Evaluation of Daily Low-Dose Prednisolone During Upper Respiratory Tract Infection to Prevent Relapse in Children With Relapsing Steroid-Sensitive Nephrotic Syndrome: The PREDNOS 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: In children with corticosteroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome, many relapses are triggered by upper respiratory tract infections. Four small studies found that administration of daily low-dose prednisolone for 5 to 7 days at the time of an upper respiratory tract infection reduced the risk of relapse, but the generalizability of their findings is limited by location of the studies and selection of study population. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of daily low-dose prednisolone for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infection-related relapses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (Prednisolone in Nephrotic Syndrome [PREDNOS] 2) evaluated 365 children with relapsing steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome with and without background immunosuppressive treatment at 122 pediatric departments in the UK from February 1, 2013, to January 31, 2020. Data from the modified intention-to-treat population were analyzed from July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: At the start of an upper respiratory tract infection, children received 6 days of prednisolone, 15 mg/m2 daily, or matching placebo preparation. Those already taking alternate-day prednisolone rounded their daily dose using trial medication to the equivalent of 15 mg/m2 daily or their alternate-day dose, whichever was greater. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of first upper respiratory tract infection-related relapse. Secondary outcomes included overall rate of relapse, changes in background immunosuppressive treatment, cumulative dose of prednisolone, rates of serious adverse events, incidence of corticosteroid adverse effects, and quality of life. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat analysis population comprised 271 children (mean [SD] age, 7.6 [3.5] years; 174 [64.2%] male), with 134 in the prednisolone arm and 137 in the placebo arm. The number of patients experiencing an upper respiratory tract infection-related relapse was 56 of 131 (42.7%) in the prednisolone arm and 58 of 131 (44.3%) in the placebo arm (adjusted risk difference, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.10; P = .70). No evidence was found that the treatment effect differed according to background immunosuppressive treatment. No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between the treatment arms. A post hoc subgroup analysis assessing the primary outcome in 54 children of South Asian ethnicity (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-1.10) vs 208 children of other ethnicity (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.81-1.54) found no difference in efficacy of intervention in those of South Asian ethnicity (test for interaction P = .09). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of PREDNOS 2 suggest that administering 6 days of daily low-dose prednisolone at the time of an upper respiratory tract infection does not reduce the risk of relapse of nephrotic syndrome in children in the UK. Further work is needed to investigate interethnic differences in treatment response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10900733; EudraCT 2012-003476-39.

COVID-19 as a disruptor: innovation and value in a national virtual fracture conference.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the educational value of a national virtual fracture conference implemented during the COVID-19 disruption of resident education. DESIGN: Survey study. SETTING: National virtual conference administered by the Orthopaedic Trauma Association. PARTICIPANTS: Attendees of virtual fracture conference. INTERVENTION: Participation at a national virtual fracture conference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Surveys of perception of quality and value of virtual conferences relative to in-person conferences. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of participants rated the virtual fracture conference as similar or improved educational quality relative to conventional in-person fracture conference. Participants also felt they learned as much (35%) or more (57%) at each virtual fracture conference compared to the amount learned in-person. The quality of interpersonal interactions at both the resident-faculty level and faculty-faculty level was also perceived to be overall superior to those at participants' own institutions. Learners felt they were more likely to engage the primary literature as well. Overall, 100% of participants were likely to recommend virtual conference to their colleagues and 100% recommended continuing this conference even after COVID-19 issues resolve. CONCLUSIONS: We found that learners find significant educational value in a national virtual fracture conference compared to in-person fracture conferences at their own institution. COVID-19 has proven to be a disruptor not only in health care but in medical education as well, accelerating our adoption of innovative and novel resident didactics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

Resident Wellness During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey of Orthopaedic Residents.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the resident workforce to a particularly powerful and unexpected extent. Given the drastic changes to resident roles, expectations, and responsibilities, many valuable lessons regarding resident concerns and wellness can be garnered from this unique experience. METHODS: A voluntary survey was sent to 179 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency program directors to distribute to their residents. Questions focused on issues that may have occurred, program's responses, and expectations of programs during the pandemic. RESULTS: In total, 507 residents completed the survey, and 10% reported being deployed to do nonorthopaedic-related care, with junior classes being more likely to receive this assignment (P < 0.001). The greatest concern for respondents was the possibility of getting family members sick (mean = 3.89, on scale of 1-5), followed by personally contracting the illness (mean = 3.38). DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in numerous changes and novel sources of adversity for the orthopaedic surgery resident. Contrary to popular opinion, most residents are comfortable with the proposition of providing nonorthopaedic care. The possibility of bringing a pathogen to the home environment and infecting family members seems to be an overarching concern, and efforts to ensure resident and family safety are key.

Impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care: a call for nonoperative management.

BACKGROUND: Surgical specialties face unique challenges caused by SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19). These disruptions will call on clinicians to have greater consideration for non-operative treatment options to help manage patient symptoms and provide therapeutic care in lieu of the traditional surgical management course of action. This study aimed to summarize the current guidance on elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, assess how this guidance may impact orthopaedic care, and review any recommendations for non-operative management in light of elective surgery disruptions. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted, and included guidance were categorized as either "Selective Postponement" or "Complete Postponement" of elective surgery. Selective postponement was considered as guidance that suggested elective cases should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, whereas complete postponement suggested that all elective procedures be postponed until after the pandemic, with no case-by-case consideration. In addition, any statements regarding conservative/non-operative management were summarized when provided by included reports. RESULTS: A total of 11 reports from nine different health organizations were included in this review. There were seven (63.6%) guidance reports that suggested a complete postponement of non-elective surgical procedures, whereas four (36.4%) reports suggested the use of selective postponement of these procedures. The guidance trends shifted from selective to complete elective surgery postponement occurred throughout the month of March. The general guidance provided by these reports was to have an increased consideration for non-operative treatment options whenever possible and safe. As elective surgery begins to re-open, non-operative management will play a key role in managing the surgical backlog caused by the elective surgery shutdown. CONCLUSION: Global guidance from major medical associations are in agreement that elective surgical procedures require postponement in order to minimize the risk of COVID-19 spread, as well as increase available hospital resources for managing the influx of COVID-19 patients. It is imperative that clinicians and patients consider non-operative, conservative treatment options in order to manage conditions and symptoms until surgical management options become available again, and to manage the increased surgical waitlists caused by the elective surgery shutdowns.