Filomena Fortinguerra

Effectiveness of nebulized beclomethasone in preventing viral wheezing: an RCT.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nebulized beclomethasone in preventing the recurrence of viral wheezing. METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Outpatient children aged 1 to 5 years with at least 1 episode of viral wheezing in the last 12 months, presenting to any of 40 Italian pediatricians for an upper respiratory tract infection, were randomly allocated to receive beclomethasone 400 μg or placebo twice daily for 10 days. Medications were administered through a nebulizer. A clinical evaluation was performed by the pediatrician at the start and end of the treatment period. A subjective evaluation of symptoms and efficacy of treatment was performed by the parents. The primary endpoint was the incidence of viral wheezing diagnosed by the pediatricians during the 10-day treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 525 children were enrolled in the study, 521 of whom were visited at the end of the treatment period. Wheezing was diagnosed by the pediatricians in 47 children (9.0% [95% confidence interval: 6.7 to 11.3]), with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups (beclomethasone versus placebo relative risk: 0.61 [95% confidence interval: 0.35 to 1.08]).The treatment was considered helpful by 63% of parents (64% in the beclomethasone group vs 61% in the placebo group). In all, 46% of children still had infection symptoms at the end of the treatment period, with no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study confirm that inhaled steroids are not effective in preventing recurrence of viral wheezing. Moreover, no benefits were found in reducing symptoms of respiratory tract infections.

A Regional ADHD Center-Based Network Project for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With ADHD.

Objective: We aimed to define the sociodemographic, clinical, and prescription profiles of the participants enrolled in the Italian Lombardy ADHD Register. Method: Data on patients evaluated by the 18 regional ADHD reference centers in the 2012 to 2013 period were analyzed. Results: Seven hundred fifty-three of 1,150 (65%) suspected patients received a diagnosis of ADHD. In 24% of cases, there was a family history of ADHD. Four hundred eighty-three (64%) patients had at least one psychopathological disorder, the more common of which were learning disorders (35%). Eighty-four percent of patients received a prescription for psychoeducational interventions, 2% received only pharmacological treatment, and 14% a combination of both. Compared with patients treated with psychoeducational intervention alone, patients with drug prescriptions more commonly presented values of Clinical Global Impressions - Severity scale (CGI-S) of 5 or higher (p < .0001). Conclusion: A continuous and systematic monitoring of patterns of care is essential in promoting significant improvements in clinical practice and ensuring an efficient and homogeneous quality of care.

The impact of a model-based clinical regional registry for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

This article describes the development and clinical impact of the Italian Regional ADHD Registry, aimed at collecting and monitoring diagnostic and therapeutic pathways of care for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder children and adolescents, launched by the Italian Lombardy Region in June 2011. In particular, the model-based software used to run the registry and manage clinical care data acquisition and monitoring, is described. This software was developed using the PROSAFE programme, which is already used for data collection in many Italian intensive care units, as a stand-alone interface case report form. The use of the attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder regional registry led to an increase in the appropriateness of the clinical management of all patients included in the registry, proving to be an important instrument in ensuring an appropriate healthcare strategy for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Ocular medicines in children: the regulatory situation related to clinical research

BackgroundMany ocular medications are prescribed for paediatric patients, but the evidence for their rational use is very scant. This study was planned to compare the availability and the licensing status of ocular medications marketed in Italy, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA) related to the amount of published and un-published RCTs testing these drugs in the paediatric population.MethodsA quantitative analysis was performed to evaluate the number of ocular medications with a paediatric license in Italy, the UK, and the USA. A literature search was also performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ophthalmic pharmacological therapy in children aged < 18 years, published up to December 2010. A search in the international clinical trial registries, the list of paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) approved by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the table of medicines with new paediatric information approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was also performed.ResultsIn all, of 197 drugs identified, 68 (35%) single drugs are licensed for paediatric use at least in one considered country, while 23 (12%) were marketed in all three countries. More specifically, in Italy 43 single drugs (48% of those marketed) had a paediatric license, while 39 (64%) did in the UK and 22 (54%) did in the USA. Only 13 drugs were marketed with a paediatric license in all countries.The percentage of drugs licensed for paediatric use and for which at least one RCT had been performed ranged between 51% in Italy and 55% in the USA. No published RCTs were found for 11 (48%) drugs licensed for paediatric use in all three countries. In all, 74 (35%) of the retrieved RCTs involved mydriatic/cycloplegic medications.A total of 62 RCTs (56% completed) on 46 drugs were found in the international clinical trial registries. Cyclosporin and bevacizumab were being studied in many ongoing trials. Twenty-six drugs had new paediatric information approved by FDA based on new paediatric clinical trials, while only 4 PIPs were approved by EMA.ConclusionsThere is a pressing need for further research and clinical development in the pediatric ophthalmic area, where effective up-to-date treatments, and additional research and education on use in children, remain priorities.