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

Emergency department discharge practices for children with acute wheeze and asthma: a survey of discharge practice and review of safety netting instructions in the UK and Ireland

OBJECTIVE

Recovery from acute wheeze and asthma attacks should be supported with safety netting, including treatment advice. We evaluated emergency department (ED) discharge practices for acute childhood wheeze/asthma attacks to describe variation in safety netting and recovery bronchodilator dosing.

DESIGN

Two-phase study between June 2020 and September 2021, comprising (1) Departmental discharge practice survey, and (2) Analysis of written discharge instructions for caregivers.

SETTING

Secondary and tertiary EDs in rural and urban settings, from Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Describe practice and variation in discharge advice, treatment recommendations and safety netting provision.

RESULTS

Of 66/71 (93%) participating sites, 62/66 (93.9%) reported providing written safety netting information. 52/66 (78.8%) 'nearly always' assessed inhaler/spacer technique; routine medication review (21/66; 31.8%) and adherence (16/66; 21.4%) were less frequent. In phase II, 61/66 (92.4%) submitted their discharge documents; 50/66 (81.9%) included bronchodilator plans. 11/66 (18.0%) provided Personalised Asthma Action Plans as sole discharge information. 45/50 (90%) provided 'fixed' bronchodilator dosing regimes; dose tapering was common (38/50; 76.0%). Median starting dose was 10 puffs 4 hourly (27/50, 54.0%); median duration was 4 days (29/50, 58.0%). 13/61 (21.3%) did not provide bronchodilator advice for acute deterioration; where provided, 42/48 (87.5%) recommended 10 puffs immediately. Subsequent dosages varied considerably. Common red flags included inability to speak (52/61, 85.2%), inhalers not lasting 4 hours (51/61, 83.6%) and respiratory distress (49/61, 80.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is variation in bronchodilator dosing and safety netting content for recovery following acute wheeze and asthma attacks. This reflects a lack of evidence, affirming need for further multicentre studies regarding bronchodilator recovery strategies and optimal safety netting advice.

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.

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.

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.

Incorporating systems-level stakeholder perspectives into the clinical trial design of school-supervised asthma therapy

RATIONALE

Few evidence-based public health interventions are adopted in practice, in part due to a disconnect between the outcomes measured in clinical trials and the outcomes important to stakeholders that determine implementation in real-world practice. AsthmaLink is a school-supervised asthma therapy program which partners pediatric providers, school nurses, and families. To inform the design of a cluster randomized controlled trial of AsthmaLink, we elicited systems-level stakeholder input.

METHODS

Maximum variation sampling was used to recruit 18 stakeholders to participate in semi-structured interviews that were recorded, transcribed, and open coded: Department of Public Health officials (n = 4), school officials (n = 4), pediatric practice managers (n = 3), health insurance officials (n = 4), and legislators (n = 3). Thematic analysis was used to identify common themes related to stakeholder priorities for clinical trial design and perceived barriers to AsthmaLink adoption.

RESULTS

Stakeholder groups identified common priorities for the clinical trial design, including examination of the extent to which AsthmaLink (1) reduces health care utilization, (2) is cost effective (2) addresses health disparities, (3) reduces school absenteeism, and (4) educates families about asthma. Stakeholder groups reported potential barriers to AsthmaLink adoption, including challenges pertaining to (1) securing resources, staffing, and reimbursement, (2) variability across school districts, and (3) standing out amidst multiple programs vying for resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Systems-level stakeholder input informed refinements to the clinical trial design of a school-supervised therapy program including outcome and implementation measures and choice of study population. Incorporating systems-level stakeholder perspectives into clinical trial design is critical to achieve adoption of evidence-based interventions into practice.

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN): A decade of global research cooperation in paediatric emergency care

OBJECTIVES

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in paediatric emergency care to organise globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks.

METHODS

PERN has grown from five to eight member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children.

RESULTS

Beginning as a pandemic response studying H1N1 influenza risk factors in children, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomised controlled trials (RCTs). As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Following its success with developing global research, the PERN goal now is to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice by: (i) expanding the capacity for global RCTs; (ii) deepening the focus on implementation science; (iii) increasing attention to healthcare disparities; and (iv) expanding PERN's reach into resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN aims to meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network: A Decade of Global Research Cooperation in Pediatric Emergency Care

OBJECTIVES

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in pediatric emergency care to organize globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks.

METHODS

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network has grown from 5- to 8-member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed, and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children.

RESULTS

Beginning as a pandemic response with a high-quality retrospective case-controlled study of H1N1 influenza risk factors, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomized controlled trials. As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In light of the ongoing need for translation of research knowledge into equitable clinical practice and to promote health equity, PERN is committed to a coordinated international effort to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of common and treatable acute conditions in all emergency department settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network's successes with global research, measured by prospective observational and interventional studies, mean that the network can now move to improve its ability to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice. Achieving this goal will involve focus in 4 areas: (1) expanding the capacity for global randomized controlled trials; (2) deepening the focus on implementation science; (3) increasing attention to healthcare disparities and their origins, with growing momentum toward equity; and (4) expanding PERN's global reach through addition of sites and networks from resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN will be able to build on successes to face the challenges ahead and meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.

Interventions for escalation of therapy for acute exacerbations of asthma in children: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Asthma is an illness that commonly affects adults and children, and it serves as a common reason for children to attend emergency departments. An asthma exacerbation is characterised by acute or subacute worsening of shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness and may be triggered by viral respiratory infection, poor compliance with usual medication, a change in the weather, or exposure to allergens or irritants. Most children with asthma have mild or moderate exacerbations and respond well to first-line therapy (inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids). However, the best treatment for the small proportion of seriously ill children who do not respond to first-line therapy is not well understood. Currently, a large number of treatment options are available and there is wide variation in management.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective - To summarise Cochrane Reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment for children with acute exacerbations of asthma (i.e. after first-line treatments, titrated oxygen delivery, and administration of intermittent inhaled short-acting beta₂-agonists and oral corticosteroids have been tried and have failed) Secondary objectives - To identify gaps in the current evidence base that will inform recommendations for future research and subsequent Cochrane Reviews - To categorise information on reported outcome measures used in trials of escalation of treatment for acute exacerbations of asthma in children, and to make recommendations for development and reporting of standard outcomes in future trials and reviews - To identify relevant randomised controlled trials that have been published since the date of publication of each included review METHODS: We included Cochrane Reviews assessing interventions for children with acute exacerbations of asthma. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search is current to 28 December 2019. We also identified trials that were potentially eligible for, but were not currently included in, published reviews. We assessed the quality of included reviews using the ROBIS criteria (tool used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews). We presented an evidence synthesis of data from reviews alongside an evidence map of clinical trials. Primary outcomes were length of stay, hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, and adverse effects. We summarised all findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 potentially eligible Cochrane Reviews but extracted data from, and rated the quality of, 13 reviews that reported results for children alone. We excluded four reviews as one did not include any randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one did not provide subgroup data for children, and the last two had been updated and replaced by subsequent reviews. The 13 reviews included 67 trials; the number of trials in each review ranged from a single trial up to 27 trials. The vast majority of comparisons included between one and three trials, involving fewer than 100 participants. The total number of participants included in reviews ranged from 40 to 2630. All studies included children; 16 (24%) included children younger than two years of age. Most of the reviews reported search dates older than four years. We have summarised the published evidence as outlined in Cochrane Reviews. Key findings, in terms of our primary outcomes, are that (1) intravenous magnesium sulfate was the only intervention shown to reduce hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence); (2) no evidence suggested that any intervention reduced the risk of intensive care admission (low- to very low-certainty evidence); (3) the risk of hospital admission was reduced by the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta₂-agonists (moderate-certainty evidence), the use of intravenous magnesium sulfate (high-certainty evidence), and the use of inhaled heliox (low-certainty evidence); (4) the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate to usual bronchodilator therapy appears to reduce serious adverse events during hospital admission (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) aminophylline increased vomiting compared to placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) and increased nausea and nausea/vomiting compared to intravenous beta₂-agonists (low-certainty evidence); and (6) the addition of anticholinergic therapy to short-acting beta₂-agonists appeared to reduce the risk of nausea (high-certainty evidence) and tremor (moderate-certainty evidence) but not vomiting (low-certainty evidence). We considered 4 of the 13 reviews to be at high risk of bias based on the ROBIS framework. In all cases, this was due to concerns regarding identification and selection of studies. The certainty of evidence varied widely (by review and also by outcome) and ranged from very low to high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on interventions for escalation of therapy for acute exacerbations of asthma in children from Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials. A vast majority of comparisons involved between one and three trials and fewer than 100 participants, making it difficult to assess the balance between benefits and potential harms. Due to the lack of comparative studies between various treatment options, we are unable to make firm practice recommendations. Intravenous magnesium sulfate appears to reduce both hospital length of stay and the risk of hospital admission. Hospital admission is also reduced with the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta₂-agonists. However, further research is required to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from these therapies. Due to the relatively rare incidence of acute severe paediatric asthma, multi-centre research will be required to generate high-quality evidence. A number of existing Cochrane Reviews should be updated, and we recommend that a new review be conducted on the use of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Important priorities include development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future trials in acute severe asthma exacerbations and determination of clinically important differences in these outcomes, which can then inform adequately powered future trials.

A systematic review of outcomes reported inpediatric perioperative research: A report from the Pediatric Perioperative Outcomes Group

The Pediatric Perioperative Outcomes Group (PPOG) is an international collaborative of clinical investigators and clinicians within the subspecialty of pediatric anesthesiology and perioperative care which aims to use COMET (Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials) methodology to develop core outcome setsfor infants, children and young people that are tailored to the priorities of the pediatric surgical population.Focusing on four age-dependent patient subpopulations determined a priori for core outcome set development: i) neonates and former preterm infants (up to 60 weeks postmenstrual age); ii) infants (>60 weeks postmenstrual age - <1 year); iii) toddlers and school age children (>1-<13 years); and iv) adolescents (>13-<18 years), we conducted a systematic review of outcomes reported in perioperative studies that include participants within age-dependent pediatric subpopulations. Our review of pediatric perioperative controlled trials published from 2008 to 2018 identified 724 articles reporting 3192 outcome measures. The proportion of published trials and the most frequently reported outcomes varied across pre-determined age groups. Outcomes related to patient comfort, particularly pain and analgesic requirement, were the most frequent domain for infants, children and adolescents. Clinical indicators, particularly cardiorespiratory or medication-related adverse events, were the most common outcomes for neonates and infants < 60 weeks and were the second most frequent domain at all other ages. Neonates and infants <60 weeks of age were significantly under-represented in perioperative trials. Patient-centered outcomes, heath care utilization, and bleeding/transfusion related outcomes were less often reported. In most studies, outcomes were measured in the immediate perioperative period, with the duration often restricted to the post-anesthesia care unit or the first 24 postoperative hours. The outcomes identified with this systematic review will be combined with patient centered outcomes identified through a subsequent stakeholder engagement study to arrive at a core outcome set for each age-specific group.