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

Analysis of the asthma scores recommended in guidelines for children presenting to the emergency department: a Pediatric Emergency Research Networks study

RATIONALE

While there are numerous published paediatric asthma scores, it is unknown how commonly scores are recommended in asthma guidelines across different geographical regions globally, and what their validation status is.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe which clinical guidelines recommend asthma scores across different geographical regions. (2) To describe the initial and subsequent validation of the commonly recommended asthma scores.

METHODS

Observational study of asthma scores recommended in guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma from institutions across the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Network; global paediatric emergency medicine research network comprising all eight local and regional paediatric emergency medicine research networks.

MAIN RESULTS

158 guidelines were identified. Overall, 83/158 (53%) guidelines recommend a bedside clinical score for assessment of asthma severity. While a single country-specific clinical score was recommended in all guidelines from Spain and Canada, 27/28 (96%) of the USA guidelines recommend a wide variety of scores, and scores are rarely recommended in guidelines from other research networks (PERUKI, Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland and PREDICT, Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative in Australia and New Zealand) and other countries (Costa Rica, South Africa, Nigeria, Singapore, India).The Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) and the pulmonary score (PS) were the most frequently used scoring instruments. While the PRAM has undergone the most extensive validation, including construct validity, validation studies for the PS are limited. Inter-rater reliability, as well as the criterion, responsiveness and discriminative validity aspects represent the most common limitations in many of the scores.

CONCLUSIONS

There are marked geographical differences in both the recommendation for and the type of clinical asthma score in clinical practice guidelines. While many asthma scores are recommended, most have insufficient validation.

Variability in Methodology of Erectile Dysfunction Regenerative Therapy Trials on ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the variability in the criteria of erectile dysfunction (ED) regenerative therapy trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS

Interventional trials on ClinicalTrials.gov with the keywords "erectile dysfunction" and variations of "shockwave," "platelet rich plasma," "stem cell," "regenerative," and "restorative" were examined. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and primary/secondary outcomes were compared between extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), platelet rich plasma and stem cell injections (PRP/SC), and other regenerative therapies (ORT) groups.

RESULTS

Of the 92 trials analyzed, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score was the most common primary outcome (72%), with a higher prevalence in ESWT trials than PRP/SC or ORT trials (89% vs 44% and 58%, P <.001). Safety/tolerability was a primary outcome for 44% of PRP/SC trials and 25% of ORT trials but no ESWT trials (P <.001). ESWT trials more frequently had sexual/romantic relationship-based inclusion criteria and cancer treatment-related exclusion criteria than PRP/SC and ORT trials.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variability in the inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures among ED regenerative therapy trials. ESWT trials most frequently utilized IIEF and had the strictest inclusion/exclusion criteria, suggesting more rigorous and functional outcome-based studies. Conversely, PRP/SC and ORT trials, but not ESWT trials, had safety/tolerability as a primary outcome, likely due to the experimental nature of these therapies. The variability in inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures limits comparison of the various ED regenerative therapies.

Core outcomes and factors influencing the experience of care for children with severe acute exacerbations of asthma: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To identify the outcomes considered important, and factors influencing the patient experience, for parents and caregivers of children presenting to hospital with a severe acute exacerbation of asthma. This work contributes to the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for future clinical trials in children with severe acute asthma.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving semistructured interviews with parents and caregivers of children who presented to hospital with a severe acute exacerbation of asthma.

SETTING

Hospitals in 12 countries associated with the global Pediatric Emergency Research Networks, including high-income and middle-income countries. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, by teleconference/video-call, or by phone.

FINDINGS

Overall, there were 54 interviews with parents and caregivers; 2 interviews also involved the child. Hospital length of stay, intensive care unit or high-dependency unit (HDU) admission, and treatment costs were highlighted as important outcomes influencing the patient and family experience. Other potential clinical trial outcomes included work of breathing, speed of recovery and side effects. In addition, the patient and family experience was impacted by decision-making leading up to seeking hospital care, transit to hospital, waiting times and the use of intravenous treatment. Satisfaction of care was related to communication with clinicians and frequent reassessment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents and caregivers believe to be the most important to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of acute severe exacerbations of asthma.

Acute paediatric asthma treatment in the prehospital setting: a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the incidence of and patterns of 'escalated care' (care in addition to standard treatment with systemic corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators) for children receiving prehospital treatment for asthma.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

State-wide ambulance service data (Ambulance Victoria in Victoria, Australia, population 6.5 million) PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 1-17 years and given a final diagnosis of asthma by the treating paramedics and/or treated with inhaled bronchodilators from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We classified 'escalation of care' as parenteral administration of epinephrine, or provision of respiratory support. We compared clinical, demographic and treatments administered between those receiving and not receiving escalation of care.

