This network meta-analysis suggests that the quality of studies should be improved through the use of comparative designs, relevant outcomes, appropriate follow-up length, and more reliable inclusion criteria.

Background: Oral propranolol reduces retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) progression, although not safely. Propranolol 0.1% eye micro-drops administered to newborns with stage 2 ROP are well-tolerated, but not sufficiently effective. Methods: A multi-center open-label trial was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of propranolol 0.2% eye micro-drops in newborns with stage 1 ROP. The progression of the disease was evaluated with serial ophthalmologic examinations. Hemodynamic, respiratory, biochemical parameters, and propranolol plasma levels were monitored. Demographic and perinatal characteristics, co-morbidities and co-intervention incidences, together with ROP progression, were compared with a historical control group in the same centers participating in the trial. Results: Ninety-eight newborns were enrolled and compared with the historical control group. Populations were not perfectly homogeneous (as demonstrated by the differences in the Apgar score and the different incidence rate in surfactant administration and oxygen exposure). The progression to ROP stage 2 or 3 plus was significantly lower than the incidence expected on the basis of historical data (Risk Ratio 0.521, 95% CI 0.297– 0.916). No adverse effects related to propranolol were observed and the mean propranolol plasma level was significantly lower than the safety cut-off of 20 ng/mL. Unexpectedly, three newborns treated with oral propranolol before the appearance of ROP, showed a ROP that was unresponsive to propranolol eye micro-drops and required laser photocoagulation treatment. Conclusion: Propranolol 0.2% eye micro-drops were well-tolerated and appeared to reduce the ROP progression expected on the basis of a comparison with a historical control group. Propranolol administered too early appears to favor a more aggressive ROP, suggesting that a β-adrenoreceptor blockade is only useful during the proliferative phase. Further randomized placebo-controlled trials are required to confirm the current results. Clinical Trial Registration The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with Identifier NCT02504944 and with EudraCT Number 2014-005472-29.

IntroductionStatus epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency. SE lasting longer than 120 min and not responding to first-line and second-line antiepileptic drugs is defined as ‘refractory’ (RCSE) and requires intensive care unit treatment. There is currently neither evidence nor consensus to guide either the optimal choice of therapy or treatment goals for RCSE, which is generally treated with coma induction using conventional anaesthetics (high dose midazolam, thiopental and/or propofol). Increasing evidence indicates that ketamine (KE), a strong N-methyl-d-aspartate glutamate receptor antagonist, may be effective in treating RCSE. We hypothesised that intravenous KE is more efficacious and safer than conventional anaesthetics in treating RCSE.Methods and analysisA multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-profit, sequentially designed study will be conducted to assess the efficacy of KE compared with conventional anaesthetics in the treatment of RCSE in children. 10 Italian centres/hospitals are involved in enrolling 57 patients aged 1 month to 18 years with RCSE. Primary outcome is the resolution of SE up to 24 hours after withdrawal of therapy and is updated for each patient treated according to the sequential method.Ethics and disseminationThe study received ethical approval from the Tuscan Paediatric Ethics Committee (12/2015). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT02431663; Pre-results.

Propranolol 0.1% eye micro-drops are well tolerated, but not sufficiently effective. Further studies are required to identify the optimal dose and administration schedule.

Complementary and alternative drugs (CADs) are widely used in preoperative patients and may lead to potential interactions and adverse reactions. The aim of our study is to evaluate the prevalence and the predictors of CADs use among preoperative patients using data from an Italian survey. This cross-sectional study, which enrolled 478 patients (response rate: 83.5%), was carried out in three Tuscany hospitals (Italy). The prevalence of CADs use was 49.8%: 233 out of 238 participants used herbal products and/or dietary supplements. Valeriana officinalis was the most reported product (19.4%). According to univariate analysis, users were commonly identified among middle-aged or older patients; unadjusted ORs were 2.1 (95% CI: 1.3–3.3) for patients aged 48–69 years, and 3.0 (95% CI: 1.9–4.7) for those of 70–95 years, when compared with individuals aged 18–47 years. Except for education and gender, adjusted estimates showed consistent results with univariate analyses: direct association was observed with higher education, and—although not significantly—with female gender. The high prevalence of CAD use in preoperative period could be suggestive of a certain risk of adverse effects due to CADs interactions. A careful medical history of CADs consumption should be ascertained before surgery.