Abstract Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of intranasal vaporized lidocaine in reducing pain for children undergoing a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab in the Emergency Department (ED). Study Design A randomized blinded clinical trial was conducted in a paediatric ED. Both participants and the researcher evaluating the primary outcome were blinded. Children aged 6 to 17 years old requiring a NP swab were eligible. Participants were randomly allocated to receive intranasal lidocaine or a sham treatment prior to their NP swab. The primary outcome measure was pain during the swab as assessed by the visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures were pain using the verbal numeric rating scale, fear using the children fear scale, and adverse effects of the intervention. Results Eighty-eight participants were enrolled—45 in the lidocaine group and 43 controls. The mean visual analog scale scores for pain were 46 mm in the lidocaine group and 53 mm in the control group (mean difference 7 mm; 95% CI: −5 to 19 mm). No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions Intranasal lidocaine administered prior to NP swabs in the ED failed to show an improvement in pain scores for school-aged children and youth.

Background Saliva sampling is a promising alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but acceptability data is lacking. We characterize the acceptability of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs for primary decision makers and their children after experiencing both testing modalities. Methods We administered a cross-sectional survey to participants aged 6-to-17 years and their primary decision makers at an Ottawa community COVID-19 testing centre in March 2021. Included were participants meeting local guidelines for testing. Excluded were those identified prior to participation as having inability to complete the consent, sampling, or survey process. Acceptability in multiple hypothetical scenarios was rated using a 5-point Likert scale. Pain was measured using the Faces Pain Scale—Revised (FPS-R). Preference for testing was assessed with direct binary questions. Results 48 participants and 48 primary decision makers completed the survey. Nasopharyngeal swab acceptability differed between scenarios, ranging 79% [95%CI: 66, 88] to 100% [95%CI: 95, 100]; saliva sampling acceptability was similar across scenarios, ranging 92% [95%CI: 82, 97] to 98% [95%CI: 89, 99]. 58% of youth described significant pain with nasopharyngeal swabbing, versus none with saliva sampling. 90% of children prefer saliva sampling. 66% of primary decision makers would prefer nasopharyngeal swabbing if it were 10% more sensitive. Conclusion Though youth prefer saliva sampling over nasopharyngeal swabs, primary decision makers present for testing remain highly accepting of both. Acceptance of nasopharyngeal swabs, however, varies with the testing indication and is influenced by perceived test accuracy. Understanding factors that influence sampling acceptance will inform more successful testing strategies.

Background Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs have been recommended to detect SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but are reported to be at least moderately painful. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of intranasal vaporized lidocaine compared to a sham treatment in reducing pain in children undergoing a NP swab in the Emergency Department (ED). Design/Methods A randomized double-blinded clinical trial was conducted in a pediatric ED. Both participants and the researcher evaluating the primary outcome were blinded. Children 6 to 17 years old requiring a NP swab were eligible. Participants were randomly allocated to receive intranasal lidocaine or a sham treatment prior to their NP swab. The primary outcome measure was pain during the swab as assessed by the visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures were pain using the verbal numeric rating scale, fear using the children fear scale, and side effects of the intervention. Results Eighty-eight participants were enrolled: 45 to the lidocaine group and 43 to the control group. The mean visual analog scale scores for pain were 46 mm in the lidocaine group and 53 mm in the control group (mean difference 7 mm; 95%CI -5 to 19 mm). The numeric rating scale and children fear scale were not statistically different between groups. No serious adverse events were observed. Fear prior to the test and younger age were associated with higher pain scores. Conclusion Intranasal lidocaine administered prior to NP swabs in the ED did not lower pain scores for school-aged children and youth.

