Background: There may be a risk of COVID-19 transmission to rescuers delivering treatment for cardiac arrest. The aim of this review was to identify the potential risk of transmission associated with key interventions (chest compressions, defibrillation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) to inform international treatment recommendations. Methods: We undertook a systematic review comprising three questions: (1) aerosol generation associated with key interventions; (2) risk of airborne infection transmission associated with key interventions; and (3) the effect of different personal protective equipment strategies. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database on 24th March 2020.Eligibility criteria were developed individually for each question. We assessed risk of bias for individual studies, and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty by outcome. Results:We included eleven studies: two cohort studies, one case control study, five case reports, and three manikin randomised controlled trials. We did not find any direct evidence that chest compressions or defibrillation either are or are not associated with aerosol generation or transmission of infection. Data from manikin studies indicates that donning of personal protective equipment delays treatment delivery. Studies provided only indirect evidence, with no study describing patients with COVID-19. Evidence certainty was low or very low for all outcomes. Conclusion:It is uncertain whether chest compressions or defibrillation cause aerosol generation or transmission of COVID-19 to rescuers. There is very limited evidence and a rapid need for further studies.Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020175594.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

BackgroundBetter evidence regarding drug safety in the pediatric population might be generated from existing data sources such as spontaneous reporting systems and electronic healthcare records. The Global Research in Paediatrics (GRiP)–Network of Excellence aims to develop pediatric-specific methods that can be applied to these data sources. A reference set of positive and negative drug–event associations is required.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a pediatric-specific reference set of positive and negative drug–event associations.MethodsConsidering user patterns and expert opinion, 16 drugs that are used in individuals aged 0–18 years were selected and evaluated against 16 events, regarded as important safety outcomes. A cross-table of unique drug–event pairs was created. Each pair was classified as potential positive or negative control based on information from the drug’s Summary of Product Characteristics and Micromedex. If both information sources consistently listed the event as an adverse event, the combination was reviewed as potential positive control. If both did not, the combination was evaluated as potential negative control. Further evaluation was based on published literature.ResultsSelected drugs include ibuprofen, flucloxacillin, domperidone, methylphenidate, montelukast, quinine, and cyproterone/ethinylestradiol. Selected events include bullous eruption, aplastic anemia, ventricular arrhythmia, sudden death, acute kidney injury, psychosis, and seizure. Altogether, 256 unique combinations were reviewed, yielding 37 positive (17 with evidence from the pediatric population and 20 with evidence from adults only) and 90 negative control pairs, with the remainder being unclassifiable.ConclusionWe propose a drug–event reference set that can be used to compare different signal detection methods in the pediatric population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-015-0265-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo systemically review and critically appraise published studies of the association between vitamin D supplementation or serum vitamin D level and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19, including clinical course, morbidity and mortality outcomes.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv and BioRxiv preprint databases. COVID-19 databases of the WHO, Cochrane, CEBM Oxford and Bern University up to 10 June 2020.Study selectionStudies that assessed vitamin D supplementation and/or low serum vitamin D in patients acutely ill with, or at risk of, severe betacoronavirus infection (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2).Data extractionTwo authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black Quality Assessment Checklist.ResultsSearches elicited 449 papers, 59 studies were eligible full-text assessment and 4 met the eligibility criteria of this review. The four studies were narratively synthesised and included (1) a cross-sectional study (n=107) suggesting an inverse association between serum vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2; (2) a retrospective cohort study (348 598 participants, 449 cases) in which univariable analysis showed that vitamin D protects against COVID-19; (3) an ecological country level study demonstrating a negative correlation between vitamin D and COVID-19 case numbers and mortality; and (4) a case–control survey (n=1486) showing cases with confirmed/probable COVID-19 reported lower vitamin D supplementation. All studies were at high/unclear risk of bias.ConclusionThere is no robust evidence of a negative association between vitamin D and COVID-19. No relevant randomised controlled trials were identified and there is no robust peer-reviewed published evidence of association between vitamin D levels and severity of symptoms or mortality due to COVID-19. Guideline producers should acknowledge that benefits of vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 are as yet unproven despite increasing interest.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The promise of real-world evidence (RWE) is especially relevant to pediatrics, where medicines prescribed for children are often used without evidence derived from randomized clinical trials. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to describe the state of RWE in pediatrics by identifying observational studies published during 2016 that used RWE to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. Methods An electronic search of PubMed was combined with an extended search of references within systematic reviews and expert suggestions. Studies were included if they reported on an infant or child under 18 years with exposure to medications; assessed safety or effectiveness; specified a comparison or control group, and were published in English in 2016. Data extraction was conducted by one team member using a standardized form and reviewed by a second team member. Study quality was assessed using the GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies. Results After removing duplicates, 915 citations were screened and 29 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most of the eligible studies relied on primary data collection or chart review at a single institution and did not use the growing number of administrative or electronic health record databases available. One-quarter of the studies did not use well-established statistical methods to control for confounders. No single disease group or medication predominated, and age groups ranged from infants to adolescents. Conclusions A small body of observational studies published in 2016 were categorized by the study team as using real-world data to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. Studies varied in age groups, diseases or conditions, and methods, and may not have fully met the FDA definition of RWE. Our review indicates that the use of RWE is not fully developed in pediatrics, and suggests an opportunity to further develop capabilities and more fully leverage administrative and electronic health record databases to study medication safety and effectiveness in children. Our systematic review appears generalizable to pediatrics broadly, and documents that the high level of activity in RWE in general has had less of an impact on pediatrics.

PurposeIn order to identify challenges in pediatric pharmacoepidemiological safety studies, we assessed the characteristics of such (published) studies.MethodsRelevant articles from inception to 2013 were retrieved from Embase and Medline. We sequentially screened titles, abstracts and full texts with independent validation. We systematically collected data regarding general information, study methods and results.ResultsOut of 4825 unique articles, 268 full texts (5.6%) were retained; 147 (54.9%) pertained to drugs rather than vaccines. Considering the 268 studies, 202 (75.4%) concerned children and adolescents (2 to 11 years) and 14 (5.3%) included preterm newborns. Most studies originated from North America (154 [57.5%]) or Europe (92 [34.3%]). Only 47 studies (17.5%) were privately funded. The majority (174 [64.9%]) were cohort studies. Out of 268 studies, 196 (73.1%) collected data retrospectively; paper medical charts were the most common data source for the exposures (85 [31.7%]) and outcomes (122 [45.5%]). Only 3 (2.0%) drug‐only studies investigated rarely used drugs. Considering all 268 studies, only 27 (10.1%) reported sample size or power calculation. Most (75 [51.0%]) drug‐only studies corrected confounding by multivariate modeling unlike stratification in 66 (55.9%) vaccine‐only studies. Considering 75 child‐only studies without any statistically significant result, 41 (54.7%) did not discuss lack of power.ConclusionsAlthough the field of pediatric pharmacoepidemiology is steadily developing evaluation seldom includes neonates, is mainly focused on few drug classes and safety outcomes and concerns mainly drug use in developed countries. Small study size is a specific challenge in pediatrics. Reporting should be improved. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.