Children represent a minority of total COVID-19 cases, but studies have reported severe disease and death in pediatric patients. Remdesivir (RDV) has recently demonstrated promising results in adults with COVID-19, but few data have been reported to date in children. A nationwide multicenter observational study was conducted on children with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 receiving compassionate treatment with RDV in Spain. Eight patients were included in the study, four infants and four older children [median age 5 years old; IQR 4 months–11.6 years old]. Half of them had complex underlying medical conditions, and the rest were mostly infants (3/4). Six out of eight children needed Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Admission. No RDV-related adverse outcomes were observed in our patients. Seven have reached successful clinical outcome, but one patient with serious clinical status died due to complications. However, she received RDV very late after the first COVID-19 symptom. Conclusions : In our cohort, most of the patients achieved successful clinical outcome, without observing adverse events. Clinical trials of RDV therapy for children with COVID-19 are urgently needed, to assess the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of RDV in children, as this could be an effective treatment in severe cases. What is Known: • Remdesivir has not been approved to treat COVID-19 in children under 12 years old, although the drug is currently being prescribed in critically ill children. • Remdesivir has recently demonstrated promising results in adults with COVID-19, but few data have been reported to date in paediatric population. What is New: • We report a multicentre cohort of children with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 disease receiving remdesivir during the first month of the pandemic in Spain. • No remdesivir-related adverse outcomes were observed in most of the cases. Seven patients reached successful clinical outcome, and one died due to complications (bacterial sepsis). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00431-020-03876-1.

No abstract

IntroductionThe higher rate of neuropsychiatric disorders in individuals with non-syndromic orofacial clefts has been well documented by previous studies. Our goal was to identify children with non-syndromic orofacial clefts that are at risk for abnormal neurodevelopment by assessing their developmental history and present cognitive functioning.Materials and methodsA single-center, case-controlled study was carried out at the Department of Pediatrics of the University of Pécs in Hungary. The study consisted of three phases including questionnaires to collect retrospective clinical data and psychometric tools to assess IQ and executive functioning.ResultsForty children with non-syndromic oral clefts and 44 age-matched controls participated in the study. Apgar score at 5 min was lower for the cleft group, in addition to delays observed for potty-training and speech development. Psychiatric disorders were more common in the cleft group (15%) than in controls (4.5%), although not statistically significant with small effect size. The cleft group scored lower on the Continuous Performance Test. Subgroup analysis revealed significant associations between higher parental socio-economic status, academic, and cognitive performance in children with non-syndromic orofacial clefts. Analyzes additionally revealed significant associations between early speech and language interventions and higher scores on the Verbal Comprehension Index of the WISC-IV in these children.DiscussionChildren with non-syndromic orofacial clefts seem to be at risk for deficits involving the attention domain of the executive system. These children additionally present with difficulties that affect cognitive and speech development. Children with non-syndromic orofacial clefts show significant skill development and present with similar cognitive strengths as their peers. Longitudinal studies with larger sample sizes are needed to provide more conclusive evidence on cognitive deficits in children with non-syndromic orofacial clefts at risk for neurodevelopmental difficulties.

BackgroundNeuroimaging of individuals with non-syndromic oral clefts have revealed subtle brain structural differences compared to matched controls. Previous studies strongly suggest a unified primary dysfunction of normal brain and face development which could explain these neuroanatomical differences and the neuropsychiatric issues frequently observed in these individuals. Currently there are no studies that have assessed the overall empirical evidence of the association between oral clefts and brain structure. Our aim was to summarize the available evidence on potential brain structural differences in individuals with non-syndromic oral clefts and their matched controls.MethodsMEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Embase were systematically searched in September 2020 for case-control studies that reported structural brain MRI in individuals with non-syndromic oral clefts and healthy controls. Studies of syndromic oral clefts were excluded. Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were performed in order to compare global and regional brain MRI volumes.ResultsTen studies from 18 records were included in the review. A total of 741 participants were analyzed. A moderate to high risk of bias was determined for the included studies. The cerebellum (MD: −12.46 cm3, 95% CI: −18.26, −6.67, n = 3 studies, 354 participants), occipital lobes (MD: −7.39, 95% CI: −12.80, −1.99, n = 2 studies, 120 participants), temporal lobes (MD: −10.53 cm3, 95% CI: −18.23, −2.82, n = 2 studies, 120 participants) and total gray matter (MD: −41.14 cm3; 95% CI: −57.36 to −24.92, n = 2 studies, 172 participants) were significantly smaller in the cleft group compared to controls.DiscussionThere may be structural brain differences between individuals with non-syndromic oral clefts and controls based on the available evidence. Improvement in study design, size, methodology and participant selection could allow a more thorough analysis and decrease study heterogeneity.

Background Clinical research should provide reliable evidence to clinicians, health policy makers, and researchers. The reliability of evidence will be assured once study planning, conducting, and reporting of results are transparent. The present research investigates publication rates, time until publication, and characteristics of clinical trials on medicinal products associated with timely publication of results, measures of scientific impact, authorship, and open access publication. Methods Clinical trials authorized in Hungary in 2012 were followed until publication and/or June 2020. Corresponding scientific publications were searched via clinical trial registries, PubMed (MEDLINE), and Google. Results Overall, 330 clinical trials were authorized in 2012 of which 232 trials were completed for more than 1 year in June 2020. The proportion of industry initiation was high (97%). Time to publication was 21 (22) months [median (IQR)]. Time to publication was significantly shorter when trials involved both European and non-European countries (26 vs 69 months [median]; hazard ratio = 0.38, 95% CI 0.22–0.66, p< 0.001), and were registered in both EU CTR and clinicaltrials.gov (27 vs 88 months; hazard ratio = 0.24, 95% CI 0.11–0.54; p< 0.001) based on survival analyses. A significant amount (24.1%) of unpublished clinical trial results were accessible in a trial register. The majority of available publications were published “open access” (70.93%). A minority of identified publications had a Hungarian author (21.5%). Conclusions We encourage academic researchers to plan, register and conduct trials on medicinal products. Registries should be considered as an important source of information of clinical trial results. Publications with domestic co-authors contribute to the research output of a country. Measurable domestic scientific impact of trials on medicinal products needs further improvement.