrowly missed it (> 55% in Germany and Italy). Sales of Access antibiotics in Japan were low (22%), driven by relatively high sales of oral cephalosporins and macrolides. CONCLUSION: We have identified changes to prescribing that could allow countries to achieve the WHO target. The 60% Access group target provides a framework to inform national antibiotic policies and could be complemented by absolute measures and more ambitious values in specific settings.

Aetiology of acute respiratory infection in preschool children requiring hospitalisation in Europe-results from the PED-MERMAIDS multicentre case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Both pathogenic bacteria and viruses are frequently detected in the nasopharynx (NP) of children in the absence of acute respiratory infection (ARI) symptoms. The aim of this study was to estimate the aetiological fractions for ARI hospitalisation in children for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza virus and to determine whether detection of specific respiratory pathogens on NP samples was associated with ARI hospitalisation. METHODS: 349 children up to 5 years of age hospitalised for ARI (following a symptom-based case definition) and 306 hospital controls were prospectively enrolled in 16 centres across seven European Union countries between 2016 and 2019. Admission day NP swabs were analysed by multiplex PCR for 25 targets. RESULTS: RSV was the leading single cause of ARI hospitalisations, with an overall population attributable fraction (PAF) of 33.4% and high seasonality as well as preponderance in younger children. Detection of RSV on NP swabs was strongly associated with ARI hospitalisation (OR adjusted for age and season: 20.6, 95% CI: 9.4 to 45.3). Detection of three other viral pathogens showed strong associations with ARI hospitalisation: influenza viruses had an adjusted OR of 6.1 (95% CI: 2.5 to 14.9), parainfluenza viruses (PIVs) an adjusted OR of 4.6 (95% CI: 1.8 to 11.3) and metapneumoviruses an adjusted OR of 4.5 (95% CI: 1.3 to 16.1). Influenza viruses had a PAF of 7.9%, PIVs of 6.5% and metapneumoviruses of 3.0%. In contrast, most other pathogens were found in similar proportions in cases and controls, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, which was weakly associated with case status, and endemic coronaviruses. CONCLUSION: RSV is the predominant cause of ARI hospitalisations in young children in Europe and its detection, as well as detection of influenza virus, PIV or metapneumovirus, on NP swabs can establish aetiology with high probability. PAFs for RSV and influenza virus are highly seasonal and age dependent.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent COVID-19

Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter?There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.

Electronic application to improve management of infections in low-income neonatal units: pilot implementation of the NeoTree beta app in a public sector hospital in Zimbabwe.

There are 2. 4 million annual neonatal deaths worldwide. Simple, evidence-based interventions such as temperature control could prevent approximately two-thirds of these deaths. However, key problems in implementing these interventions are a lack of newborn-trained healthcare workers and a lack of data collection systems. NeoTree is a digital platform aiming to improve newborn care in low-resource settings through real-time data capture and feedback alongside education and data linkage. This project demonstrates proof of concept of the NeoTree as a real-time data capture tool replacing handwritten clinical paper notes over a 9-month period in a tertiary neonatal unit at Harare Central Hospital, Zimbabwe. We aimed to deliver robust data for monthly mortality and morbidity meetings and to improve turnaround time for blood culture results among other quality improvement indicators. There were 3222 admissions and discharges entered using the NeoTree software with 41 junior doctors and 9 laboratory staff trained over the 9-month period. The NeoTree app was fully integrated into the department for all admission and discharge documentation and the monthly presentations became routine, informing local practice. An essential factor for this success was local buy-in and ownership at each stage of the project development, as was monthly data analysis and presentations allowing us to rapidly troubleshoot emerging issues. However, the laboratory arm of the project was negatively affected by nationwide economic upheaval. Our successes and challenges piloting this digital tool have provided key insights for effective future roll-out in Zimbabwe and other low-income healthcare settings.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for COVID-19

What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? The latest version of this WHO living guidance focuses on remdesivir, following the 15 October 2020 preprint publication of results from the WHO SOLIDARITY trial. It contains a weak or conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19 The first version on this living guidance focused on corticosteroids. The strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19 are unchanged.

Meropenem vs standard of care for treatment of neonatal late onset sepsis (NeoMero1): A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The early use of broad-spectrum antibiotics remains the cornerstone for the treatment of neonatal late onset sepsis (LOS). However, which antibiotics should be used is still debatable, as relevant studies were conducted more than 20 years ago, recruited in single centres or countries, evaluated antibiotics not in clinical use anymore and had variable inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures. Moreover, antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become a major problem in many countries worldwide. We hypothesized that efficacy of meropenem as a broad-spectrum antibiotic is superior to standard of care regimens (SOC) in empiric treatment of LOS and aimed to compare meropenem to SOC in infants aged <90 days with LOS. METHODS AND FINDINGS: NeoMero-1 was a randomized, open-label, phase III superiority trial conducted in 18 neonatal units in 6 countries. Infants with post-menstrual age (PMA) of ≤44 weeks with positive blood culture and one, or those with negative culture and at least with two predefined clinical and laboratory signs suggestive of LOS, or those with PMA >44 weeks meeting the Goldstein criteria of sepsis, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive meropenem or one of the two SOC regimens (ampicillin+gentamicin or cefotaxime+gentamicin) chosen by each site prior to the start of the study for 8-14 days. The primary outcome was treatment success (survival, no modification of allocated therapy, resolution/improvement of clinical and laboratory markers, no need of additional antibiotics and presumed/confirmed eradication of pathogens) at test-of-cure visit (TOC) in full analysis set. Stool samples were tested at baseline and Day 28 for meropenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms (CRGNO). The primary analysis was performed in all randomised patients and in patients with culture confirmed LOS. Proportions of participants with successful outcome were compared by using a logistic regression model adjusted for the stratification factors. From September 3, 2012 to November 30th 2014, total of 136 patients (instead of planned 275) in each arm were randomized; 140 (52%) were culture positive. Successful outcome at TOC was achieved in 44/136 (32%) in the meropenem arm vs. 31/135 (23%) in the SOC arm (p = 0.087). The respective numbers in patients with positive cultures were 17/63 (27%) vs. 10/77 (13%) (p = 0.022). The main reason of failure was modification of allocated therapy. Treatment emergent adverse events occurred in 72% and serious adverse events in 17% of patients, the Day 28 mortality was 6%. Cumulative acquisition of CRGNO by Day 28 occurred in 4% of patients in the meropenem and 12% in the SOC arm (p = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: Within this study population, we found no evidence that meropenem was superior to SOC in terms of success at TOC, short term hearing disturbances, safety or mortality were similar in both treatment arms but the study was underpowered to detect the planned effect. Meropenem treatment did not select for colonization with CRGNOs. We suggest that meropenem as broad-spectrum antibiotic should be reserved for neonates who are more likely to have Gram-negative LOS, especially in NICUs where microorganisms producing extended spectrum- and AmpC type beta-lactamases are circulating.