Different temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever due to infection: the FEVER feasibility RCT

Definition and assessment of fever-related discomfort in pediatric literature: a systematic review

Guidelines advocate that the symptomatic management of fever should prioritize alleviating the child's discomfort. We investigated the definition and assessment of discomfort in febrile children within the scientific pediatric literature. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and preregistered on the Prospero database (CRD42023471590). Databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched. Studies addressing discomfort in febrile children were eligible. Out of 794 initially identified articles, 27 original studies and seven guidelines specifically used the term 'discomfort'. Only 14 original articles provided a definition of discomfort, revealing substantial heterogeneity and no clear-cut definition. Discomfort was often assessed subjectively, predominantly through parent or self-report, and only two studies used a scoring system for assessment. The definitions varied widely, with terms such as crying, irritability, shivering and chills, pain and distress, goosebumps commonly used and evaluation of observable modifications such as facial modifications. Overall, no consensus on a single, standardized definition was available.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows the absence of a standardized definition and assessment of discomfort in febrile children. The findings of the present analysis might be the basis for building a consensus and developing a new tool to evaluate discomfort.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Discomfort is currently considered the main criterion to guide antipyretic administration in children with fever. • Despite this clear-cut recommendation, it has been questioned whether a commonly accepted understanding and assessment of this condition exists.

WHAT IS NEW

• This systematic review identifies a significant heterogeneity in definitions and assessment of discomfort in children with fever. • Both subjective parameters and observable modifications in physiological parameters should be included in a new and shared characterization of discomfort.

Timing of Stoma Closure in Neonates: the ToSCiN mixed-methods study

Background

Neonates undergoing emergency abdominal surgery frequently require a stoma; closing this stoma with a second operation is an essential part of recovery. Timing of closure varies. Optimal timing is unclear and would be best resolved through a randomised controlled trial; such a trial is likely to be challenging.

Aim

To determine if it is feasible to conduct a clinical trial comparing 'early' versus 'late' stoma closure in neonates.

Design

Mixed methods comprising three parallel workstreams incorporating: a clinician survey, prospective observational cohort study, parent interviews, focus groups, database analyses and consensus meeting.

Setting

Specialist neonatal surgical centres across the United Kingdom.

Participants and data sources

Neonatologists, neonatal surgeons, neonatal dietitians and neonatal nurses who care for neonates with stomas. Neonates with recent stoma, their parents and the clinicians looking after them. Three existing, overlapping clinical databases.

Results

One hundred and sixty-six professionals from all 27 neonatal surgical centres completed the survey: 6 weeks was the most common target time for stoma closure across clinical scenarios, although there was wide variation. Timing of closure was influenced by nutrition, growth and stoma complications. The prospective cohort study enrolled 56 infants from 8 centres. Infants were mostly preterm with necrotising enterocolitis or intestinal perforation. Clinicians identified extreme preterm gestation and clinical conditions as reasons for not randomising babies into a hypothetical trial comparing early and late stoma closure. Parents and healthcare professionals identified that comparator arms needed more clinical flexibility in relation to timing of stoma closure. Analysis of existing databases revealed wide variation in current timing of stoma closure in neonates and identified approximately 300 eligible infants for a trial per annum in the United Kingdom.

Conclusions

A trial of 'early' compared to 'late' stoma closure in neonates is feasible and is important to families and health professionals. The population of eligible babies in the United Kingdom is sufficient for such a trial. Challenges centre around lack of equipoise in certain scenarios, specifically: extremely preterm infants; infants waiting too long for stoma closure in the 'late' comparator; and logistical issues in closing a stoma at a trial-allocated time. These challenges are addressable by incorporating flexibility based on gestation at birth, communicating that both trial arms are standard practice and valid treatment options, and providing resources, for example, for operating lists.

Future work

We recommend the following population, intervention, comparator and outcome as a starting point to inform future trial design. Population: neonates with stomas (excluding those with a fixed treatment pathway). Intervention: stoma closure at 6 weeks and after 32 weeks post conceptual age. Comparator: expectant management with stoma closure undertaken when the clinical team determines is best for the infant. Primary outcomes: weight gain/growth or length of hospital stay.

Study registration

This study is registered as IRAS Project ID 278331, REC Reference 20/LO/1227.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128617) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 71. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Questioning approaches to consent in time critical obstetric trials: findings from a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

Trial legislation enables research to be conducted without prior consent (RWPC) in emergency situations, yet this approach has rarely been used in time-critical obstetric trials. This study explored views and experiences of antenatal recruitment and consent and RWPC in an emergency intrapartum randomised clinical trial.

DESIGN

Embedded, mixed-methods study within a trial, involving questionnaires, recorded recruitment discussions, interviews and focus groups in the first 13 months of trial recruitment (December 2020-January 2022).

SETTING

COPE is a double-blind randomised controlled trial, comparing the effectiveness of carboprost or oxytocin as first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred and eighty-six people (190 women/96 birth partners), linked to 198/380 (52%) COPE recruits participated in the embedded study. Of these, 272 completed a questionnaire (178 women/94 birth partners), 22 were interviewed (19 women/3 birth partners) and 16 consent discussions with 12 women were recorded. Twenty-seven staff took part in three focus groups and nine staff were interviewed.