RESULTS

Paramedics attended 1572 children with acute exacerbations of asthma during the 1 year study period. Of these, 22 (1.4%) had escalated care, all receiving parenteral epinephrine. Patients with escalated care were more likely to be older, had previously required hospital admission for asthma and had severe respiratory distress at initial assessment.Of 1307 children with respiratory status data available, at arrival to hospital, the respiratory status of children had improved overall (normal/mild respiratory distress at initial assessment 847 (64.8%), normal/mild respiratory distress at hospital arrival 1142 (87.4%), p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most children with acute exacerbations of asthma did not receive escalated therapy during their pre-hospital treatment from ambulance paramedics. Most patients were treated with inhaled bronchodilators only and clinically improved by the time they arrived in hospital.

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.

Defining Treatment Response for Clinical Trials of Pediatric Acute Asthma

BACKGROUND

An agreed-upon definition of treatment response for clinical trials of pediatric acute asthma does not exist, limiting meaningful comparisons among therapeutic interventions and advances in asthma management.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a consensus definition of treatment response for clinical trials of pediatric acute asthma.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of 22 experts participated in a Web-based modified Delphi process to achieve consensus on a definition of treatment response. Round 1 consisted of closed- and open-ended questions in which panelists ranked measures of treatment response developed by literature review, suggested additional measures, and explained their responses. In rounds 2 and 3, panelists reviewed summary statistics of the panel's rating from prior rounds and reconsidered their rankings. In round 3, pairwise ranking was performed to determine the ranked importance of components. Consensus was defined as 70% or greater agreement among panelists choosing Likert-scale values of 1 to 6 (extremely unimportant to extremely important) and an interquartile range less than 2.

RESULTS

Drawing on results from the expert panel, we developed a definition of treatment response that includes Clinical Severity Score, need for additional therapies, and hospitalization. Clinical Severity Score encompassed most ranked criteria (eg, respiratory distress, wheeze) for a treatment response definition. Panelists recommended that a valid and pragmatic severity score be used consistently across institutions. Panelists also achieved consensus on the top 10 criteria that appropriately classify need for hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus definition of treatment response can be used in clinical trials of children with acute asthma to standardize outcome measurement and report meaningful outcomes.

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.

Management of Asthma Exacerbations in the Emergency Department

Asthma exacerbations occur across a wide spectrum of chronic severity; they contribute to millions of emergency department (ED) visits in both children and adults every year. Management of asthma exacerbations is an important part of the continuum of asthma care. The best strategy for ED management of an asthma exacerbation is early recognition and intervention, continuous monitoring, appropriate disposition, and, once improved, multifaceted transitional care that optimizes subacute and chronic asthma management after ED discharge. This article concisely reviews ED evaluation, treatment, disposition, and postdischarge care for patients with asthma exacerbations, based on high-quality evidence (eg, systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration) and current international guidelines (eg, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Expert Panel Report 3, Global Initiative for Asthma, and Australian guidelines). Special populations (young children, pregnant women, and the elderly) also are addressed. Despite advances in asthma science, there remain many important evidence gaps in managing ED patients with asthma exacerbation. This article summarizes several of these controversial areas and challenges that merit further investigation.

MicroRNA-208a: a Good Diagnostic Marker and a Predictor of no-Reflow in STEMI Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneuos Coronary Intervention

MicroRNA-208a is a cardiac specific oligo-nucleotide. We aimed at investigating the ability of microRNA-208a to diagnose myocardial infarction and predict the outcome of primary percutaneuos coronary angiography (PCI). Patients (n = 75) presented by chest pain were recruited into two groups. Group 1 (n = 40) had ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and underwent primary PCI: 21 patients had sufficient reperfusion and 19 had no-reflow. Group 2 (n = 35) had negative cardiac troponins (cTns). Plasma microRNA-208a expression was assessed using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and patients were followed for occurrence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). MicroRNA-208a could diagnose of MI (AUC of 0.926). After primary PCI, it was superior to cTnT in prediction of no-reflow (AUC difference of 0.231, P = 0.0233) and MACE (AUC difference of 0.367, P = 0.0053). Accordingly, circulating levels of miR-208a can be used as a diagnostic marker of MI and a predictor of no-reflow and in-hospital MACE. Graphical abstract Receiver operating curve analysis of no-reflow prediction of miRNA208a, CK-MB and hs-Troponin T. MicroRNA-208a shows significantly higher prediction of no-reflow as compared to routine cardiac biomarkers.

Question 5: Magnesium Sulphate for Acute Asthma in children

Most children who present to the emergency department with acute asthma, respond well to inhaled β₂-agonists (spacer or nebuliser), oxygen (if required) and systemic steroids. Guidelines across the world agree on this simple, straight forward evidenced based approach. In children with more severe asthma attacks and those who do not respond to initial treatment, the evidence base for the secondary level treatment is less clear. Many regimens exist for the next step. Intravenous Magnesium Sulphate (MgSO₄) is now used frequently in these situations and some centres are starting to use nebulized MgSO₄ as part of the initial maximal inhaled therapy options. This paper examines the role of MgSO₄ in acute asthma in children. It focusses on how MgSO₄ might work, what are the current recommendations for use and then what is the current evidence base to support its use. We have presented the evidence for the use of both nebulized and intravenous MgSO₄. At the end of the paper we have suggested future directions for research in this area. Our aim is to present a synthesis of the current role of MgSO₄ in the management of an acute asthma attack.

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.