Effect of Minimization of Early Blood Sampling Losses Among Extremely Premature Neonates: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of blood sampling stewardship on transfusion requirements among infants born extremely preterm. STUDY DESIGN: In this single-center, randomized controlled trial (RCT), infants born at <28 weeks of gestation and birth weight of <1000 g were randomized at 24 hours of age to two different blood sampling approaches: restricted sampling (RS) vs conventional sampling (CS). The stewardship intervention in the RS group included targeted reduction in blood sampling volume and frequency and point of care testing methods in the first 6 weeks after birth. Both groups received early recombinant erythropoietin from day three of age. Primary outcome was the rate of early red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in the first six postnatal weeks. RESULTS: A total of 102 infants (mean gestational age: 26 weeks; birth weight: 756 g) were enrolled. Fidelity to the sampling protocol was achieved in 95% of the infants. Sampling losses in the first 6 weeks were significantly lower in the RS group (16.8 ml/kg vs 23.6 ml/kg, P < .001). The RS group had a significantly lower rate of early postnatal RBC transfusions (41% vs 73%, RR: 0.56 [0.39-0.81], P = .001). The hazard of needing a transfusion during neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay was reduced by 55% by RS. Mortality and neonatal morbidities were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Minimization of blood sampling losses by approximately one-third in the first 6 weeks after birth leads to substantial reduction in the early red blood cell transfusion rate in infants born extremely preterm and weighing <1000 g at birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.ctri.nic.in (CTRI/2020/01/022  964).

COVID-19 Disease in Under-5 Children: Current Status and Strategies for Prevention including Vaccination.

Since the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic hit the globe in early 2020, we have steadily gained insight into its pathogenesis; thereby improving surveillance and preventive measures. In contrast to other respiratory viruses, neonates and young children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have a milder clinical presentation, with only a small proportion needing hospitalization and intensive care support. With the emergence of novel variants and improved testing services, there has been a higher incidence of COVID-19 disease reported among children and neonates. Despite this, the proportion of young children with severe disease has not increased. Key mechanisms that protect young children from severe COVID-19 disease include the placental barrier, differential expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptors, immature immune response, and passive transfer of antibodies via placenta and human milk. Implementing mass vaccination programs has been a major milestone in reducing the global disease burden. However, considering the lower risk of severe COVID-19 illness in young children and the limited evidence about long-term vaccine safety, the risk-benefit balance in children under five years of age is more complex. In this review, we do not support or undermine vaccination of young children but outline current evidence and guidelines, and highlight controversies, knowledge gaps, and ethical issues related to COVID-19 vaccination in young children. Regulatory bodies should consider the individual and community benefits of vaccinating younger children in their local epidemiological setting while planning regional immunization policies.

Efficacy and Safety of Two Different Flow Rates of Nasal High-Flow Therapy in Preterm Neonates ≥28 Weeks of Gestation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different nasal high-flow rates for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates STUDY DESIGN: In this single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, preterm neonates ≥28 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress from birth were randomized to treatment with either increased nasal flow therapy (8-10 L/min) or standard nasal flow therapy (5-7 L/min). The primary outcome of nasal high-flow therapy failure was a composite outcome defined as the need for higher respiratory support (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 212 neonates were enrolled. Nasal high-flow failure rate in the increased flow group was similar to the standard flow group (22 vs. 29%, relative risk = 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.15]). However, nasal flow rate escalation was significantly more common in the standard flow group (64 vs. 43%, p = 0.004). None of the infants in the increased flow group developed air leak syndromes. CONCLUSION: Higher nasal flow rate (8-10 L/min) when compared with lower nasal flow rate of 5 to 7 L/min did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support (CPAP/mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy in moderately and late preterm neonates. However, initial flow rates of 5 L/min were not optimal for most preterm infants receiving primary nasal flow therapy. KEY POINTS: · Use of high nasal flows (8-10 L/min) did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support in moderately and late preterm infants.. · Nasal flow rate of 5 L/min was not optimal for most preterms with respiratory distress from birth.. · Careful patient selection and optimized flow settings could enhance nasal flow success in neonates..