PRagMatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced vs nOrmaL Saline FlUid in Sepsis: study protocol for the PRoMPT BOLUS randomized interventional trial

Background/aims Despite evidence that preferential use of balanced/buffered fluids may improve outcomes compared with chloride-rich 0.9% saline, saline remains the most commonly used fluid for children with septic shock. We aim to determine if resuscitation with balanced/buffered fluids as part of usual care will improve outcomes, in part through reduced kidney injury and without an increase in adverse effects, compared to 0.9% saline for children with septic shock. Methods The Pragmatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced versus Normal Saline Fluid in Sepsis (PRoMPT BOLUS) study is an international, open-label pragmatic interventional trial being conducted at > 40 sites in the USA, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand starting on August 25, 2020, and continuing for 5 years. Children > 6 months to < 18 years treated for suspected septic shock with abnormal perfusion in an emergency department will be randomized to receive either balanced/buffered crystalloids (intervention) or 0.9% saline (control) for initial resuscitation and maintenance fluids for up to 48 h. Eligible patients are enrolled and randomized using serially numbered, opaque envelopes concurrent with clinical care. Given the life-threatening nature of septic shock and narrow therapeutic window to start fluid resuscitation, patients may be enrolled under “exception from informed consent” in the USA or “deferred consent” in Canada and Australia/New Zealand. Other than fluid type, all decisions about timing, volume, and rate of fluid administration remain at the discretion of the treating clinicians. For pragmatic reasons, clinicians will not be blinded to study fluid type. Anticipated enrollment is 8800 patients. The primary outcome will be major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE30), a composite of death, renal replacement therapy, and persistent kidney dysfunction. Additional effectiveness, safety, and biologic outcomes will also be analyzed. Discussion PRoMPT BOLUS will provide high-quality evidence for the comparative effectiveness of buffered/balanced crystalloids versus 0.9% saline for the initial fluid management of children with suspected septic shock in emergency settings. Trial registration PRoMPT BOLUS was first registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04102371) on September 25, 2019. Enrollment started on August 25, 2020.

Enroller Experience and Parental Familiarity of Disease Influence Participation in a Pediatric Trial

Introduction: Acquiring parental consent is critical to pediatric clinical research, especially in interventional trials. In this study we investigated demographic, clinical, and environmental factors associated with likelihood of parental permission for enrollment in a study of therapies for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children. Methods: We analyzed data from patients and parents who were approached for enrollment in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) Fluid Therapies Under Investigation in DKA (FLUID) trial at one major participating center. We determined the influence of various factors on patient enrollment, including gender, age, distance from home to hospital, insurance status, known vs new onset of diabetes, glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c), DKA severity, gender of the enroller, experience of the enroller, and time of enrollment. Patients whose parents consented to participate were compared to those who declined participation using bivariable and multivariable analyses controlling for the enroller. Results: A total of 250 patient/parent dyads were approached; 177 (71%) agreed to participate, and 73 (29%) declined. Parents of patients with previous episodes of DKA agreed to enroll more frequently than those with a first DKA episode (94.3% for patients with 1-2 previous DKA episodes, 92.3% for > 2 previous episodes, vs 64.9% for new onset diabetes and 63.2% previously diagnosed but no previous DKA). Participation was also more likely with more experienced enrollers (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] of participation for an enroller with more than two years’ experience vs less than two years: 2.46 [1.53, 3.97]). After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, significant associations between participation and both DKA history and enroller experience remained. Patient age, gender, distance of home from hospital, glycemic control, insurance status, and measures of DKA severity were not associated with likelihood of participation. Conclusion: Familiarity with the disease process (previously diagnosed diabetes and previous experience with DKA) and experience of the enroller favorably influenced the likelihood of parental permission for enrollment in a study of DKA in children.

