Comparative Evaluation of Clonidine as an Adjunct to Ropivacaine for Caudal Block Anaesthesia in Children Undergoing Sub-Umbilical Surgeries

BACKGROUND Studies suggest that clonidine can improve the duration of analgesia, quality of pain control when used with ropivacaine for caudal blocks in children. This study was designed to understand the effects of caudally administered ropivacaine 0.25 % (1ml/kg) alone and ropivacaine 0.25 % (1ml/kg) with clonidine 2 mcg/kg, in children between 2- 10 years. METHODS Sixty children posted for various sub-umbilical surgical procedures were included after written informed consent and ethics committee approval. Children were randomly divided into 2 groups of 30 each: Group R —ropivacaine 0.25 % 1 ml/kg into caudal epidural space and Group RC—ropivacaine 0.25 % 1 ml/kg and clonidine 2 mcg/kg into caudal epidural space. RESULTS The mean age of patients was similar with no statistical difference (4.83 vs 5.36, P = 0.3353). The duration of anaesthesia was significantly longer in the RC group (544.83 minutes vs 268.00 minutes, P &lt; 0.0001). The effect size was very high (Cohen d=23.86). The pain score was comparable up to 1 hour for the two groups. But 2 hours later, the pain scores were significantly lower for the ropivacaine and clonidine groups. The effect on motor blockade was similar in both groups with no motor blockade at 4 hours follow up. 5 cases of urinary retention were seen in the study with no statistically significant difference in terms of complication rate between the two groups. No case of hypotension or bradycardia was seen. There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of cardiovascular parameters (HR, SBP, DBP) after administration of drugs. CONCLUSIONS The addition of clonidine to ropivacaine for caudal blocks in children was associated with better quality of pain control and a longer duration of analgesia without any additional motor blockade. There was no significant difference seen in terms of complication. KEY WORDS Analgesia Duration, Caudal Analgesia, Clonidine, Pain Control, Ropivacaine.</jats:p

Exacerbation of pica as a precursor of psychosis

Pica is a sustained, compulsive eating behavior of nonedible substances. Pica has been described as sequelae of psychosis due to its state of disorganization; however, temporal and causal relationship between the two has not been reported in the context of exacerbation of pica before psychosis. Various causes of pica have been identified including malnutrition, iron-deficiency anemia, zinc deficiency, intellectual disability, and obsessive and impulse control disorders. Here, we describe a case of worsening pica which preceded exacerbation of psychosis in an 18-year-old female which was managed with antipsychotics along with complete remission of psychosis and improvement in the severity of pica. The present case highlights the association between psychosis and pica. There has been a rising voice in academia to reclassify pica alongside obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) with no absolute consensus. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the exacerbation of pica preceded psychosis and can be construed as an indicator for an upcoming psychotic episode or as a prodromal aspect of psychosis and may be useful for early identification and initiation of treatment in cases of relapsing psychosis

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research