Multicenter interim guidance on use of antivirals for children with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2.

2020

2020 Sep 12

2048-7207

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Although Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data evaluating agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand, such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Given the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.</p>

10.1093/jpids/piaa115

J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc

32918548

Multicenter initial guidance on use of antivirals for children with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2.

2020

2020 Apr 22

2048-7207

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Although Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mild in nearly all children, a small proportion of pediatric patients develops severe or critical illness. Guidance is therefore needed regarding use of agents with potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pediatrics.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 18 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of best available evidence and expert opinion.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Given the typically mild course of pediatric COVID-19, supportive care alone is suggested for the overwhelming majority of cases. The panel suggests a decision-making framework for antiviral therapy that weighs risks and benefits based on disease severity as indicated by respiratory support needs, with consideration on a case-by-case basis of potential pediatric risk factors for disease progression. If an antiviral is used, the panel suggests remdesivir as the preferred agent. Hydroxychloroquine could be considered for patients who are not candidates for remdesivir or when remdesivir is not available. Antivirals should preferably be used as part of a clinical trial if available.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For those rare children who develop severe or critical disease, this guidance offer an approach for decision-making regarding antivirals, informed by available data. As evidence continues to evolve rapidly, the need for updates to the guidance is anticipated.</p>

10.1093/jpids/piaa045

J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc

32318706

Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections in Children.

2019

2019 Dec 21

2048-7207

<p>Infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are increasingly prevalent in children and are associated with poor clinical outcomes. Optimal treatment strategies for CRE infections continue to evolve. A lack of pediatric-specific comparative effectiveness data, uncertain pediatric dosing regimens for several agents, and a relative lack of new antibiotics with pediatric indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) collectively present unique challenges for children. In this review, we provide a framework for antibiotic treatment of CRE infections in children, highlighting relevant microbiologic considerations and summarizing available data related to the evaluation of FDA-approved antibiotics (as of September 2019) with CRE activity, including carbapenems, ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, imipenem/cilastatin-relebactam, polymyxins, tigecycline, eravacycline, and plazomicin.</p>

10.1093/jpids/piz085

J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc

31872226

Mechanisms of antimicrobial-induced nephrotoxicity in children.

2019

2019 Aug 01

1460-2091

<p>Drug-induced nephrotoxicity is responsible for 20% to 60% of cases of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in both children and adults. Antimicrobials are one of the most common classes of medications prescribed globally and also among the most common causes of nephrotoxicity. A broad range of antimicrobial agents have been associated with nephrotoxicity, but the features of kidney injury vary based on the agent, its mechanism of injury and the site of toxicity within the kidney. Distinguishing nephrotoxicity caused by an antimicrobial agent from other potential inciting factors is important to facilitate both early recognition of drug toxicity and prompt cessation of an offending drug, as well as to avoid unnecessary discontinuation of an innocuous therapy. This review will detail the different types of antimicrobial-induced nephrotoxicity: acute tubular necrosis, acute interstitial nephritis and obstructive nephropathy. It will also describe the mechanism of injury caused by specific antimicrobial agents and classes (vancomycin, aminoglycosides, polymyxins, antivirals, amphotericin B), highlight the toxicodynamics of these drugs and provide guidance on administration or monitoring practices that can mitigate toxicity, when known. Particular attention will be paid to paediatric patients, when applicable, in whom nephrotoxin exposure is an often-underappreciated cause of kidney injury.</p>

10.1093/jac/dkz325

J. Antimicrob. Chemother.

31369087

Threatened efficiency not autonomy: Prescriber perceptions of an established pediatric antimicrobial stewardship program.

2019

1-6

2019 Mar 28

1559-6834

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can be challenging due to prescriber resistance. Although barriers to implementing new ASPs have been identified, little is known about how prescribers perceive established programs. This information is critical to promoting the sustainability of ASPs.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To identify how prescribers perceive an established pediatric inpatient ASP that primarily utilizes prior authorization.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional survey administered from February through June 2017 in a large children's hospital. The survey contained closed- and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis approaches were used to analyze responses.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Of 394 prescribers invited, 160 (41%) responded. Prescribers had an overall favorable impression of the ASP, believing that it improves the quality of care (92.4% agree) and takes their judgment seriously (73.8%). The most common criticism of the ASP was that it threatened efficiency (26.0% agreed). In addition, 68.7% of respondents reported occasionally engaging in workarounds. Analysis of 133 free-text responses revealed that prescribers perceived that interacting with the ASP involved too many phone calls, caused communication breakdowns with the dispensing pharmacy, and led to gaps between approval and dispensing of antibiotics. Reasons given for workarounds included not wanting to change therapy that appears to be working, consultant disagreement with ASP recommendations, and the desire to do everything possible for patients.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Prescribers had a generally favorable opinion of an established ASP but found aspects to be inefficient. They reported engaging in workarounds occasionally for social and emotional reasons. Established ASPs should elicit feedback from frontline prescribers to optimize program impact.</p>

10.1017/ice.2019.47

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol

30919799