Importance Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common occurrence in childhood; consequently, evidence-based recommendations for its treatment are required. Objective To determine whether 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin for CAP was associated with noninferior rates of clinical cure compared with 10 days of high-dose amoxicillin. Design, Setting, and Participants The SAFER (Short-Course Antimicrobial Therapy for Pediatric Respiratory Infections) study was a 2-center, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial consisting of a single-center pilot study from December 1, 2012, to March 31, 2014, and the follow-up main study from August 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019 at the emergency departments of McMaster Children's Hospital and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Research staff, participants, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Eligible children were aged 6 months to 10 years and had fever within 48 hours, respiratory symptoms, chest radiography findings consistent with pneumonia as per the emergency department physician, and a primary diagnosis of pneumonia. Children were excluded if they required hospitalization, had comorbidities that would predispose them to severe disease and/or pneumonia of unusual origin, or had previous β-lactam antibiotic therapy. Data were analyzed from March 1 to July 8, 2020. Interventions Five days of high-dose amoxicillin therapy followed by 5 days of placebo (intervention group) vs 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin followed by a different formulation of 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin (control group). Main Outcomes and Measures Clinical cure at 14 to 21 days. Results Among the 281 participants, the median age was 2.6 (interquartile range, 1.6-4.9) years (160 boys [57.7%] of 279 with sex listed). Clinical cure was observed in 101 of 114 children (88.6%) in the intervention group and in 99 of 109 (90.8%) in the control group in per-protocol analysis (risk difference, -0.016; 97.5% confidence limit, -0.087). Clinical cure at 14 to 21 days was observed in 108 of 126 (85.7%) in the intervention group and in 106 of 126 (84.1%) in the control group in the intention-to-treat analysis (risk difference, 0.023; 97.5% confidence limit, -0.061). Conclusions and Relevance Short-course antibiotic therapy appeared to be comparable to standard care for the treatment of previously healthy children with CAP not requiring hospitalization. Clinical practice guidelines should consider recommending 5 days of amoxicillin for pediatric pneumonia management in accordance with antimicrobial stewardship principles. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380352.

Abstract Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common occurrence in childhood; consequently, evidence-based recommendations for its treatment are required. The study objective was to determine if, in previously healthy children presenting to the emergency department (ED), 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin led to noninferior rates of clinical cure at 14–21 days post-enrolment compared with 10 days of high-dose amoxicillin. Methods The SAFER study was a multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, multiple-blinded, controlled, noninferiority study, enrolling between 2012–2014 (single centre pilot) and then 2016–2019 (follow-up main study). Children aged 6 months – 10 years with all of the following were eligible: fever within 48h; a respiratory symptom/sign; a chest radiograph consistent with pneumonia as per the emergency MD; and a primary diagnosis of CAP. Children were excluded if they required hospitalization, had any medical comorbidities, or if they were already receiving beta-lactam antibiotic therapy. The intervention of interest was 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin followed by 5 days placebo. The control (standard care) arm received 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin followed by a different formulation of 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 14–21 days post-enrolment. The pre-set noninferiority margin was 0.075 less than the clinical cure risk difference (1-sided 97.5% CI). Results Of the 281 participants, 119 (42%) were female; the median age was 2.6 y (25–75%ile 1.6–4.9 y). There were 140 randomized to short-course treatment and 141 to standard care. Clinical cure at 14–21 days was observed in 108/126 (86%) in the short-course arm and in 106/126 (84%) in the standard-care arm (risk difference 0.023, lower limit of 1-sided 97.5%CI -0.061). There were no participants who, after finishing amoxicillin, later deteriorated and required hospitalization for progressive CAP. Conclusion Short-course antibiotic therapy was noninferior to standard care for the treatment of previously healthy children with non-severe CAP diagnosed in Canadian EDs. Clinical practice guidelines should recommend no more than 5 days of amoxicillin for paediatric pneumonia management, in accordance with antimicrobial stewardship principles. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Objectives Lumbar punctures (LPs) are painful for children, and analgesia is recommended by academic societies. However, less than one-third of pediatric emergency physicians (EPs) adhere to recommendations. We assessed the willingness to provide analgesia among pediatric and general EPs and explored patient and provider-specific barriers. Methods We surveyed physicians in the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) or Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) databases from May 1 to August 1, 2016, regarding hypothetical scenarios for a 3-week-old infant, a 3-year-old child, and a 16-year-old child requiring an LP. The primary outcome was the willingness to provide analgesia. Secondary outcomes included the type of analgesia, reasons for withholding analgesia, and their perceived competence performing LPs. Results For a 3-week old infant, 123/144 (85.4%) pediatric EPs and 231/262 (88.2%) general EPs reported a willingness to provide analgesia. In contrast, the willingness to provide analgesia was almost universal for a 16-year-old (144/144 [100%] of pediatric EPs and 261/262 [99.6%] of general EPs) and a 3-year-old (142/144 [98.6%] of pediatric EPs and 256/262 [97.7%] of general EPs). For an infant, the most common barrier cited by pediatric EPs was the perception that it produced additional discomfort (13/21, 61.9%). The same reason was cited by general EPs (12/31, 38.7%), along with unfamiliarity surrounding analgesic options (13/31, 41.9%). Conclusion Compared to a preschool child and adolescent, the willingness to provide analgesia for an LP in a young infant is suboptimal among pediatric and general EPs. Misconceptions and the lack of awareness of analgesic options should be targets for practice-changing strategies.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is commonly diagnosed in children. The Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines recommend 10 days of high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of non-severe CAP but 5-day “short course” therapy may be just as effective. Randomized trials in adults have already demonstrated non-inferiority of 5-day short-course treatment for adults hospitalized with severe CAP and for adults with mild CAP treated as outpatients. Minimizing exposure to antimicrobials is desirable to avoid harms including diarrhoea, rashes, severe allergic reactions, increased circulating antimicrobial resistance, and microbiome disruption.

