Dataset Information

Gastroenteritis Aggressive Versus Slow Treatment For Rehydration (GASTRO). A pilot rehydration study for severe dehydration: WHO plan C versus slower rehydration.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization (WHO) rehydration management guidelines (Plan C) for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and severe dehydration are widely practiced in resource-poor settings, yet have never been formally evaluated in a clinical trial. A recent audit of outcome of AGE at Kilifi County Hospital, Kenya noted that 10% of children required high dependency care (20% mortality) and a number developed fluid-related complications. The fluid resuscitation trial, FEAST, conducted in African children with severe febrile illness, demonstrated higher mortality with fluid bolus therapy and raised concerns regarding the safety of rapid intravenous rehydration therapy. Those findings warrant a detailed physiological study of children's responses to rehydration therapy incorporating quantification of myocardial performance and haemodynamic changes. Methods: GASTRO is a multi-centre, unblinded Phase II randomised controlled trial of 120 children aged 2 months to 12 years admitted to hospital with severe dehydration secondary to AGE. Children with severe malnutrition, chronic diarrhoea and congenital/rheumatic heart disease are excluded. Children will be enrolled over 18 months in 3 centres in Kenya and Uganda and followed until 7 days post-discharge. The trial will randomise children 1:1 to standard rapid rehydration using Ringers Lactate (WHO plan 'C' - 100mls/kg over 3-6 hours according to age, plus additional 0.9% saline boluses for children presenting in shock) or to a slower rehydration regimen (100mls/kg given over 8 hours and without the addition of fluid boluses). Enrolment started in November 2016 and is on-going. Primary outcome is frequency of adverse events, particularly related to cardiovascular compromise and neurological sequelae. Secondary outcomes focus on clinical, biochemical, and physiological measures related to assessment of severity of dehydration, and response to treatment by intravenous rehydration. DISCUSSION:Results from this pilot will contribute to generating robust definitions of outcomes (in particular for non-mortality endpoints) for a larger Phase III trial.

SUBMITTER: Houston KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5571888 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gastroenteritis Aggressive Versus Slow Treatment For Rehydration (GASTRO). A pilot rehydration study for severe dehydration: WHO plan C versus slower rehydration.

Houston Kirsty A KA Gibb Jack G JG Mpoya Ayub A Obonyo Nchafatso N Olupot-Olupot Peter P Nakuya Margeret M Evans Jennifer A JA George Elizabeth C EC Gibb Diana M DM Maitland Kathryn K

Wellcome open research 20170810

<h4>Background</h4>The World Health Organization (WHO) rehydration management guidelines (Plan C) for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and severe dehydration are widely practiced in resource-poor settings, yet have never been formally evaluated in a clinical trial. A recent audit of outcome of AGE at Kilifi County Hospital, Kenya noted that 10% of children required high dependency care (20% mortality) and a number developed fluid-related complications. The fluid resuscitation trial, FEA ...[more]

PMID: 28905004

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite treatment recommendations from various organizations, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) continues to be underused, particularly by physicians in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare ORT and intravenous therapy (IVT) for the treatment of dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis in children.MethodsRCTs were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, authors and references of included trials, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations. Screening and inclusion were performed independently by two reviewers in order to identify randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ORT and IVT in children with acute diarrhea and dehydration. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The primary outcome measure was failure of rehydration. We analyzed data using standard meta-analytic techniques.ResultsThe quality of the 14 included trials ranged from 0 to 3 (Jadad score); allocation concealment was unclear in all but one study. Using a random effects model, there was no significant difference in treatment failures (risk difference [RD] 3%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0, 6). The Mantel-Haenzsel fixed effects model gave a significant difference between treatment groups (RD 4%; 95% CI: 2, 5) favoring IVT. Based on the four studies that reported deaths, there were six in the IVT groups and two in ORT. There were no significant differences in total fluid intake at six and 24 hours, weight gain, duration of diarrhea, or hypo/hypernatremia. Length of stay was significantly shorter for the ORT group (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.2 days; 95% CI: -2.4,-0.02). Phlebitis occurred significantly more often with IVT (number needed to treat [NNT] 33; 95% CI: 25,100); paralytic ileus occurred more often with ORT (NNT 33; 95% CI: 20,100). These results may not be generalizable to children with persistent vomiting.ConclusionThere were no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT in terms of efficacy and safety. For every 25 children (95% CI: 20, 50) treated with ORT, one would fail and require IVT. The results support existing practice guidelines recommending ORT as the first course of treatment in appropriate children with dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis.

