Conectar
Mild traumatic brain injury is common in children and it can be challenging to accurately identify those in need of urgent medical intervention. The Scandinavian guidelines for management of minor and moderate head trauma in children, the Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee guideline 2016 (SNC16), were developed to aid in risk stratification and decision-making in Scandinavian emergency departments (EDs). This guideline has been validated externally with encouraging results, but internal validation in the intended healthcare system is warranted prior to broad clinical implementation.
We aim to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the SNC16 to predict clinically important intracranial injuries (CIII) in paediatric patients suffering from blunt head trauma, assessed in EDs in Sweden and Norway.
This is a prospective, pragmatic, observational cohort study. Children (aged 0–17 years) with blunt head trauma, presenting with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 9–15 within 24 hours postinjury at an ED in 1 of the 16 participating hospitals, are eligible for inclusion. Included patients are assessed and managed according to the clinical management routines of each hospital. Data elements for risk stratification are collected in an electronic case report form by the examining doctor. The primary outcome is defined as CIII within 1 week of injury. Secondary outcomes of importance include traumatic CT findings, neurosurgery and 3-month outcome. Diagnostic accuracy of the SNC16 to predict endpoints will be assessed by point estimate and 95% CIs for sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, negative predictive value and positive predictive value.
The study is approved by the ethical board in both Sweden and Norway. Results from this validation will be published in scientific journals, and a tailored development and implementation process will follow if the SNC16 is found safe and effective.
by Jonas Sundén-Cullberg, Puran Chen, Henrike Häbel, Paul Skorup, Helena Janols, Johan Rasmuson, Katarina Niward, Åse Östholm Balkhed, Katerina Chatzidionysiou, Hilmir Asgeirsson, Ola Blennow, Åsa Parke, Anna-Karin Svensson, Jagadeeswara Rao Muvva, Hans-Gustav Ljunggren, Karolinska KI/K COVID-19 Treatment Working Group , Anna-Carin Horne, Ulrika Ådén, Jan-Inge Henter, Anders Sönnerborg, Jan Vesterbacka, Piotr Nowak, Jon Lampa
BackgroundAnakinra and tocilizumab are used for severe Covid-19, but only one previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has studied both. We performed a multi-center RCT comparing anakinra or tocilizumab versus usual care (UC) for adults at high risk of deterioration.
MethodsThe study was conducted June 2020 to March 2021. Eligibility required ≥ 5 liters/minute of Oxygen to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation at ≥ 93%, CRP > 70 mg/L, ferritin > 500 μg/L and at least two points where one point was awarded for lymphocytes 9/L; D-dimer ≥ 0.5 mg/L and; lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 8 microkatal/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive either a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or anakinra 100 mg IV QID for seven days or UC alone. The primary outcome was time to recovery.
ResultsRecruitment was ended prematurely when tocilizumab became part of usual care. Out of a planned 195 patients, 77 had been randomized, 27 to UC, 28 to anakinra and 22 to tocilizumab. Median time to recovery was 15, 15 and 11 days. Rate ratio for recovery for UC vs anakinra was 0.91, 0.47 to 1.78, 95% [CI], p = 0.8 and for UC vs tocilizumab 1.13, 0.55 to 2.30; p = 0.7. There were non-significant trends favoring tocilizumab (and to limited degree anakinra) vs UC for some secondary outcomes. Safety profiles did not differ significantly.
ConclusionPremature closure of trial precludes firm conclusions. Anakinra or tocilizumab did not significantly shorten time to clinical recovery compared to usual care. (IMMCoVA, NCT04412291, EudraCT: 2020–00174824).
FreshRSS 