Explore the vast range of titles available.

The diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis can be difficult. Although scoring systems such as the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) are helpful, they lack adequate sensitivity and specificity as standalone diagnostics. When used for risk stratification, they often result in large percentages of moderate-risk patients requiring further diagnostic evaluation. We applied a biomarker panel (the APPY1 Test) that has high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) to patients with PAS in the moderate-risk range (3-7) and reclassified those patients with a negative result to the low-risk group. We compared the specificity, sensitivity, and NPV of the original and reclassified low-risk groups at several different PAS low-risk cutoffs. The application of a negative biomarker panel to a group of patients with a moderate risk for appendicitis (PAS, 3-7) resulted in 4 times more patients (586 vs 145) being safely classified as low risk. Reclassification increased the overall specificity or the proportion of patients without appendicitis who were correctly identified as low risk, from 10.3% to 42.0%. The high NPV (97.2%) in the original group was preserved (97.6%) in the reclassified low-risk group, as was the sensitivity (original 99.1% vs reclassified 96.9%). The addition of negative biomarker test results to patients with a moderate risk of appendicitis based on the PAS can safely reclassify many to a low-risk group. This may allow clinicians to provide more conservative management in children with suspected appendicitis and decrease unnecessary resource utilization.

Evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the APPY1TM biomarker panel, previously described for use in pediatric patients, for identifying adult ED patients with abdominal pain who are at low risk of acute appendicitis. This study prospectively enrolled subjects >18years of age presenting to seven U.S. emergency departments with <72hours of abdominal pain suggesting possible acute appendicitis. The APPY1 panel was performed on blood samples drawn from each patient at the time of initial evaluation and results were correlated with the final diagnosis either positive or negative for acute appendicitis. 431 patients were enrolled with 422 completing all aspects of the study. The APPY1 biomarker panel exhibited a sensitivity of 97.5% (95% CI, 91.3–99.3%), a negative predictive value of 98.4% (95% CI, 94.4–99.6%), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02–0.27), with a specificity of 36.5% (95% CI, 31.6–41.8%) for acute appendicitis. The panel correctly identified 125 of 342 (36.6%) patients who did not have appendicitis with 2 (2.5%) false negatives. The CT utilization rate in this population was 72.7% (307/422). Of 307 CT scans, 232 were done for patients who did not have appendicitis and 79 (34%) of these patients were correctly identified as negative with \"low risk\" biomarker panel results, representing 26% (79/307) of all CT scans performed. This biomarker panel exhibited high sensitivity and negative predictive value for acute appendicitis in this prospective adult cohort, thereby potentially reducing the dependence on CT for the evaluation of possible acute appendicitis.

Acute gastroenteritis is a common illness, and treatment with probiotics is common. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG was found to afford no benefit in reducing symptoms associated with acute gastroenteritis in children.

It is unclear whether the alleged efficacy of probiotics in childhood acute gastroenteritis depends on the duration and severity of symptoms before treatment. Preplanned secondary analysis of 2 randomized placebo-controlled trials in children 3-48 months of age was conducted in 16 emergency departments in North America evaluating the efficacy of 2 probiotic products (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and a combination probiotic: L. rhamnosus and L. helveticus). Participants were categorized in severity groups according to the duration (<24, 24-<72, and ≥72 hours) and the frequency of diarrhea episodes in the 24 hours (≤3, 4-5, and ≥6) before presentation. We used regression models to assess the interaction between pretreatment diarrhea severity groups and treatment arm (probiotic or placebo) in the presence of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis (Modified Vesikari Scale score ≥9). Secondary outcomes included diarrhea frequency and duration, unscheduled healthcare provider visits, and hospitalization. A total of 1,770 children were included, and 882 (50%) received a probiotic. The development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis symptoms after the initiation of treatment did not differ between groups (probiotic-18.4% [162/882] vs placebo-18.3% [162/888]; risk ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.87, 1.16; P = 0.95). There was no evidence of interaction between baseline severity and treatment (P = 0.61) for the primary or any of the secondary outcomes: diarrhea duration (P = 0.88), maximum diarrheal episodes in a 24-hour period (P = 0.87), unscheduled healthcare visits (P = 0.21), and hospitalization (P = 0.87). In children 3-48 months with acute gastroenteritis, the lack of effect of probiotics is not explained by the duration of symptoms or frequency of diarrheal episodes before presentation.