Project description:Background: Rehydration strategies in children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and severe dehydration are extremely cautious. The World Health Organization (WHO) SAM guidelines advise strongly against intravenous fluids unless the child is shocked or severely dehydrated and unable to tolerate oral fluids. Otherwise, guidelines recommend oral or nasogastric rehydration using low sodium oral rehydration solutions. There is limited evidence to support these recommendations. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on 15 th June 2017 comparing different strategies of rehydration therapy in children with acute gastroenteritis and severe dehydration, specifically relating to intravenous rehydration, using standard search terms. Two authors assessed papers for inclusion. The primary endpoint was evidence of fluid overload. Results: Four studies were identified, all published in English, including 883 children, all of which were conducted in low resource settings. Two were randomised controlled trials and two observational cohort studies, one incorporated assessment of myocardial and haemodynamic function. There was no evidence of fluid overload or other fluid-related adverse events, including children managed on more liberal rehydration protocols. Mortality was high overall, and particularly in children with shock managed on WHO recommendations (day-28 mortality 82%). There was no difference in safety outcomes when different rates of intravenous rehydration were compared. Conclusions: The current 'strong recommendations' for conservative rehydration of children with SAM are not based on emerging evidence. We found no clinical trials providing a direct assessment of the current WHO guidelines, and those that were available suggested that these children have a high mortality and remain fluid depleted on current therapy. Recent studies have reported no evidence of fluid overload or heart failure with more liberal rehydration regimens. Clinical trials are urgently required to inform guidelines on routes and rates of intravenous rehydration therapy for dehydration in children with SAM.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends rapid intravenous rehydration, using fluid volumes of 70-100mls/kg over 3-6 h, with some of the initial volume given rapidly as initial fluid boluses to treat hypovolaemic shock for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and severe dehydration. The evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of rapid versus slower rehydration remains uncertain. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on 11th of May 2017 comparing different rates of intravenous fluid therapy in children with AGE and moderate or severe dehydration, using standard search terms. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Non-RCTs and non-English articles were excluded. The primary endpoint was mortality and secondary endpoints included adverse events (safety) and treatment efficacy. MAIN RESULTS:Of the 1390 studies initially identified, 18 were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 3 studies (n?=?464) fulfilled a priori criteria for inclusion; most studied children with moderate dehydration and none were conducted in resource-poor settings. Volumes and rates of fluid replacement varied from 20 to 60 ml/kg given over 1-2 h (fast) versus 2-4 h (slow). There was substantial heterogeneity in methodology between the studies with only one adjudicated to be of high quality. There were no deaths in any study. Safety endpoints only identified oedema (n?=?6) and dysnatraemia (n?=?2). Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the rapid and slow intravenous rehydration groups for the proportion of treatment failures (N?=?468): pooled RR 1.30 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.93) and the readmission rates (N?=?439): pooled RR 1.39 (95% CI: 0.68, 2.85). CONCLUSIONS:Despite wide implementation of WHO Plan C guideline for severe AGE, we found no clinical evaluation in resource-limited settings, and only limited evaluation of the rate and volume of rehydration in other parts of the world. Recent concerns over aggressive fluid expansion warrants further research to inform guidelines on rates of intravenous rehydration therapy for severe AGE.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration results in improved hydration and clinical outcomes when administered to children with gastroenteritis.DesignSingle centre, two arm, parallel randomised pragmatic controlled trial. Blocked randomisation stratified by site. Participants, caregivers, outcome assessors, investigators, and statisticians were blinded to the treatment assignment.SettingPaediatric emergency department in a tertiary care centre in Toronto, Canada.Participants226 children aged 3 months to 11 years; complete follow-up was obtained on 223 (99%). Eligible children were aged over 90 days, had a diagnosis of dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis, had not responded to oral rehydration, and had been prescribed intravenous rehydration. Children were excluded if they weighed less than 5 kg or more than 33 kg, required fluid restriction, had a suspected surgical condition, or had an insurmountable language barrier. Children were also excluded if they had a history of a chronic systemic disease, abdominal surgery, bilious or bloody vomit, hypotension, or hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia.InterventionsRapid (60 mL/kg) or standard (20 mL/kg) rehydration with 0.9% saline over an hour; subsequent fluids administered according to protocol.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomeclinical rehydration, assessed with a validated scale, two hours after the start of treatment.Secondary outcomesprolonged treatment, mean clinical dehydration scores over the four hour study period, time to discharge, repeat visits to emergency department, adequate oral intake, and physician's comfort with discharge. Data from all randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.Results114 patients were randomised to rapid rehydration and 112 to standard. One child was withdrawn because of severe hyponatraemia at baseline. There was no evidence of a difference between the rapid and standard rehydration groups in the proportions of participants who were rehydrated at two hours (41/114 (36%) v 33/112 (30%); difference 6.5% (95% confidence interval -5.7% to 18.7%; P=0.32). The results did not change after adjustment for weight, baseline dehydration score, and baseline pH (odds ratio 1.8, 0.90 to 3.5; P=0.10). The rates of prolonged treatment were similar (52% rapid v 43% standard; difference 8.9%, 21% to -5%; P=0.19). Although dehydration scores were similar throughout the study period (P=0.96), the median time to discharge was longer in the rapid group (6.3 v 5.0 hours; P=0.03).ConclusionsThere are no relevant clinical benefits from the administration of rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration to haemodynamically stable children deemed to require intravenous rehydration. Trail registration Clinical Trials NCT00392145.

