Search

Native Americans are the least represented population in science fields. In recent years, undergraduate and graduate level summer research programs that aimed to increase the number of Native Americans in science have made some progress. As new programs are designed, key characteristics that address science self-efficacy and science identity and provide supports for Native American students' commitment to a scientific career should be considered. In this study, we used sequential mixed methods to investigate the potential of culturally tailored internship programs on Native American persistence in science. We analyzed surveys (n = 47) and interviews (n = 4) with Native American students to understand their perceptions of themselves in relation to science research and how summer research experiences might develop science identities. Based on regression modeling, science identity, but not science self-efficacy, predicted intent to persist in science. In turn, science self-efficacy and Native American identity predicted science identity, and this suggests cultural identity is central to Native American persistence in science. In interviews, students' comments reinforced these findings and shed light on students' reasoning about the kinds of science experiences they sought; specifically, they chose to participate in culturally tailored internships because these programs provided a sense of belonging to the scientific community that did not conflict with their cultural identities. Based on our analysis, we propose an Indigenous science internship model and recommend that agencies target funding for culturally tailored programs from high school through early-investigator levels as well as provide inclusive programmatic and mentoring guidelines.

ObjectiveTo quantify the association between early neurologic recovery, practice pattern variation, and endotracheal intubation during established status epilepticus, we performed a secondary analysis within the cohort of patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT).MethodsWe evaluated factors associated with the endpoint of endotracheal intubation occurring within 120 minutes of ESETT study drug initiation. We defined a blocked, stepwise multivariate regression, examining 4 phases during status epilepticus management: (1) baseline characteristics, (2) acute treatment, (3) 20-minute neurologic recovery, and (4) 60-minute recovery, including seizure cessation and improving responsiveness.ResultsOf 478 patients, 117 (24.5%) were intubated within 120 minutes. Among high-enrolling sites, intubation rates ranged from 4% to 32% at pediatric sites and 19% to 39% at adult sites. Baseline characteristics, including seizure precipitant, benzodiazepine dosing, and admission vital signs, provided limited discrimination for predicting intubation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.63). However, treatment at sites with an intubation rate in the highest (vs lowest) quartile strongly predicted endotracheal intubation independently of other treatment variables (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.08-21.4, model AUC 0.70). Site-specific variation was the factor most strongly associated with endotracheal intubation after adjustment for 20-minute (aOR 23.4, 95% CI 6.99-78.3, model AUC 0.88) and 60-minute (aOR 14.7, 95% CI 3.20-67.5, model AUC 0.98) neurologic recovery.ConclusionsEndotracheal intubation after established status epilepticus is strongly associated with site-specific practice pattern variation, independently of baseline characteristics, and early neurologic recovery and should not alone serve as a clinical trial endpoint in established status epilepticus.Trial registration informationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01960075.

BackgroundBenzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075.FindingsBetween Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged 65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group.InterpretationChildren, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.

Background and objectivesConvulsive seizures account for 15% of pediatric air transports. We evaluated seizure treatment received in community hospital emergency departments among transported patients for adherence to recommended management.MethodsThis study was a retrospective cohort study of children transported for an acute seizure to a tertiary pediatric hospital from 2010 to 2013. Seizure treatment was evaluated for adherence to recommended management. The primary outcome was intubation.ResultsAmong 126 events, 61% did not receive recommended acute treatment. The most common deviation from recommended care was administration of >2 benzodiazepine doses. Lack of adherence to recommended care was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of intubation (relative risk 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.13) and 1.5-fold increased risk of admission to the ICU (relative risk 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.16). Duration of ventilation was commonly

BackgroundThe 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.AimTo 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.MethodsCommunity 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.ResultsEvery 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.ConclusionThere 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.

Background: Federal regulations allow exception from informed consent (EFIC) to study emergent conditions when obtaining prospective consent is not feasible. Little is known about public views on including children in EFIC studies. The Pediatric Dose Optimization for Seizures in EMS (PediDOSE) trial implements age‐based, standardized midazolam dosing for pediatric seizures. The primary objective of this study was to determine public support for and concerns about the PediDOSE EFIC trial. The secondary objective was to assess how support for PediDOSE varied by demographics. Methods: We conducted a mixed‐methods study in 20 U.S. communities. Participants reviewed information about PediDOSE before completing an online survey. Descriptive data were generated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with support for PediDOSE. Reviewers identified themes from free‐text response data regarding participant concerns. Results: Of 2450 respondents, 79% were parents/guardians, and 20% had a child with previous seizures. A total of 96% of respondents supported PediDOSE being conducted, and 70% approved of children being enrolled without prior consent. Non‐Hispanic Black respondents were less likely than non‐Hispanic White respondents to support PediDOSE with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.57 (95% CI 0.42–0.75). Health care providers were more likely to support PediDOSE, with strongest support among prehospital emergency medicine clinicians (aOR 5.82, 95% CI 3.19–10.62). Age, gender, parental status, and level of education were not associated with support of PediDOSE. Common concerns about PediDOSE included adverse effects, legal and ethical concerns about enrolling without consent, and potential racial bias. Conclusions: In communities where this study will occur, most respondents supported PediDOSE being conducted with EFIC and most approved of children being enrolled without prior consent. Support was lowest among non‐Hispanic Black respondents and highest among health care providers. Further research is needed to determine optimal ways to address the concerns of specific racial and ethnic groups when conducting EFIC trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare intranasal midazolam, using a Mucosal Atomization Device (IN-MMAD), with rectal diazepam (RD) for the home treatment of seizures in children with epilepsy. Design: Prospective randomized study. Setting: Patients' homes and a freestanding children's hospital that serves as a referral center for 5 states. Patients: A total of 358 pediatric patients who visited a pediatric neurology clinic from July 2006 through September 2008 and were prescribed a home rescue medication for their next seizure. Intervention: Caretakers were randomized to use either 0.2 mg/kg of IN-MMAD (maximum, 10 mg) or 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg of RD (maximum, 20 mg) at home for their child's next seizure if it lasted more than 5 minutes. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was total seizure time after medication administration. Our secondary outcome measures were total seizure time, time to medication administration, respiratory complications, emergency medical service support, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and caretakers' ease of administration and satisfaction with the medication. Results: A total of 92 caretakers gave the study medication during a child's seizure (50 IN-MMAD, 42 RD). The median time from medication administration to seizure cessation for IN-MMAD was 1.3 minutes less than for RD (95% confidence interval, 0.0-3.5 minutes; P=.09). The median time to medication administration was 5.0 minutes for each group. No differences in complications were found between treatment groups. Caretakers were more satisfied with IN-MMAD and report that it was easier to give than RD. Conclusions: There was no detectable difference in efficacy between IN-MMAD and RD as a rescue medication for terminating seizures at home in pediatric patients with epilepsy. Ease of administration and overall satisfaction was higher with IN-MMAD compared with RD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]