INTRODUCTION:It is unclear whether the alleged efficacy of probiotics in childhood acute gastroenteritis depends on the duration and severity of symptoms before treatment.METHODS:Preplanned secondary analysis of 2 randomized placebo-controlled trials in children 3-48 months of age was conducted in 16 emergency departments in North America evaluating the efficacy of 2 probiotic products (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and a combination probiotic: L. rhamnosus and L. helveticus). Participants were categorized in severity groups according to the duration (<24, 24-<72, and ≥72 hours) and the frequency of diarrhea episodes in the 24 hours (≤3, 4-5, and ≥6) before presentation. We used regression models to assess the interaction between pretreatment diarrhea severity groups and treatment arm (probiotic or placebo) in the presence of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis (Modified Vesikari Scale score ≥9). Secondary outcomes included diarrhea frequency and duration, unscheduled healthcare provider visits, and hospitalization.RESULTS:A total of 1,770 children were included, and 882 (50%) received a probiotic. The development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis symptoms after the initiation of treatment did not differ between groups (probiotic-18.4% [162/882] vs placebo-18.3% [162/888]; risk ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.87, 1.16; P = 0.95). There was no evidence of interaction between baseline severity and treatment (P = 0.61) for the primary or any of the secondary outcomes: diarrhea duration (P = 0.88), maximum diarrheal episodes in a 24-hour period (P = 0.87), unscheduled healthcare visits (P = 0.21), and hospitalization (P = 0.87).DISCUSSION:In children 3-48 months with acute gastroenteritis, the lack of effect of probiotics is not explained by the duration of symptoms or frequency of diarrheal episodes before presentation.

IntroductionAcute gastroenteritis (AGE) is a common and burdensome condition that affects millions of children worldwide each year. Currently available strategies are limited to symptomatic management, treatment and prevention of dehydration and infection control; no disease-modifying interventions exist. Probiotics, defined as live microorganisms beneficial to the host, have shown promise in improving AGE outcomes, but existing studies have sufficient limitations such that the use of probiotics cannot currently be recommended with confidence. Here we present the methods of a large, rigorous, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness and side effect profile of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) (ATCC 53103) in children with AGE.Methods and analysisThe study is being conducted in 10 US paediatric emergency departments (EDs) within the federally funded Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, in accordance with current SPIRIT and CONSORT statement recommendations. We will randomise 970 children presenting to participating EDs with AGE to either 5 days of treatment with LGG (1010colony-forming unit twice a day) or placebo between July 2014 to December 2017. The main outcome is the occurrence of moderate-to-severe disease over time, as defined by the Modified Vesikari Scale. We also record adverse events and side effects related to the intervention. We will conduct intention-to-treat analyses and use an enrichment design to restore the statistical power in case the presence of a subpopulation with a substantially low treatment effect is identified.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional review board approval has been obtained at all sites, and data and material use agreements have been established between the participating sites. The results of the trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals. A deidentified public data set will be made available after the completion of all study procedures.Trial registration numberNCT01773967.

Despite guidelines endorsing oral rehydration therapy, intravenous fluids are commonly administered to children with acute gastroenteritis in high-income countries. To identify factors associated with intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization in children with acute gastroenteritis. This study is a planned secondary analysis of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) probiotic trials. Participants include children aged 3 to 48 months with 3 or more watery stools in 24 hours between November 5, 2013, and April 7, 2017, for the PERC study and July 8, 2014, and June 23, 2017, for the PECARN Study. Children were from 16 pediatric emergency departments throughout Canada (6) and the US (10). Data were analyzed from November 2, 2018, to March 16, 2021. Sex, age, preceding health care visit, distance between home and hospital, country (US vs Canada), frequency and duration of vomiting and diarrhea, presence of fever, Clinical Dehydration Scale score, oral ondansetron followed by oral rehydration therapy, and infectious agent. Intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization. This secondary analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials included 1846 children (mean [SD] age, 19.1 [11.4] months; 1007 boys [54.6%]), of whom 534 of 1846 (28.9%) received oral ondansetron, 240 of 1846 (13.0%) received intravenous rehydration, and 67 of 1846 (3.6%) were hospitalized. The following were independently associated with intravenous rehydration: higher Clinical Dehydration Scale score (mild to moderate vs none, odds ratio [OR], 8.73; 95% CI, 5.81-13.13; and severe vs none, OR, 34.15; 95% CI, 13.45-86.73); country (US vs Canada, OR, 6.76; 95% CI, 3.15-14.49); prior health care visit with intravenous fluids (OR, 4.55; 95% CI, 1.32-15.72); and frequency of vomiting (per 5 episodes, OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.99). The following were independently associated with hospitalization: higher Clinical Dehydration Scale score (mild to moderate vs none, OR, 11.10; 95% CI, 5.05-24.38; and severe vs none, OR, 23.55; 95% CI, 7.09-78.25) and country (US vs Canada, OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.36-8.40). Oral ondansetron was associated with reduced odds of intravenous rehydration (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.32) and hospitalization (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.89). Intravenous rehydration and hospitalization were associated with clinical evidence of dehydration and lack of an oral ondansetron-supported oral rehydration period. Strategies focusing on oral ondansetron administration followed by oral rehydration therapy in children with dehydration may reduce the reliance on intravenous rehydration and hospitalization. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01853124 (PERC) and NCT01773967 (PECARN).

Background Although oral rehydration therapy is recommended for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) with none to some dehydration, intravenous (IV) rehydration is still commonly administered to these children in high-income countries. IV rehydration is associated with pain, anxiety, and emergency department (ED) revisits in children with AGE. Objectives We sought to better understand the factors associated with IV rehydration in children with AGE in order to inform knowledge translation strategies. Design/Methods This was a planned secondary analysis of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) randomized, controlled trials of oral probiotics in children with AGE-associated diarrhea. Eligible children were aged 3–48 months and reported >3 watery stools in a 24-hour period. The primary outcome was administration of IV rehydration at the index ED visit. We used mixed-effects logistic regression model to explore univariable and multivariable relationships between IV rehydration and a prioririsk factors. Results From the parent study sample of 1848 participants, 1846 had data available for analysis: mean (SD) age of 19.1 ± 11.4 months, 45.4% females. 70.2% (1292/1840) vomited within 24 hours of the index ED visit and 34.1% (629/1846) received ondansetron in the ED. 13.0% (240/1846) were administered IV rehydration at the index ED visit, and 3.6% (67/1842) were hospitalized. Multivariable predictors of IV rehydration were Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS) score [compared to none: mild to moderate (OR: 8.1, CI: 5.5–11.8); severe (OR: 45.9, 95% CI: 20.1–104.7), P<0.001], ondansetron in the ED (OR: 1.8, CI: 1.2–2.6, P=0.003), previous healthcare visit for the same illness [compared to no prior visit: prior visit with no IV (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3–2.9); prior visit with IV (OR: 10.5, 95% CI: 3.2–34.8), P<0.001], and country [compared to Canada: US (OR: 4.1, CI: 2.3–7.4, P<0.001]. Significantly more participants returned to the ED with symptoms of AGE within 3 days if IV fluids were administered at the index visit [30/224 (13.4%) versus 88/1453 (6.1%), P<0.001]. Conclusion Higher CDS scores, antiemetic use, previous healthcare visits and country were independent predictors of IV rehydration which was also associated with increased ED revisits. Knowledge translation focused on optimizing the use of antiemetics (i.e. for those with dehydration) and reducing the geographic variation in IV rehydration use may improve the ED experience and reduce ED-revisits.

Background: The US federal regulation “Exception from Informed Consent for Emergency Research,” 21 Code of Federal Regulations 50.24, permits emergency research without informed consent under limited conditions. Additional safeguards to protect human subjects include requirements for community consultation and public disclosure prior to starting the research. Because the regulations are vague about these requirements, Institutional Review Boards determine the adequacy of these activities at a local level. Thus, there is potential for broad interpretation and practice variation. Aim: To describe the variation of community consultation and public disclosure activities approved by Institutional Review Boards, and the effectiveness of this process for a multi-center, Exception from Informed Consent, pediatric status epilepticus clinical research trial. Methods: Community consultation and public disclosure activities were analyzed for each of the 15 participating sites. Surveys were conducted with participants enrolled in the status epilepticus trial to assess the effectiveness of public disclosure dissemination prior to study enrollment. Results: Every Institutional Review Board, among the 15 participating sites, had a varied interpretation of Exception from Informed Consent regulations for community consultation and public disclosure activities. Institutional Review Boards required various combinations of focus groups, interviews, surveys, and meetings for community consultation, and news releases, mailings, and public service announcements for public disclosure. At least 4335 patients received information about the study from these efforts. In all, 158 chose to be included in the “Opt Out” list. Of the 304 participants who were enrolled under Exception from Informed Consent, 12 (5%) had heard about the study through community consultation or public disclosure activities. The activities reaching the highest number of participants were surveys and focus groups associated with existing meetings. Public disclosure activities were more efficient and cost-effective if they were part of an in-hospital resource for patients and families. Conclusion: There is substantial variation in Institutional Review Boards’ interpretations of the federal regulations for community consultation and public disclosure. One of the goals of community consultation and public disclosure efforts for emergency research is to provide community members an opportunity to opt out of Exception from Informed Consent research; however, rarely do patients or their legally authorized representatives report having learned about a study prior to enrollment.

While I appreciated André Picard's article, as it will draw attention to testicular cancer, I vehemently disagree with his view that routine self-examination should not be encouraged. He quotes the statistic that 29 young Canadian men will die of this disease this year.