Search

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) represents one of the most common infectious diseases and a major cause of antibiotic prescription in children. To prevent recurrent infections and long-term complications, low-dose continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) has been used. However, the efficacy of CAP is controversial. The aim of this document was to develop updated guidelines on the efficacy and safety of CAP to prevent pediatric UTIs. Methods: A panel of experts on pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric nephrology, pediatric urology, and primary care was asked clinical questions concerning the role of CAP in preventing UTIs in children. Overall, 15 clinical questions were addressed, and the search strategy included accessing electronic databases and a manual search of gray literature published in the last 25 years. After data extraction and narrative synthesis of results, recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Results: The use of CAP is not recommended in children with a previous UTI, with recurrent UTIs, with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) of any grade, with isolated hydronephrosis, and with neurogenic bladder. CAP is suggested in children with significant obstructive uropathies until surgical correction. Close surveillance based on early diagnosis of UTI episodes and prompt antibiotic therapy is proposed for conditions in which CAP is not recommended. Conclusions: Our systematic review shows that CAP plays a limited role in preventing recurrences of UTI in children and has no effect on its complications. On the other hand, the emergence of new antimicrobial resistances is a proven risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this review is to address the issue of endpoints in paediatric oncology. Oncologists use this term to refer to an outcome they are trying to measure with a clinical trial, which may become accordingly the object of scientific articles. The outcome measured may concern both efficacy and safety, although from different perspectives. Methods: Based on both literature and experience developed in clinical trials, the different types of endpoints have been critically analysed in their power to provide the highest information of therapeutic interest (efficacy and safety) with the least risk and discomfort for the individual. Primary, secondary and surrogate endpoints have been distinguished. The most relevant differences have been discussed in comparison with adult oncology settings of endpoints. Results: The rarity of cancer in childhood and adolescence and the objective difficulty of enrolling statistically conceivable numbers of individuals have determined the utmost positive development of large scale, multinational clinical trials. The most interesting consequence is that the impact of multiplicity interferences, which is usually present in virtually all clinical trials developed for adults with cancer, is not a common event in paediatric oncology. Nevertheless, many of the questions concerning the different impact on outcome and survival of clinical trials developed in adult oncology remain unanswered due to the objective limitations still existing in terms of cure compared with paediatric oncology. The powerful consistency of cure rate, as the most relevant endpoint of clinical trials developed in paediatric oncology, addresses additional considerations to support the relevant differences existing between adult and paediatric oncology: both the development of clinical trials with different aims (confirmatory versus primary response) and the limited impact of multiplicity limitations may determine different implications regarding the meaning of endpoints in paediatric and adult oncology. Conclusion: The aim of cancer treatment is to improve survival (SUR) and quality of life (QoL), but some restraints on the conduct of clinical trials may make these goals unattainable. Clinical trial endpoints represent a measure method aimed to grant answers to questions addressed by the clinical trial itself. The effect of the new regulation is expected to stimulate high-quality research and provide robust information on paediatric drugs to increase the availability of such drugs to children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Childhood cancer affects 12,000 new patients/year in Europe with more than 60 different malignancies. To date, the overall cure rate at 5 years is around 80% in Europe [1] and U.S. [2], with a powerful increase as compared to the cure rates accessible 15 years ago. Although cancer in children is a rare condition, being only 1% of all cancers, it remains the first cause of death in children older than 1 year; still, 3,000 deaths are reported every year. Accordingly, paediatric cancer still represents a therapeutic need and new efficient treatments must be developed, regardless the present cure rates allow to figure out that one adult aged from 16 to 45 years out of 900 individuals has been cured by cancer during childhood [3]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]