Project description:Background: Diarrhoea complicates over half of admissions to hospital with severe acute malnutrition (SAM). World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for the management of dehydration recommend the use of oral rehydration with ReSoMal (an oral rehydration solution (ORS) for SAM), which has lower sodium (45mmols/l) and higher potassium (40mmols/l) content than old WHO ORS. The composition of ReSoMal was designed specifically to address theoretical risks of sodium overload and potential under-treatment of severe hypokalaemia with rehydration using standard ORS. In African children, severe hyponatraemia at admission is a major risk factor for poor outcome in children with SAM complicated by diarrhoea. We therefore reviewed the evidence for oral rehydration therapy in children with SAM. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on 18 th July 2017 comparing different oral rehydration solutions in severely malnourished children with diarrhoea and dehydration, using standard search terms. The author assessed papers for inclusion. The primary endpoint was frequency of hyponatraemia during rehydration. Results: Six RCTs were identified, all published in English and conducted in low resource settings in Asia. A range of ORS were evaluated in these studies, including old WHO ORS, standard hypo-osmolar WHO ORS and ReSoMal. Hyponatraemia was observed in two trials evaluating ReSoMal, three children developed severe hyponatraemia with one experiencing convulsions. Hypo-osmolar ORS was found to have benefits in time to rehydration, reduction of stool output and duration of diarrhoea. No trials reported over-hydration or fatalities. Conclusions: Current WHO guidelines strongly recommend the use of ReSoMal based on low quality of evidence. Studies indicate a significant risk of hyponatraemia on ReSoMal in Asian children, none have been conducted in Africa, where SAM mortality remains high. Further research should be conducted in Africa to evaluate optimal ORS for children with SAM and to generate evidence based, practical guidelines.

Dataset Information

Gastroenteritis Aggressive Versus Slow Treatment For Rehydration (GASTRO). A pilot rehydration study for severe dehydration: WHO plan C versus slower rehydration.

Publications

Gastroenteritis Aggressive Versus Slow Treatment For Rehydration (GASTRO). A pilot rehydration study for severe dehydration: WHO plan C versus slower rehydration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets