Background Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mild in nearly all children, a small proportion of pediatric patients develop severe or critical illness. Guidance is therefore needed regarding use of agents with potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pediatrics. Methods A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 18 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of best available evidence and expert opinion. Results Given the typically mild course of pediatric COVID-19, supportive care alone is suggested for the overwhelming majority of cases. The panel suggests a decision-making framework for antiviral therapy that weighs risks and benefits based on disease severity as indicated by respiratory support needs, with consideration on a case-by-case basis of potential pediatric risk factors for disease progression. If an antiviral is used, the panel suggests remdesivir as the preferred agent. Hydroxychloroquine could be considered for patients who are not candidates for remdesivir or when remdesivir is not available. Antivirals should preferably be used as part of a clinical trial if available. Conclusions Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For those rare cases of severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding antivirals, informed by available data. As evidence continues to evolve rapidly, the need for updates to the guidance is anticipated.

Background Although Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data evaluating agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand, such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children. Methods A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results Given the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children. Conclusions Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.

Background In November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for two novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab, and REGN-COV2 (casirivimab plus imdevimab), for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adolescents and adults in specified high-risk groups. This has challenged clinicians to determine the best approach to use of these products. Methods A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacy, pediatric intensive care medicine, and pediatric hematology from 29 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results The course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild and there is no high-quality evidence supporting any high risk groups. There is no evidence for safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, limited evidence of modest benefit in adults, and evidence for potential harm associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis. Conclusions Based on evidence available as of December 20, 2020, the panel suggests against routine administration of monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab, or casirivimab and imdevimab), for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, including those designated by the FDA as at high risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Clinicians and health systems choosing to use these agents on an individualized basis should consider risk factors supported by pediatric-specific evidence, and ensure implementation of a system for safe and timely administration that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

Although a statement on Neonatal Drug Withdrawal was published in 1998 by the American Academy of Pediatrics, pharmacologic management of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) remains a challenge. Published clinical trials are limited, restricting treatment decision making to practitioner's experience and preference rather than evidence-based medicine. To optimize withdrawal symptom prevention, drug selection is often based on the offending agent (opioids versus polysubstance exposure), clinical presentation, mechanism of action (agonist versus partial agonist/antagonist, receptor effects), pharmacokinetic parameters and available drug formulations. This review addresses risk factors and pathophysiology of NAS, summarizes parameters of common drugs used for the management of NAS, and reviews published literature of standard therapies as well as newer agents. Based on the current literature, paregoric is no longer recommended and oral morphine solutions remain the mainstay of therapy for opiate withdrawal. Other potential therapies include methadone, buprenorphine, phenobarbital and clonidine with the latter two agents as adjunctive therapies.

Background: Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) can serve as a powerful tool during therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to help individualize dosing in populations with large pharmacokinetic variation. Yet, adoption of MIPD in the clinical setting has been limited. Overcoming technologic hurdles that allow access to MIPD at the point-of-care and placing it in the hands of clinical specialists focused on medication dosing may encourage adoption. Objective: To describe the hospital implementation and usage of a MIPD clinical decision support (CDS) tool for vancomycin in a pediatric population. Methods: Within an academic children's hospital, MIPD for vancomycin was implemented via a commercial cloud-based CDS tool that utilized Bayesian forecasting. Clinical pharmacists were recognized as local champions to facilitate adoption of the tool and operated as end-users. Integration within the electronic health record (EHR) and automatic transmission of patient data to the tool were identified as important requirements. A web-link icon was developed within the EHR which when clicked sends users and needed patient-level clinical data to the CDS platform. Individualized pharmacokinetic predictions and exposure metrics for vancomycin are then presented in the form of a web-based dashboard. Use of the CDS tool as part of TDM was tracked and users were surveyed on their experience. Results: After a successful pilot phase in the neonatal intensive care unit, implementation of MIPD was expanded to the pediatric intensive care unit, followed by availability to the entire hospital. During the first 2+ years since implementation, a total of 853 patientcourses (n = 96 neonates, n = 757 children) and 2,148 TDM levels were evaluated using the CDS tool. For the most recent 6 months, the CDS tool was utilized to support 79% (181/230) of patient-courses in which TDM was performed. Of 26 users surveyed, > 96% agreed or strongly agreed that automatic transmission of patient data to the tool was a