A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of nebulized epinephrine in infants with acute bronchiolitis

Background The treatment of infants with bronchiolitis is largely supportive. The role of bronchodilators is controversial. Most studies of the use of bronchodilators have enrolled small numbers of subjects and have examined only short-term outcomes, such as clinical scores. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing nebulized single-isomer epinephrine with placebo in 194 infants admitted to four hospitals in Queens-land, Australia, with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiolitis. Three 4-ml doses of 1 percent nebulized epinephrine or three 4-ml doses of normal saline were administered at four-hour intervals after hospital admission. Observations were made at admission and just before, 30 minutes after, and 60 minutes after each dose. The primary outcome measures were the length of the hospital stay and the time until the infant was ready for discharge. The secondary outcome measures were the degree of change in the respiratory rate, the heart rate, and the respiratory-effort score and the time that supplemental oxygen was required. Results There were no significant overall differences between the groups in the length of the hospital stay (P=0.16) or the time until the infant was ready for discharge (P=0.86). Among infants who required supplemental oxygen and intravenous fluids, the time until the infant was ready for discharge was significantly longer in the epinephrine group than in the placebo group (P=0.02). The need for supplemental oxygen at admission had the greatest influence on the score for severity of illness and strongly predicted the length of the hospital stay and the time until the infant was ready for discharge (P

Web-based screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background Strong evidence exists for the efficacy of screening and brief intervention for reducing hazardous drinking. However, problems have been highlighted with respect to its implementation in health-care systems, not least of which is a reluctance of some doctors to discuss alcohol proactively with their patients. Aims To determine the efficacy of a novel web-based screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) to reduce hazardous drinking. Design A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Setting A university student health service. Participants A total of 16 7 students (17-26 years) were recruited in the reception area and completed a 3-minute web-based screen including the Alcohol Use Disorder Identifiation Test (AUDIT) questionnaire. Of these, 112 tested positive, and 104 (52 females) who consented to follow-up were included in the trial. Measurements Drinking frequency, typical occasion quantity, total volume, heavy episode frequency (females > 80 g ethanol, males > 120 g ethanol), number of personal problems, an academic problems score. Intervention Participants were randomized to 10-15 minutes of web-based assessment and personalized feedback on their drinking (intervention, n = 5 1) or to a leaflet-only control group (n = 5 3). Findings Mean baseline AUDIT scores for control and intervention groups were 16.6 (SD = 6.0) and 16.6 (SD = 5.7). At 6 weeks, participants receiving e-SBI reported significantly lower total consumption (geometric mean ratio = 0.74; 9 5 % confidence interval: 0.56-0.96), lower heavy episode frequency (0.63; 0.42-0.92) and fewer personal problems (0.70; 0.54-0.91). At 6 months personal problems remained lower (0.76; 0.60-0.97), although consumption did not differ significantly. At 6 months, academic problems were lower in the intervention group relative to controls (0.72; 0.51-1.02). Conclusions e-SBI reduced hazardous drinking among university students, to an extent similar to that found for practitioner-delivered brief interventions in the general population. e-SBI offers promise as a strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm in a way that is non-intrusive, appealing to the target group, and capable of being incorporated into primary care. Research is required to replicate the findings, to determine the duration of intervention effects, and to investigate the mechanisms by which the intervention operates.