Search

Purpose: Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is a rare disease responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IG) therapy in paediatric TSS could improve shock and organ failure, but more consistent efficacy and safety data are needed. Our objective was to determine whether a randomised clinical trial (RCT) assessing intravenous IG in TSS in children is feasible., Methods: We performed a multicentre, feasibility, double-blind RCT assessing efficacy of high-dose intravenous IG versus albumin 4% (control group) within the first 12 hours of shock onset. Included patients were aged above 1 month and below 18 years with suspected TSS and septic shock. Feasibility was assessed by measuring inclusion rate, protocol compliance and missing data regarding death and the Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) Score. Other secondary clinical outcomes were evaluated during hospital stay, at 60 day and 1 year., Results: 28 patients, admitted in 6 paediatric intensive care units during 36 consecutive months and followed for 1 year, received the allocated treatment: 13 in intravenous IG group, 15 in control group. The median age was 10.6 years and the sex ratio was 1. Inclusion rate was above 50%, protocol deviations were below 30% and missing data regarding death and PELOD-2 Score below 10%. No difference concerning secondary clinical outcomes between groups was observed, and more adverse events were reported in the control group., Conclusion: It seems to be feasible to conduct an RCT assessing intravenous IG efficacy and safety in paediatric TSS but must be realised internationally, with choice of a clinically relevant endpoint and a specific design in order to be realistic., Trial Registration Number: NCT02219165., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals., Design: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 16 October 2016. Studies that elicited stakeholder priorities for paediatric chronic disease research were eligible for inclusion. Data on the prioritisation process were extracted using an appraisal checklist. Generated priorities were collated into common topic areas., Results: We identified 83 studies (n=15 722). Twenty (24%) studies involved parents/caregivers and four (5%) children. The top three health areas were cancer (11%), neurology (8%) and endocrine/metabolism (8%). Priority topic areas were treatment (78%), disease trajectory (48%), quality of life/psychosocial impact (48%), disease onset/prevention (43%), knowledge/self-management (33%), prevalence (30%), diagnostic methods (28%), access to healthcare (25%) and transition to adulthood (12%). The methods included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys and focus groups/interviews. Specific methods for collecting and prioritising research topics were described in only 60% of studies. Most reviewed studies were conducted in high-income nations., Conclusions: Research priority setting activities in paediatric chronic disease cover many discipline areas and have elicited a broad range of topics. However, child/caregiver involvement is uncommon, and the methods often lack clarity. A systematic and explicit process that involves patients and families in partnership may help to inform a more patient and family-relevant research agenda in paediatric chronic disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)