Objectives: Evidence exists that analgesics are underutilized, delayed, and insufficiently dosed for emergency department (ED) patients with acute abdominal pain. For physicians practicing in a Canadian paediatric ED setting, we (1) explored theoretical practice variation in the provision of analgesia to children with acute abdominal pain; (2) identified reasons for withholding analgesia; and (3) evaluated the relationship between providing analgesia and surgical consultation.Methods: Physician members of Paediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) were prospectively surveyed and presented with three scenarios of undifferentiated acute abdominal pain to assess management. A modified Dillman's Tailored Design method was used to distribute the survey from June to July 2014.Results: Overall response rate was 74.5% (149/200); 51.7% of respondents were female and mean age was 44 (SD 8.4) years. The reported rates of providing analgesia for case scenarios representative of renal colic, appendicitis, and intussusception, were 100%, 92.1%, and 83.4%, respectively, while rates of providing intravenous opioids were 85.2%, 58.6%, and 12.4%, respectively. In all 60 responses where the respondent indicated they would obtain a surgical consultation, analgesia would be provided. In the 35 responses where analgesia would be withheld, 21 (60%) believed pain was not severe enough, while 5 (14.3%) indicated it would obscure a surgical condition.Conclusions: Pediatric emergency physicians self-reported rates of providing analgesia for acute abdominal pain scenarios were higher than previously reported, and appeared unrelated to request for surgical consultation. However, an unwillingness to provide opioid analgesia, belief that analgesia can obscure a surgical condition, and failure to take self-reported pain at face value remain, suggesting that the need exists for further knowledge translation efforts.