The Investigational Clinical Center: a clinical-supportive and patient-centered trial unit model. Ten years of experience through normal and pandemic times of a large pediatric trial center in Italy

Evidence-based medicine relies on appropriately designed, conducted and reported clinical trials (CTs) to provide the best proofs of efficacy and safety for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Modern clinical research features high complexity and requires a high workload for the management of trials-related activities, often hampering physicians’ participation to clinical trials. Dealing with children in clinical research adds complexity: rare diseases, parents or legal guardian reluctance to engage and recruitment difficulties are major reasons of pediatric trials failure.However, because in pediatrics many treatments are prescribed off-label or are lacking, well-designed clinical trials are particularly needed. Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) are indeed an important asset in the implementation of clinical trials, but their support to investigators is limited to administrative and non-clinical tasks. In this paper we present the model of the Investigational Clinical Center (ICC) of the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. The ICC includes clinicians supporting the Principal Investigators for clinical management of enrolled patients in compliance of Good Clinical Practice, the legal framework of Clinical Trials. Furthermore, we present 10 years’ experience in pediatric clinical trials and how it has been affected in 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic. The activity of the ICC has been evaluated according to specific metrics of performance. The ICC model offers a complete support, helping investigators, patients and their families to overcome majority of barriers linked to clinical research, even in time of pandemic. We propose this organization as an innovative model for total-supportive and patient-centered clinical trial implementation.

Handling Poor Accrual in Pediatric Trials: A Simulation Study Using a Bayesian Approach

In the conduction of trials, a common situation is related to potential difficulties in recruiting the planned sample size as provided by the study design. A Bayesian analysis of such trials might provide a framework to combine prior evidence with current evidence, and it is an accepted approach by regulatory agencies. However, especially for small trials, the Bayesian inference may be severely conditioned by the prior choices. The Renal Scarring Urinary Infection (RESCUE) trial, a pediatric trial that was a candidate for early termination due to underrecruitment, served as a motivating example to investigate the effects of the prior choices on small trial inference. The trial outcomes were simulated by assuming 50 scenarios combining different sample sizes and true absolute risk reduction (ARR). The simulated data were analyzed via the Bayesian approach using 0%, 50%, and 100% discounting factors on the beta power prior. An informative inference (0% discounting) on small samples could generate data-insensitive results. Instead, the 50% discounting factor ensured that the probability of confirming the trial outcome was higher than 80%, but only for an ARR higher than 0.17. A suitable option to maintain data relevant to the trial inference is to define a discounting factor based on the prior parameters. Nevertheless, a sensitivity analysis of the prior choices is highly recommended.

The Investigational Clinical Center: a clinical-supportive and patient-centered trial unit model. Ten years of experience through normal and pandemic times of a large pediatric Trial Center in Italy.

Evidence-based medicine relies on appropriately designed, conducted and reported clinical trials (CTs) to provide the best proofs of efficacy and safety for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Modern clinical research features high complexity and requires a high workload for the management of trials-related activities, often hampering physicians’ participation to clinical trials. Dealing with children in clinical research adds complexity: rare diseases, parents or legal guardian reluctance to engage and recruitment difficulties are major reasons of pediatric trials failure. However, because in pediatrics many treatments are prescribed off-label or are lacking, well-designed clinical trials are particularly needed. Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) are indeed an important asset in the implementation of clinical trials, but their support to investigators is limited to administrative and non-clinical tasks. In this paper we present the model of the Investigational Clinical Center (ICC) of the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. The ICC includes clinicians supporting the Principal Investigators for clinical management of enrolled patients in compliance of Good Clinical Practice, the legal framework of Clinical Trials. Furthermore, we present ten years’ experience in pediatric clinical trials and how it has been affected in 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic. The activity of the ICC has been evaluated according to specific metrics of performance. The ICC model offers a complete support, helping investigators, patients and their families to overcome majority of barriers linked to clinical research, even in time of pandemic. We propose this organization as an innovative model for total-supportive and patient-centered clinical trial implementation.

The Investigational Clinical Center: a clinical-supportive and patient-centered trial unit model. Ten years of experience through normal and pandemic times of a large pediatric Trial Center in Italy.