RESULTS

Participants recommended that information about the study should be more accessible antenatally for those who wish to be informed. Most women and staff did not think it would be appropriate to seek consent during pregnancy or early labour as it may cause 'unnecessary panic' and lead to research waste, as most women would not become eligible. There was support for the use of RWPC as COPE interventions are used in standard clinical practice and viewed as low risk. Women who were approached about the trial while having a postpartum haemorrhage also supported RWPC as they could not recall research discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support the use of RWPC for time-critical interventions, and raise questions about the appropriateness of other commonly used consent pathways, including antenatal consent and verbal assent.

Stakeholders' perspectives on clinical trial acceptability and approach to consent within a limited timeframe: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.

DESIGN

A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.

SETTING

Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.

PARTICIPANTS

Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child's participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be 'streamlined' to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.

CONCLUSION

Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11746266.

The Effective Management of Fever in Pediatrics and Insights on Remote Management: Experts' Consensus Using a Delphi Approach

BACKGROUND

Even after the publication of the 2017 update of Italian guidelines on treatment of fever in pediatrics, some fundamental questions are still open and new ones emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the level of consensus among Italian pediatricians on different topics related to treatment of fever in children by using the Delphi technique.

METHODS

A Delphi study was undertaken between June and September 2021, when two questionnaires were consecutively sent to a panel of experts to be answered anonymously. An invitation to participate was sent to 500 pediatricians distributed over the whole national territory and 80 (16%) of them accepted to participate on a voluntary basis. The questionnaires were structured into three specific topics: "therapeutic appropriateness and management of the febrile child," "management of the febrile child in the presence of other diseases," and "future perspectives in remote management." Each topic had six statements.

RESULTS

A first-round questionnaire was sent to 80 accepting pediatricians from different Italian regions. Of the 72 respondents (23% working in hospitals and 72% outside), 33% were from northern, 12% central, and 55% southern Italy or islands. A second-round questionnaire was sent to the same 80 pediatricians and 69 of them responded, without significant differences for workplaces or geographical distribution as compared with the first questionnaire. Overall, 75 participants answered at least one of the two questionnaires. All the statements on the topics of "therapeutic appropriateness and management of the febrile child" and "future perspectives in remote management" reached the predefined cut off for consensus (75% or more). Only one statement on "management of the febrile child in the presence of other diseases" did not achieve the consensus even after the second round.

CONCLUSIONS

Italian pediatricians agree on several aspects of treatment of febrile children and their expert opinions could support everyday decision process complementary to recommendations by regulatory agencies and guidelines.

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial): a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial.

SETTING

English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs).

PARTICIPANTS

(1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al's theoretical framework of acceptability.

RESULTS

There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818.

Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child's feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent's views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child's prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training.

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care

INTRODUCTION

Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN60048867.

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the GASTRIC feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question: is a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement feasible in UK paediatric intensive care units and neonatal units?

DESIGN

A mixed-methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms: neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Work package 1: a survey of units to establish current UK practice. Work package 2: qualitative interviews with health-care professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. Work package 3: a modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health-care professionals' opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. Work package 4: examination of national databases to determine the potential eligible populations. Work package 5: two consensus meetings of health-care professionals and parents to review the data and agree consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi study.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units, and health-care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units.

RESULTS

Baseline surveys showed that the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common (96% in paediatric intensive care units and 65% in neonatal units). Ninety per cent of parents from both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, while highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health-care professionals also indicated that a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flow chart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on 12 paediatric intensive care unit and nine neonatal unit outcome measures, and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed that trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16,222 children who met the inclusion criteria in paediatric intensive care units, 12,629 stayed for > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15,375 neonates < 32 weeks of age met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated 'buy-in' from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units, and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined as a result of differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42110505.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Determining Optimal Outcome Measures in a Trial Investigating No Routine Gastric Residual Volume Measurement in Critically Ill Children

BACKGROUND

Choosing trial outcome measures is important. When outcomes are not clinically relevant or important to parents/patients, trial evidence is less likely to be implemented into practice. This study aimed to determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume (GRV) measurement in critically ill children.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used: a focused literature review, parent and clinician interviews, a modified 2-round Delphi, and a stakeholder consensus meeting.

RESULTS

The review generated 13 outcomes. Fourteen pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) parents proposed 3 additional outcomes; these 16 were then rated by 28 clinicians in Delphi round 1. Six further outcomes were proposed, and 22 outcomes were rated in the second round. No items were voted "consensus out." The 18 "no-consensus" items were voted in a face-to-face meeting by 30 participants. The final 12 outcome measures were time to reach energy targets, ventilator-associated pneumonia, vomiting, time enteral feeds withheld per 24 hours, necrotizing enterocolitis, length of invasive ventilation, PICU length of stay, mortality, change in weight and markers of feed intolerance (parenteral nutrition administered), feed formula altered, and change to postpyloric feeds all secondary to feed intolerance.

CONCLUSION

We have identified 12 outcomes for a trial of no GRV measurement through a multistage process, seeking views of parents and clinicians.