Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMJ Nutr Prev Health; BMJ nutrition, prevention and health; BMJ NPH. 26 February 2024; e000785.; DOI:10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000785
Rattigan SM, Grantz KH, Hanson K, Langendorf C, Berthé F, et al.
BMJ Nutr Prev Health; BMJ nutrition, prevention and health; BMJ NPH. 26 February 2024; e000785.; DOI:10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000785
INTRODUCTION
Current guidelines for the outpatient treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) recommend the provision of routine medications to all children at admission and prescribed medications as clinically indicated thereafter. The objective of this study was to describe the amount and purpose of medications prescribed during outpatient SAM treatment and explore the effect of routine antibiotics at admission on subsequent medication prescription.
METHODS
Medications prescribed during outpatient treatment were described by medication category, time from admission, and diagnoses among children with SAM in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of 7-day amoxicillin use. Total medications were compared by parent trial intervention arm (amoxicillin vs placebo) and differences assessed using Χ^2 and two-sample t-tests.
RESULTS
Of the 2399 children enrolled, 74.6% of children received ≥1 prescribed medication during outpatient treatment. Antipyretics/analgesics (44.1% of children), antimalarials (56.6%) and antibiotics (30.0%) were prescribed most frequently. Children who received placebo in the parent trial received fewer total medications (mean difference: −0.80, 95% CI: −0.96 to –0.65) and oral antibiotics (mean difference: −0.96, 95% CI: −0.99 to –0.92) during treatment compared with children who received routine amoxicillin.
CONCLUSIONS
We found high rates of medication prescription during outpatient treatment for SAM, but fewer total medications and oral antibiotics prescribed to children receiving placebo in the parent trial. Our findings underscore the role of outpatient treatment programmes as an important source of medicine prescription and suggest that provision of antibiotics on a clinically indicated basis for outpatient SAM cases may be a strategy to support prudent antibiotic use in certain settings.
Current guidelines for the outpatient treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) recommend the provision of routine medications to all children at admission and prescribed medications as clinically indicated thereafter. The objective of this study was to describe the amount and purpose of medications prescribed during outpatient SAM treatment and explore the effect of routine antibiotics at admission on subsequent medication prescription.
METHODS
Medications prescribed during outpatient treatment were described by medication category, time from admission, and diagnoses among children with SAM in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of 7-day amoxicillin use. Total medications were compared by parent trial intervention arm (amoxicillin vs placebo) and differences assessed using Χ^2 and two-sample t-tests.
RESULTS
Of the 2399 children enrolled, 74.6% of children received ≥1 prescribed medication during outpatient treatment. Antipyretics/analgesics (44.1% of children), antimalarials (56.6%) and antibiotics (30.0%) were prescribed most frequently. Children who received placebo in the parent trial received fewer total medications (mean difference: −0.80, 95% CI: −0.96 to –0.65) and oral antibiotics (mean difference: −0.96, 95% CI: −0.99 to –0.92) during treatment compared with children who received routine amoxicillin.
CONCLUSIONS
We found high rates of medication prescription during outpatient treatment for SAM, but fewer total medications and oral antibiotics prescribed to children receiving placebo in the parent trial. Our findings underscore the role of outpatient treatment programmes as an important source of medicine prescription and suggest that provision of antibiotics on a clinically indicated basis for outpatient SAM cases may be a strategy to support prudent antibiotic use in certain settings.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 28 April 2023; Volume S1473-3099 (Issue 23); 00131-7.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00131-7
Juan-Giner A, Namulwana ML, Kimathi D, Grantz KH, Fall G, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 28 April 2023; Volume S1473-3099 (Issue 23); 00131-7.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00131-7
BACKGROUND
Current supply shortages constrain yellow fever vaccination activities, particularly outbreak response. Although fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines have been shown to be safe and immunogenic in a randomised controlled trial in adults, they have not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial in young children (9-59 months old). We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of fractional doses compared with standard doses of the WHO-prequalified 17D-213 vaccine in young children.
METHODS
This substudy of the YEFE phase 4 study was conducted at the Epicentre Mbarara Research Centre (Mbarara, Uganda). Eligible children were aged 9-59 months without contraindications for vaccination, without history of previous yellow fever vaccination or infection and not requiring yellow fever vaccination for travelling. Participants were randomly assigned, using block randomisation, 1:1 to standard or fractional (one-fifth) dose of yellow fever vaccine. Investigators, participants, and laboratory personnel were blinded to group allocation. Participants were followed for immunogenicity and safety at 10 days, 28 days, and 1 year after vaccination. The primary outcome was non-inferiority in seroconversion (-10 percentage point margin) 28 days after vaccination measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50) in the per-protocol population. Safety and seroconversion at 10 days and 12-16 months after vaccination (given COVID-19 resctrictions) were secondary outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495.
FINDINGS
Between Feb 20, 2019, and Sept 9, 2019, 433 children were assessed, and 420 were randomly assigned to fractional dose (n=210) and to standard dose (n=210) 17D-213 vaccination. 28 days after vaccination, 202 (97%, 95% CI 95-99) of 207 participants in the fractional dose group and 191 (100%, 98-100) of 191 in the standard dose group seroconverted. The absolute difference in seroconversion between the study groups in the per-protocol population was -2 percentage points (95% CI -5 to 1). 154 (73%) of 210 participants in the fractional dose group and 168 (80%) of 210 in the standard dose group reported at least one adverse event 28 days after vaccination. At 10 days follow-up, seroconversion was lower in the fractional dose group than in the standard dose group. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections (n=221 [53%]), diarrhoea (n=68 [16%]), rhinorrhoea (n=49 [12%]), and conjunctivitis (n=28 [7%]). No difference was observed in incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between study groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Fractional doses of the 17D-213 vaccine were non-inferior to standard doses in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination in children aged 9-59 months when assessed with PRNT50, but we found fewer children seroconverted at 10 days. The results support consideration of the use of fractional dose of yellow fever vaccines in WHO recommendations for outbreak response in the event of a yellow fever vaccine shortage to include children.
Current supply shortages constrain yellow fever vaccination activities, particularly outbreak response. Although fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines have been shown to be safe and immunogenic in a randomised controlled trial in adults, they have not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial in young children (9-59 months old). We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of fractional doses compared with standard doses of the WHO-prequalified 17D-213 vaccine in young children.
METHODS
This substudy of the YEFE phase 4 study was conducted at the Epicentre Mbarara Research Centre (Mbarara, Uganda). Eligible children were aged 9-59 months without contraindications for vaccination, without history of previous yellow fever vaccination or infection and not requiring yellow fever vaccination for travelling. Participants were randomly assigned, using block randomisation, 1:1 to standard or fractional (one-fifth) dose of yellow fever vaccine. Investigators, participants, and laboratory personnel were blinded to group allocation. Participants were followed for immunogenicity and safety at 10 days, 28 days, and 1 year after vaccination. The primary outcome was non-inferiority in seroconversion (-10 percentage point margin) 28 days after vaccination measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50) in the per-protocol population. Safety and seroconversion at 10 days and 12-16 months after vaccination (given COVID-19 resctrictions) were secondary outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495.
FINDINGS
Between Feb 20, 2019, and Sept 9, 2019, 433 children were assessed, and 420 were randomly assigned to fractional dose (n=210) and to standard dose (n=210) 17D-213 vaccination. 28 days after vaccination, 202 (97%, 95% CI 95-99) of 207 participants in the fractional dose group and 191 (100%, 98-100) of 191 in the standard dose group seroconverted. The absolute difference in seroconversion between the study groups in the per-protocol population was -2 percentage points (95% CI -5 to 1). 154 (73%) of 210 participants in the fractional dose group and 168 (80%) of 210 in the standard dose group reported at least one adverse event 28 days after vaccination. At 10 days follow-up, seroconversion was lower in the fractional dose group than in the standard dose group. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections (n=221 [53%]), diarrhoea (n=68 [16%]), rhinorrhoea (n=49 [12%]), and conjunctivitis (n=28 [7%]). No difference was observed in incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between study groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Fractional doses of the 17D-213 vaccine were non-inferior to standard doses in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination in children aged 9-59 months when assessed with PRNT50, but we found fewer children seroconverted at 10 days. The results support consideration of the use of fractional dose of yellow fever vaccines in WHO recommendations for outbreak response in the event of a yellow fever vaccine shortage to include children.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Matern Child Nutr. 21 July 2022; Online ahead of print; e13400.; DOI:10.1111/mcn.13400
Bliznashka L, Grantz KH, Botton J, Berthé F, Garba S, et al.
Matern Child Nutr. 21 July 2022; Online ahead of print; e13400.; DOI:10.1111/mcn.13400
This study aimed to quantify the burden of relapse following successful treatment for uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and to identify associated risk factors in rural Niger. We used data from 1490 children aged 6-59 months discharged as recovered from an outpatient nutritional programme for SAM and followed for up to 12 weeks after admission. Post-discharge SAM relapse was defined as weight-for-height Z-score <-3, mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) <115 mm or bipedal oedema after having been discharged as recovered. Post-discharge hospitalisation was defined as admission to inpatient SAM treatment or hospitalisation for any cause after having been discharged as recovered. We used multivariate log-binomial models to identify independent risk factors. After programmatic discharge, 114 (8%) children relapsed to SAM and 89 (6%) were hospitalised. Factors associated with SAM relapse were discharge during the lean season (relative risk [RR] = 1.80 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-2.67]) and larger household size (RR = 1.56 [95% CI = 1.01-2.41]), whereas older child age (RR = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.88-1.00]), higher child MUAC at discharge (RR = 0.93 [95% CI = 0.87-1.00]) and maternal literacy (RR = 0.54 [95% CI = 0.29-0.98]) were protective factors. Discharge during the lean season (RR = 2.27 [95% CI = 1.46-3.51]) was independently associated with post-discharge hospitalisation. Future nutritional programmes in the context of Niger may consider modification of anthropometric discharge criteria or the provision of additional home support or follow-up during the lean season as potential interventions to prevent relapse. More research including post-discharge follow-up is needed to better understand the sustainability of treatment outcomes after discharge and the type of intervention that may best sustain recovery over time.
Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01613547.
Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01613547.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet. 9 January 2021; Volume 397; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32520-4
Juan-Giner A, Kimathi D, Grantz KH, Hamaluba M, Kazooba P, et al.
Lancet. 9 January 2021; Volume 397; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32520-4
BACKGROUND
Stocks of yellow fever vaccine are insufficient to cover exceptional demands for outbreak response. Fractional dosing has shown efficacy, but evidence is limited to the 17DD substrain vaccine. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of one-fifth fractional dose compared with standard dose of four WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines produced from three substrains.
METHODS
We did this randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at research centres in Mbarara, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya. Eligible participants were aged 18–59 years, had no contraindications for vaccination, were not pregnant or lactating, had no history of yellow fever vaccination or infection, and did not require yellow fever vaccination for travel. Eligible participants were recruited from communities and randomly assigned to one of eight groups, corresponding to the four vaccines at standard or fractional dose. The vaccine was administered subcutaneously by nurses who were not masked to treatment, but participants and other study personnel were masked to vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with seroconversion 28 days after vaccination. Seroconversion was defined as post-vaccination neutralising antibody titres at least 4 times pre-vaccination measurement measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50). We defined non-inferiority as less than 10% decrease in seroconversion in fractional compared with standard dose groups 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was measured in the per-protocol population, and safety analyses included all vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 6, 2017, and Feb 21, 2018, 1029 participants were assessed for inclusion. 69 people were ineligible, and 960 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to vaccine manufacturer and dose (120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz standard dose, 120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz fractional dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides standard dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides fractional dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar standard dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar fractional dose, 120 to Sanofi Pasteur standard dose, and 120 to Sanofi Pasteur fractional dose). 49 participants had detectable PRNT50 at baseline and 11 had missing PRNT50 results at baseline or 28 days. 900 were included in the per-protocol analysis. 959 participants were included in the safety analysis. The absolute difference in seroconversion between fractional and standard doses by vaccine was 1·71% (95% CI -2·60 to 5·28) for Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz, -0·90% (–4·24 to 3·13) for Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides, 1·82% (–2·75 to 5·39) for Institut Pasteur Dakar, and 0·0% (–3·32 to 3·29) for Sanofi Pasteur. Fractional doses from all four vaccines met the non-inferiority criterion. The most common treatment-related adverse events were headache (22·2%), fatigue (13·7%), myalgia (13·3%) and self-reported fever (9·0%). There were no study-vaccine related serious adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines were non-inferior to the standard dose in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination, with no major safety concerns. These results support the use of fractional dosage in the general adult population for outbreak response in situations of vaccine shortage.
