Outcomes of Premature Infants With Type C Esophageal Atresia.

BACKGROUND: To review the outcomes of premature patients with type C esophageal atresia (EA). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, charts of patients of type C EA patients were reviewed from 1992 to 2022. Outcomes of premature patients were compared to term patients. Preterm patients were analyzed to compare outcomes of infants with very low birth weights (VLBW) to patients >1,500 g as well as primary versus delayed anastomosis. RESULTS: Among 192 type C EA, 67 were premature. Median and interquartile range (IQR) gestational age and birth weight of preterm patients were 34 [33-36] weeks and 1965 [1740-2290] g. Delayed anastomosis was performed in 12 (18%) preterm vs. 3 (2%) term patients (p = 0.0003). Short-term postoperative outcomes were similar between preterm and term patients, except for recurrent fistula (16% vs. 6%, p = 0.01). Prematurity was associated with an increased need for long-term enteral tube feeding (56% vs. 10%, p = 0.0001) and parenteral nutrition (10 days vs. 0 days, p = 0.0004). The length of stay was 3 times longer when patients were premature (50 days vs. 17 days, p = 0.002). Delayed surgery in preterm patients was associated with post-operative leaks, strictures, recurrent fistula, prolonged enteral tube feeding, and gastrostomy insertion. Patients with very low birth weight (VLBW) were compared to other preterm patients and showed no difference in terms of rate of delayed surgery, and post-operative outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite increased prematurity-related comorbidities and low birth weight, premature infants with type C EA/TEF have similar post-operative outcomes to term patients though recurrent fistula was more frequent with prematurity. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Drug Prescriptions Requiring Compounding at a Canadian University Affiliated Pediatric Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Despite ongoing international efforts, many drugs administered to children must be compounded from dosage forms designed for adults because they remain unavailable in commercial formulations that suit their needs. Even though oral drug compounding is common in pediatrics, the extent of this practice has not been well described in recent years. This cross-sectional and retrospective study was conducted at a Canadian university-affiliated, 484-bed, tertiary care pediatric hospital and its rehabilitation centre on two randomly selected days. A total of 606 hospitalized children with 5465 prescriptions were included. Overall, compounded drugs for enteral administration (CDEA) represented 13% of all prescriptions (enteral and parenteral) and 23% of prescriptions for enteral administration. Of the 390 prescribed drugs, 122 required compounding. CDEA were mostly liquids (n = 478 [67%]) and mainly included drugs of the central nervous (35%), cardiovascular (21%), and gastro-intestinal (12%) systems. Nearly half (N = 298 [49%]) of children had at least one CDEA prescribed in their medical file. Many CDEA are available as commercial products in other jurisdictions. Collaboration is needed between all stakeholders to make these drugs available to Canadian children.

From paediatric formulations development to access: Advances made and remaining challenges.

Developing suitable paediatric formulations and ensuring access to them by the greatest number of the 2.2 billion children worldwide are equally important to provide optimal pharmacotherapy. This review focuses on the progress made over the last two decades with paediatric oral formulations with respect to evidence for acceptability and dosing flexibility of liquid and solid oral dosage forms. It also discusses the clinical needs for, and the access to, paediatric formulations for existing authorised medicines. A significant body of new knowledge now supports the acceptability of solid oral dosage forms in children, resulting in an increasing number of medicines commercialised as multiparticulates, including minitablets that are starting to be brought to market. However, there are gaps with these formulations that deserve more research. Even though efforts have been made to identify medicines in need of age-appropriate formulations, there is no common priority list shared internationally. Such prioritisation would help to develop paediatric formulations with the greatest potential for providing a health benefit to children worldwide. In addition, available data highlight that paediatric formulation access is fragmented and unequal, with commercialisation of suitable paediatric formulations too often limited to some countries/regions. We propose actions to better align decisions during the development of paediatric formulations and promote a more globalised approach to facilitate registration pathways between different jurisdictions. Furthermore, discussions about alignment between approval, pricing and reimbursement processes should also happen, leaving working in siloes behind us. It is time for adults to start thinking outside the box for children.