OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol.

OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint.

MAIN RESULTS: In total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. ( n  = 115) or s.c. ( n  = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P  ≤ 0.001).

METHODS: We identified children ≤ 12 years old hospitalized for COVID-19 across five hospitals in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia, from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 from the state's pediatric COVID-19 case registration system. The primary outcome was the development of moderate/severe COVID-19 during hospitalization. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for moderate/severe COVID-19. A nomogram was constructed to predict moderate/severe disease. The model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.

RESULTS: A total of 1,717 patients were included. After excluding the asymptomatic cases, 1,234 patients (1,023 mild cases and 211 moderate/severe cases) were used to develop the prediction model. Nine independent risk factors were identified, including the presence of at least one comorbidity, shortness of breath, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, seizures, temperature on arrival, chest recessions, and abnormal breath sounds. The nomogram's sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC for predicting moderate/severe COVID-19 were 58·1%, 80·5%, 76·8%, and 0·86 (95% CI, 0·79 - 0·92) respectively.

METHODS: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management.

RESULTS: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in ∼2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in ∼60% countries, although access is limited.