10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Modified Clinical Progression Scale for Pediatric Patients: Evaluation as a Severity Metric and Outcome Measure in Severe Acute Viral Respiratory Illness

      research-article
      , MD, MPH 1 , 2 , , MS 1 , , MPH 1 , , MD 3 , 4 , , MD 5 , , BS 1 , , MD, MSCS 6 , , MD 7 , , MD, MSC 8 , , MD 9 , , MD 10 , , MD, MS 11 , , MD 12 , , MD 13 , , MD, MBA 14 , , MD 15 , , MD 16 , , MD 17 , , MD 18 , , MD 19 , , MD 20 , , MD 21 , , MD 22 , , MPH 23 , , MD 23 , , MS, PhD 1 , 2 , , MD, MSc 1 , 2 ,
      Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
      acute hypoxic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, children, critical care, respiratory outcome score

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVES:

          To develop, evaluate, and explore the use of a pediatric ordinal score as a potential clinical trial outcome metric in children hospitalized with acute hypoxic respiratory failure caused by viral respiratory infections.

          DESIGN:

          We modified the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale for pediatric patients (CPS-Ped) and assigned CPS-Ped at admission, days 2–4, 7, and 14. We identified predictors of clinical improvement (day 14 CPS-Ped ≤ 2 or a three-point decrease) using competing risks regression and compared clinical improvement to hospital length of stay (LOS) and ventilator-free days. We estimated sample sizes (80% power) to detect a 15% clinical improvement.

          SETTING:

          North American pediatric hospitals.

          PATIENTS:

          Three cohorts of pediatric patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure receiving intensive care: two influenza (pediatric intensive care influenza [PICFLU], n = 263, 31 sites; PICFLU vaccine effectiveness [PICFLU-VE], n = 143, 17 sites) and one COVID-19 ( n = 237, 47 sites).

          INTERVENTIONS:

          None.

          MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

          Invasive mechanical ventilation rates were 71.4%, 32.9%, and 37.1% for PICFLU, PICFLU-VE, and COVID-19 with less than 5% mortality for all three cohorts. Maximum CPS-Ped (0 = home at respiratory baseline to 8 = death) was positively associated with hospital LOS ( p < 0.001, all cohorts). Across the three cohorts, many patients’ CPS-Ped worsened after admission (39%, 18%, and 49%), with some patients progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (19%, 11%, and 17%). Despite this, greater than 76% of patients across cohorts clinically improved by day 14. Estimated sample sizes per group using CPS-Ped to detect a percentage increase in clinical improvement were feasible (influenza 15%, n = 142; 10%, n = 225; COVID-19, 15% n = 208) compared with mortality ( n > 21,000, all), and ventilator-free days (influenza 15%, n = 167).

          CONCLUSIONS:

          The CPS-Ped can be used to describe the time course of illness and threshold for clinical improvement in hospitalized children and adolescents with acute respiratory failure from viral infections. This outcome measure could feasibly be used in clinical trials to evaluate in-hospital recovery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report

          Abstract Background Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), none have yet been shown to be efficacious. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. Results A total of 1063 patients underwent randomization. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early unblinding of the results on the basis of findings from an analysis that showed shortened time to recovery in the remdesivir group. Preliminary results from the 1059 patients (538 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo) with data available after randomization indicated that those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) in those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04). Serious adverse events were reported for 114 of the 541 patients in the remdesivir group who underwent randomization (21.1%) and 141 of the 522 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization (27.0%). Conclusions Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition.

            The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined in 1994 by the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC); since then, issues regarding the reliability and validity of this definition have emerged. Using a consensus process, a panel of experts convened in 2011 (an initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine) developed the Berlin Definition, focusing on feasibility, reliability, validity, and objective evaluation of its performance. A draft definition proposed 3 mutually exclusive categories of ARDS based on degree of hypoxemia: mild (200 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), moderate (100 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg), and severe (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 100 mm Hg) and 4 ancillary variables for severe ARDS: radiographic severity, respiratory system compliance (≤40 mL/cm H2O), positive end-expiratory pressure (≥10 cm H2O), and corrected expired volume per minute (≥10 L/min). The draft Berlin Definition was empirically evaluated using patient-level meta-analysis of 4188 patients with ARDS from 4 multicenter clinical data sets and 269 patients with ARDS from 3 single-center data sets containing physiologic information. The 4 ancillary variables did not contribute to the predictive validity of severe ARDS for mortality and were removed from the definition. Using the Berlin Definition, stages of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS were associated with increased mortality (27%; 95% CI, 24%-30%; 32%; 95% CI, 29%-34%; and 45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%, respectively; P < .001) and increased median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (5 days; interquartile [IQR], 2-11; 7 days; IQR, 4-14; and 9 days; IQR, 5-17, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the AECC definition, the final Berlin Definition had better predictive validity for mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.577 (95% CI, 0.561-0.593) vs 0.536 (95% CI, 0.520-0.553; P < .001). This updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition. The approach of combining consensus discussions with empirical evaluation may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pediatr Crit Care Med
                Pediatr Crit Care Med
                PCC
                Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1529-7535
                04 August 2023
                December 2023
                : 24
                : 12
                : 998-1009
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
                [2 ] Department of Anaesthesia, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
                [3 ] Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
                [4 ] Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
                [5 ] Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
                [6 ] Department of Pediatrics, Section of Critical Care Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO.
                [7 ] Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH.
                [8 ] Division of Critical Care, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
                [9 ] Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital Orange County (CHOC), Orange, CA.
                [10 ] Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
                [11 ] Section of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, AR.
                [12 ] Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
                [13 ] Department of Pediatrics, Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.
                [14 ] Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Akron Children’s Hospital, Akron, OH.
                [15 ] Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
                [16 ] Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
                [17 ] Section of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, TX.
                [18 ] Division of Critical Care Medicine, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, Oakland, CA.
                [19 ] Division of Pediatric Infectious Disease, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO.
                [20 ] Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Mott Children’s Hospital and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
                [21 ] Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Cooperman Barnabas Medical Center, Livingston, NJ.
                [22 ] Division of Pediatric Critical Care, University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, MN.
                [23 ] Influenza Division and CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control of Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta, GA.
                Author notes
                For information regarding this article, E-mail: adrienne.randolph@ 123456childrens.harvard.edu
                Article
                00004
                10.1097/PCC.0000000000003331
                10688559
                37539964
                009a587c-f153-4619-a929-28d1b6270960
                Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, doi 10.13039/100000060;
                Award ID: AI084011
                Award Recipient : Adrienne G Randolph
                Funded by: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, doi 10.13039/100000060;
                Award ID: AI154470
                Award Recipient : Adrienne G Randolph
                Funded by: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, doi 10.13039/100000030;
                Award ID: 75D30119C05584
                Award Recipient : Adrienne G Randolph
                Funded by: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, doi 10.13039/100000030;
                Award ID: 75D30120C07725
                Award Recipient : Adrienne G Randolph
                Categories
                Feature Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                acute hypoxic respiratory failure,acute respiratory distress syndrome,children,critical care,respiratory outcome score

                Comments

                Comment on this article