Evidence-based medicine relies on appropriately designed, conducted and reported clinical trials (CTs) to provide the best proofs of efficacy and safety for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Modern clinical research features high complexity and requires a high workload for the management of trials-related activities, often hampering physicians’participation to clinical trials. Dealing with children in clinical research adds complexity: rare diseases, parents or legal guardian reluctance to engage and recruitment difficulties are major reasons of pediatric trials failure. However, because in paediatrics many treatments are prescribed off-label or are lacking, well-designed clinical trials are particularly needed. Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) are indeed an important asset in the implementation of clinical trials, but their support to investigators is limited to administrative and non-clinical tasks. In this paper we present the model of the Investigational Clinical Center (ICC) of the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. The ICC includes clinicians supporting the Principal Investigators (PIs) for clinical management of enrolled patients in compliance of Good Clinical Practice, the legal framework of Clinical Trials. Furthermore, we present ten years’ experience in paediatric clinical trials and how it has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The activity of the ICC has been evaluated according to six metrics of performance. The ICC model offers a complete support, helping investigators, patients and their families to overcome majority of barriers linked to clinical research, even in time of pandemic. We propose this organization as an innovative model for total-supportive and patient-centered clinical trial implementation.

Review: Toxicology testing of new medicines for children (Preprint)

UNSTRUCTURED Abstract -Objectives This review represents a critical and constructive analysis of literature in the content of toxicology testing of new medicines for children. The review is generated through summary, classification, analysis and comparison of already existing material and researches on field. -Materials and methods Databases as Scopus, PubMed, Medline and Web of Science were used to extract data for the review. Search terms like “juvenile toxicity studies”, “children toxicology”, “testing of new drugs” were used. Out of 150 research articles screened, 25 most relevant studies are included in this review. -Results Whether juvenile animal toxicology studies are truly useful or necessary to support pediatric drug development is still doubtful. The current knowledge on cross-species functional and kinetic differences is not reliable, meaning that extrapolation of any toxicology study finding to an immature human may not be relevant, especially if performed at the wrong time and in the wrong species. -Conclusion Even though, great improvements and regulatory initiatives regarding juvenile toxicity studies have been accomplished, unfortunately testing new drugs in children still remains on its initial stage and lags behind to other scientific developments. In order to narrow down the juvenile toxicity studies loophole, we need to improve compliance by drug companies and research sponsors with pediatric trial obligations.

How to collect non-medical data in a pediatric trial: diaries or interviews

Background Non-medical data, such as the amount of time that patients and caregivers spend managing their condition, may be relevant when assessing therapeutic strategies. For chronic pediatric conditions, the time that patients and caregivers spend in seeking and providing care (which are the indirect costs in an economic evaluation) can be significantly different depending on the treatment arm. To explore methods for collecting information on the care burden for caregivers and patients, we investigated whether a patient diary provided additional information compared to retrospective investigator-led interviews and whether a diary that was completed intermittently produced more or less information than a diary completed continually. The main objective of this study was to identify which type of data collection was most effective for measuring the time spent by caregivers and for estimating indirect treatment costs over 9 months. Methods Start-In! is a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of three strategies of real-time continuous glucose monitoring for 12 months in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. We designed an ancillary study to assess methods of collecting information on the time spent by patients and caregivers in managing their condition (indirect costs). Data were entered retrospectively in case report forms (CRFs) by investigators during quarterly follow-up visits, which were supplemented with diaries completed prospectively by children or caregivers either continuously or intermittently. Data about absences from school and work as well as the time that caregivers spent on diabetes care were collected and the three collection methods were compared. Results At the end of the 9-month study, 42% of the study participants failed to return their diary. For the diaries that were received, less than 10% of expected data were collected versus 82% during investigators'interviews. Based on all the information collected, we calculated that over 9 months, caregivers lost on average 3.9 days of working time (€786) and 4 days of personal time, i.e. the equivalent of €526, and spent around 15 min of time on care per day, i.e. the equivalent of €1700. Conclusions The CRFs completed by investigators during quarterly visits cannot be replaced by a diary. Completing the diaries appeared to represent an important additional burden to children and their caregivers, and the diaries provided little additional information compared to investigators’ entries in the CRF. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00949221. Registered on 30 July 2009. Registry name: Study of Insulin Therapy Augmented by Real Time Sensor in Type 1 Children and Adolescents (START-IN!).