Search

Shrouk Messahel,1 Louise Bracken,2 Richard Appleton3 1NIHR NWC Speciality Research Lead for Trauma and Emergency Care, The Emergency Department, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, L12 2AP, UK; 2Paediatric Medicines Research Unit, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, L12 2AP, UK; 3Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UKCorrespondence: Richard Appleton, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK, Tel +44 07976 010754, Email richardappleton55@hotmail.co.ukAbstract: Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common neurological emergency in children and the second most common neurological emergency in adults. Mortality is low, but morbidity, including neuro-disability, learning difficulties, and a de-novo epilepsy, may be as high as 22%. The longer the duration of CSE, the more difficult it is to terminate, and the greater the risk of morbidity. Convulsive status epilepticus is usually managed using specific national or local algorithms. The first-line treatment is administered when a tonic-clonic or focal motor clonic seizure has lasted five minutes (impending or premonitory CSE). Second-line treatment is administered when the CSE has persisted after two doses of a first-line treatment (established CSE). Randomised clinical trial (RCT) evidence supports the use of benzodiazepines as a first-line treatment of which the most common are buccal or intra-nasal midazolam, rectal diazepam and intravenous lorazepam. Alternative drugs, for which there are considerably less RCT data, are intra-muscular midazolam and intravenous clonazepam. Up until 2019, phenobarbital and phenytoin (or fosphenytoin) were the preferred second-line treatments but with no good supporting RCT evidence. Robust RCT data are now available which has provided important information on second-line treatments, specifically phenytoin (or fosphenytoin), levetiracetam and sodium valproate. Lacosamide is an alternative second-line treatment but with no supporting RCT evidence. Current evidence indicates that first, buccal or intranasal midazolam or intravenous lorazepam are the most effective and the most patient and carer-friendly first-line anti-seizure medications to treat impending or premonitory CSE and second, that there is no difference in efficacy between levetiracetam, phenytoin (or fosphenytoin) or sodium valproate for the treatment of established CSE. Pragmatically, levetiracetam or sodium valproate are preferred to phenytoin (or fosphenytoin) because of their ease of administration and lack of serious adverse side-effects, including potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias. Sodium valproate must be used with caution in children aged three and under because of the rare risk of hepatotoxicity and particularly if there is an underlying mitochondrial disorder.Keywords: convulsive, status epilepticus, emergency, anti-seizure medications, anticonvulsants, pediatric, children

Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) is diagnostic testing performed at or near to the site of the patient. Understanding the current capacity, and scope, of POCT in this setting is essential in order to respond to new research evidence which may lead to wide implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey study of POCT use was conducted between 6th January and 2nd February 2020 on behalf of two United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland-based paediatric research networks (Paediatric Emergency Research UK and Ireland, and General and Adolescent Paediatric Research UK and Ireland). Results: In total 91/109 (83.5%) sites responded, with some respondents providing details for multiple units on their site based on network membership (139 units in total). The most commonly performed POCT were blood sugar (137/139; 98.6%), urinalysis (134/139; 96.4%) and blood gas analysis (132/139; 95%). The use of POCT for Influenza/Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) (45/139; 32.4%, 41/139; 29.5%), C-Reactive Protein (CRP) (13/139; 9.4%), Procalcitonin (PCT) (2/139; 1.4%) and Group A Streptococcus (5/139; 3.6%) and was relatively low. Obstacles to the introduction of new POCT included resources and infrastructure to support test performance and quality assurance. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates significant consensus in POCT practice in the UK and Ireland but highlights specific inequity in newer biomarkers, some which do not have support from national guidance. A clear strategy to overcome the key obstacles of funding, evidence base, and standardising variation will be essential if there is a drive toward increasing implementation of POCT.