Stocks of yellow fever vaccine are insufficient to cover exceptional demands for outbreak response. Fractional dosing has shown efficacy, but evidence is limited to the 17DD substrain vaccine. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of one-fifth fractional dose compared with standard dose of four WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines produced from three substrains.
METHODS
We did this randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at research centres in Mbarara, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya. Eligible participants were aged 18–59 years, had no contraindications for vaccination, were not pregnant or lactating, had no history of yellow fever vaccination or infection, and did not require yellow fever vaccination for travel. Eligible participants were recruited from communities and randomly assigned to one of eight groups, corresponding to the four vaccines at standard or fractional dose. The vaccine was administered subcutaneously by nurses who were not masked to treatment, but participants and other study personnel were masked to vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with seroconversion 28 days after vaccination. Seroconversion was defined as post-vaccination neutralising antibody titres at least 4 times pre-vaccination measurement measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50). We defined non-inferiority as less than 10% decrease in seroconversion in fractional compared with standard dose groups 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was measured in the per-protocol population, and safety analyses included all vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 6, 2017, and Feb 21, 2018, 1029 participants were assessed for inclusion. 69 people were ineligible, and 960 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to vaccine manufacturer and dose (120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz standard dose, 120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz fractional dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides standard dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides fractional dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar standard dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar fractional dose, 120 to Sanofi Pasteur standard dose, and 120 to Sanofi Pasteur fractional dose). 49 participants had detectable PRNT50 at baseline and 11 had missing PRNT50 results at baseline or 28 days. 900 were included in the per-protocol analysis. 959 participants were included in the safety analysis. The absolute difference in seroconversion between fractional and standard doses by vaccine was 1·71% (95% CI -2·60 to 5·28) for Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz, -0·90% (–4·24 to 3·13) for Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides, 1·82% (–2·75 to 5·39) for Institut Pasteur Dakar, and 0·0% (–3·32 to 3·29) for Sanofi Pasteur. Fractional doses from all four vaccines met the non-inferiority criterion. The most common treatment-related adverse events were headache (22·2%), fatigue (13·7%), myalgia (13·3%) and self-reported fever (9·0%). There were no study-vaccine related serious adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines were non-inferior to the standard dose in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination, with no major safety concerns. These results support the use of fractional dosage in the general adult population for outbreak response in situations of vaccine shortage.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Vaccine. 15 November 2019; Volume 37 (Issue 48); 7165-7170.; DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.094
Grantz KH, Claudot P, Kambala M, Kouyate M, Soumah A, et al.
Vaccine. 15 November 2019; Volume 37 (Issue 48); 7165-7170.; DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.094
BACKGROUND
Alongside the clinical aspects of the immunogenicity and safety trial of an Ebola vaccine deployed among front-line workers, a qualitative study was conducted to describe motivations behind individuals’ decisions to participate – or not to participate – in the study.
METHODS
In July and August 2015, focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews were conducted in Conakry, Guinea. Individuals were eligible for the qualitative study if they met the inclusion criteria of the immunogenicity and safety study irrespective of their participation. Surveys were also conducted among several institution and department heads of staff included in the study as well as vaccine trial staff members. Discussion and interview transcripts were analyzed using content thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Interviews and focus groups were conducted among 110 persons, of whom about two-thirds (67%) participated in the vaccine trial. There was at least one group interview conducted at each participating trial site, along with numerous formal and informal interviews and conversations through the enrollment period. Participants were often motivated by a desire to save and protect themselves and others, contribute to scientific progress, or lead by example. Non-participants expressed concerns regarding the risk and costs of participation, particularly the fear of unknown side effects following vaccination, and distrust or fear of stigmatization.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the unique nature of the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak, front-line workers employed much of the same logic when choosing to participate as in other clinical trials in similar settings. Special consideration should be given to addressing perceived inequity, misunderstanding, and mistrust among the target populations in future trials.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER
This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number
PACTR201503001057193.