This study was funded by our institution's associated University's Research Opportunities Fund. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Abdominal pain is the most frequent clinical feature of acute appendicitis, the most common pediatric condition requiring urgent surgical intervention. There is evidence, particularly in children, that analgesia is underutilized for abdominal pain. Historically, the reluctance to provide analgesia to patients was thought to be due to concerns of obscuring the diagnosis of appendicitis. In the last decade, evidence disputing this supposition has mounted. No recent studies have described pain management patterns in undifferentiated cases, reasons behind withholding analgesia, or its relationship with surgical consultation. Given a decade of new evidence supporting the safety of analgesia, our objectives were to explore the current practice variation surrounding the provision of analgesia by paediatric emergency physicians, identify reasons for withholding analgesia, and evaluate the relationship of providing analgesia with obtaining surgical consultation. We prospectively surveyed physician members of the Paediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) database. We collected demographic information and presented three scenarios depicting undifferentiated abdominal pain of varying severity. A modified Dillman's Tailored Design method was used to distribute the survey, from June 15 to July 16, 2014. Our overall response rate was 75% (149/200). 52% of respondents were female and their mean age was 44 years. Most respondents completed paediatric emergency medicine fellowship training (59%) and were within 15 years of independent practice (74%). The rates of providing analgesia for the cases of renal colic, intussusception, and appendicitis were 100%, 92.1%, and 83.4% respectively, while rates of providing IV opioids were 85.2%, 12.4%, and 58.6% respectively. Across scenarios, all 61 respondents obtaining surgical consultation provided analgesia. Of respondents withholding analgesia, most (21/35 or 60%) believed that pain was not severe enough to warrant it, and only 5/35 (14.3%) indicated that analgesia would obscure a surgical condition. The self-reported rates of analgesic provision for acute undifferentiated pain by paediatric emergency physicians is higher than reported one decade ago and, according to self-report, surgical consultation does not negatively impact the provision of analgesia.

BACKGROUND:Some children feel pain during wound closures using tissue adhesives. We sought to determine whether a topically applied analgesic solution of lidocaine-epinephrine-tetracaine would decrease pain during tissue adhesive repair.METHODS:We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded trial involving 221 children between the ages of 3 months and 17 years. Patients were enrolled between March 2011 and January 2012 when presenting to a tertiary-care pediatric emergency department with lacerations requiring closure with tissue adhesive. Patients received either lidocaine-epinephrine-tetracaine or placebo before undergoing wound closure. Our primary outcome was the pain rating of adhesive application according to the colour Visual Analogue Scale and the Faces Pain Scale--Revised. Our secondary outcomes were physician ratings of difficulty of wound closure and wound hemostasis, in addition to their prediction as to which treatment the patient had received.RESULTS:Children who received the analgesic before wound closure reported less pain (median 0.5, interquartile range [IQR] 0.25-1.50) than those who received placebo (median 1.00, IQR 0.38-2.50) as rated using the colour Visual Analogue Scale (p=0.01) and Faces Pain Scale--Revised (median 0.00, IQR 0.00-2.00, for analgesic v. median 2.00, IQR 0.00-4.00, for placebo, p<0.01). Patients who received the analgesic were significantly more likely to report having or to appear to have a pain-free procedure (relative risk [RR] of pain 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.80). Complete hemostasis of the wound was also more common among patients who received lidocaine-epinephrine-tetracaine than among those who received placebo (78.2% v. 59.3%, p=0.008).INTERPRETATION:Treating minor lacerations with lidocaine-epinephrine-tetracaine before wound closure with tissue adhesive reduced ratings of pain and increased the proportion of pain-free repairs among children aged 3 months to 17 years. This low-risk intervention may benefit children with lacerations requiring tissue adhesives instead of sutures.TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, no. PR 6138378804.

The blood transit time through the gills of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was modified by manipulation of cardiac output (Vb). The experiments tested the hypothesis that efficiency of CO2 excretion is sensitive to changes in blood flow owing to chemical equilibrium limitations. An extracorporeal blood shunt was used to continuously monitor blood gases in fish in which Vb was elevated (by 13.3 +/- 2.4 ml x min(-1) x kg(-1)) by intravascular saline injection or reduced (by 10.8 +/- 1.8 ml x min(-1) x kg(-1)) by removal of plasma. The arterial partial pressure of CO2 (Pa(CO2); an index of CO2 excretion efficiency) was increased with elevated Vb and was decreased with reduced Vb such that the changes in Pa(CO2) exhibited a significant positive sigmoidal relationship with the changes in Vb (r2 =0.75; P < 0.05). In contrast, there was no significant relationship between changes in the arterial partial pressure of O2 (Pa(O2); an index of O2 uptake efficiency) and changes in Vb (r2 = 0.07; P > 0.05). The intravenous administration of carbonic anhydrase (CA; 10 mg/kg) before vascular volume loading eliminated the increase in Pa(CO2) with increased Vb that was observed in control fish.