Aims\ud Torus fractures are the most common childhood fracture, accounting for 500,000 UK emergency attendances per year. UK treatment varies widely due to lack of scientific evidence. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled equivalence trial of ‘the offer of a soft bandage and immediate discharge’ versus ‘rigid immobilization and follow-up as per the protocol of the treating centre’ in the treatment of torus fractures.\ud \ud Methods\ud Children aged four to 15-years-old inclusive who have sustained a torus/buckle fracture of the distal radius with/without an injury to the ulna are eligible to take part. Baseline pain as measured by the Wong Baker FACES pain scale, function using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper limb, and quality of life (QoL) assessed with the EuroQol EQ-5D-Y will be collected. Each patient will be randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre and age group (four to seven years and ≥ eight years) to either a regimen of the offer of a soft bandage and immediate discharge or rigid immobilization and follow-up as per the protocol of the treating centre.\ud \ud Results\ud At day one, three, and seven, data on pain, function, QoL, immobilization, and analgesia will be collected. Three and six weeks after injury, the main outcomes plus data on complications, resource use, and school absence will be collected. The primary outcome is the Wong-Baker FACES pain scale at three days post-randomization. All data will be obtained through electronic questionnaires completed by the participants and/or parents/guardian.

Background Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening neurological emergency in childhood. These children are also at risk of significant morbidity, with acute and chronic impact on the family and the health and social care systems. The current recommended first-choice, second-line treatment in children aged 6 months and above is intravenous phenytoin (fosphenytoin in the USA), although there is a lack of evidence for its use and it is associated with significant side effects. Emerging evidence suggests that intravenous levetiracetam may be effective as a second-line agent for CSE, and fewer adverse effects have been described. This trial therefore aims to determine whether intravenous phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective, and safer, in treating childhood CSE. Methods/design This is a phase IV, multi-centre, parallel group, randomised controlled, open-label trial. Following treatment for CSE with first-line treatment, children with ongoing seizures are randomised to receive either phenytoin (20 mg/kg, maximum 2 g) or levetiracetam (40 mg/kg, maximum 2.5 g) intravenously. The primary outcome measure is the cessation of all visible signs of CSE as determined by the treating clinician. Secondary outcome measures include the need for further anti-seizure medications or rapid sequence induction for ongoing CSE, admission to critical care areas, and serious adverse reactions. Patients are recruited without prior consent, with deferred consent sought at an appropriate time for the family. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is a time to event outcome and a sample size of 140 participants in each group will have 80% power to detect an increase in CSE cessation rates from 60% to 75%. Our total sample size of 308 randomised and treated participants will allow for 10% loss to follow-up. Discussion This clinical trial will determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective as an intravenous second-line agent for CSE, and provide evidence for management recommendations. In addition, this trial will also provide data on which of these therapies is safer in this setting. Trial registration ISRCTN identifier, ISRCTN22567894 . Registered on 27 August 2015 EudraCT identifier, 2014-002188-13 . Registered on 21 May 2014 NIHR HTA Grant: 12/127/134

Background Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.Methods This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894.Findings Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91–1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). Interpretation Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.

Objective: To inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (called EcLiPSE) to improve the treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). EcLiPSE requires the use of a controversial deferred consent process. Design: Qualitative interview and focus group study. Setting: 8 UK support groups for parents of children who have chronic or acute health conditions and experience of paediatric emergency care. Participants: 17 parents, of whom 11 participated in telephone interviews (10 mothers, 1 father) and 6 in a focus group (5 mothers, 1 father). 6 parents (35%) were bereaved and 7 (41%) had children who had experienced seizures, including CSE. Results: Most parents had not heard of deferred consent, yet they supported its use to enable the progress of emergency care research providing a child's safety was not compromised by the research. Parents were reassured by tailored explanation, which focused their attention on aspects of EcLiPSE that addressed their priorities and concerns. These aspects included the safety of the interventions under investigation and how both EcLiPSE interventions are used in routine clinical practice. Parents made recommendations about the appropriate timing of a recruitment discussion, the need to individualise approaches to recruiting bereaved parents and the use of clear written information. Conclusions: Our study provided information to help ensure that a challenging trial was patient centred in its design. We will use our findings to help EcLiPSE practitioners to: discuss potentially threatening trial safety information with parents, use open-ended questions and prompts to identify their priorities and concerns and clarify related aspects of written trial information to assist understanding and decisionmaking.