Search

Two blinded single-dose studies randomized children 6 months to 11 years old with fever to receive ibuprofen (IBU) pediatric suspension 7.5 mg/kg or acetaminophen (APAP) suspension 10 to 15 mg/kg. The primary efficacy parameter was time-weighted sum of temperature differences (TWSTD) from baseline through 8 hours for each study. Secondary end points included TWSTD from baseline through 6 hours, time to onset and duration of temperature control, and proportion with temperature control. Studies were pooled for post hoc analyses of efficacy and adverse event end points. The primary efficacy parameter significantly favored IBU over APAP in study 1 and the pooled analysis (both P < .001), but was not significant in study 2. Onset of temperature control significantly favored IBU in study 2 (P = .007). Individual and pooled secondary efficacy outcomes supported significant advantages (P < .05) of IBU over APAP. IBU pediatric suspension provided greater temperature reduction versus acetaminophen in febrile children, with a comparable safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Benefits associated with probiotic administration to children seeking emergency department care with diarrheal disease are unknown. Methods. In this 3-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, children aged 4 to 48 months with gastroenteritis were randomized to receive 5 days of placebo, low-dose (4 × 109 colony forming units per day), or high-dose (8 × 109 colony forming units per day) probiotic (Lactobacillus helveticus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus) in a 2:1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was day care absenteeism. Results. The proportion of children missing a day of day care was 63% (39/62) and 61% (37/61) in the placebo and probiotic arms, respectively (95%CI −14.6% to 18.9%). The proportions experiencing unscheduled health care provider visits and intravenous fluid rehydration were 24% (15/62), 7% (4/62), and 30% (18/61), 5% (3/61) in the placebo and probiotic study arms, respectively (P = .52 and P = .65). None of the results differed based on probiotic dose. Conclusions. The probiotic evaluated did not reduce absenteeism. Since power was suboptimal, further evaluation is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This exploratory randomized, double-blind, doubledummy, placebo-controlled trial of 14 days duration conducted in 22 primary care practices in the United States was used to compare the efficacy of ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine, administered alone or in combination, to placebo for the treatment of primary nocturnal enuresis (PNE) in children aged 6 to 11 years. Ibuprofen (IBU) and pseudoephedrine (PSE) are not approved for the treatment of PNE. Three hundred eighteen children with PNE were enrolled. Eligible children had ⩾ 8 wet nights during a 14-day baseline. Each child was randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: IBU 12.5 mg/kg and PSE HCl 15 or 30 mg (depending on weight) (n = 82), IBU 12.5 mg/kg (n = 78), PSE HCl 15 or 30 mg (n = 76), or placebo (n = 82). Treatment was administered orally at bedtime for 14 days. Caregivers recorded whether the child was wet or dry each night in a daily diary. Children in the IBU alone and IBU and PSE combined groups had greater mean reductions from baseline in the number of wet nights (primary end point) compared to children receiving placebo (-2.9, -2.9, and -1.4, respectively, P < .005); PSE alone (-1.8) was not significantly different from placebo. Children in these groups also had greater mean percentage reductions in the number of wet nights compared to placebo-treated children (26%, 28%, and 12%, respectively). Although not always statistically significant, secondary end points improved in the IBU alone and IBU and PSE combined treatment groups, which included decreases in mean number of wet nights and decreases in the number and percentage of children with ? 50%, 40%, 30%, or 25% reductions in number of wet nights. Children responding to treatment had larger mean bladder capacities and larger mean percentage of predicted bladder capacities than children who did not respond in each treatment group. No significant differences in adverse events were found among treatment groups. In conclusion, in this exploratory study in children aged 6 through 11 years, IBU provided a beneficial effect in the treatment of PNE compared to placebo, whereas PSE did not. The addition of PSE to IBU did not enhance or diminish the efficacy of IBU. All treatments were well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]