Alongside the clinical aspects of the immunogenicity and safety trial of an Ebola vaccine deployed among front-line workers, a qualitative study was conducted to describe motivations behind individuals’ decisions to participate – or not to participate – in the study.
METHODS
In July and August 2015, focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews were conducted in Conakry, Guinea. Individuals were eligible for the qualitative study if they met the inclusion criteria of the immunogenicity and safety study irrespective of their participation. Surveys were also conducted among several institution and department heads of staff included in the study as well as vaccine trial staff members. Discussion and interview transcripts were analyzed using content thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Interviews and focus groups were conducted among 110 persons, of whom about two-thirds (67%) participated in the vaccine trial. There was at least one group interview conducted at each participating trial site, along with numerous formal and informal interviews and conversations through the enrollment period. Participants were often motivated by a desire to save and protect themselves and others, contribute to scientific progress, or lead by example. Non-participants expressed concerns regarding the risk and costs of participation, particularly the fear of unknown side effects following vaccination, and distrust or fear of stigmatization.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the unique nature of the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak, front-line workers employed much of the same logic when choosing to participate as in other clinical trials in similar settings. Special consideration should be given to addressing perceived inequity, misunderstanding, and mistrust among the target populations in future trials.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER
This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number
PACTR201503001057193.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Vaccine. 15 November 2019; Volume 37 (Issue 48); 7165-7170.; DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.094
Grantz KH, Claudot P, Kambala M, Kouyate M, Soumah A, et al.
Vaccine. 15 November 2019; Volume 37 (Issue 48); 7165-7170.; DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.094
BACKGROUND
Alongside the clinical aspects of the immunogenicity and safety trial of an Ebola vaccine deployed among front-line workers, a qualitative study was conducted to describe motivations behind individuals’ decisions to participate – or not to participate – in the study.
METHODS
In July and August 2015, focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews were conducted in Conakry, Guinea. Individuals were eligible for the qualitative study if they met the inclusion criteria of the immunogenicity and safety study irrespective of their participation. Surveys were also conducted among several institution and department heads of staff included in the study as well as vaccine trial staff members. Discussion and interview transcripts were analyzed using content thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Interviews and focus groups were conducted among 110 persons, of whom about two-thirds (67%) participated in the vaccine trial. There was at least one group interview conducted at each participating trial site, along with numerous formal and informal interviews and conversations through the enrollment period. Participants were often motivated by a desire to save and protect themselves and others, contribute to scientific progress, or lead by example. Non-participants expressed concerns regarding the risk and costs of participation, particularly the fear of unknown side effects following vaccination, and distrust or fear of stigmatization.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the unique nature of the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak, front-line workers employed much of the same logic when choosing to participate as in other clinical trials in similar settings. Special consideration should be given to addressing perceived inequity, misunderstanding, and mistrust among the target populations in future trials.
Alongside the clinical aspects of the immunogenicity and safety trial of an Ebola vaccine deployed among front-line workers, a qualitative study was conducted to describe motivations behind individuals’ decisions to participate – or not to participate – in the study.
METHODS
In July and August 2015, focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews were conducted in Conakry, Guinea. Individuals were eligible for the qualitative study if they met the inclusion criteria of the immunogenicity and safety study irrespective of their participation. Surveys were also conducted among several institution and department heads of staff included in the study as well as vaccine trial staff members. Discussion and interview transcripts were analyzed using content thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Interviews and focus groups were conducted among 110 persons, of whom about two-thirds (67%) participated in the vaccine trial. There was at least one group interview conducted at each participating trial site, along with numerous formal and informal interviews and conversations through the enrollment period. Participants were often motivated by a desire to save and protect themselves and others, contribute to scientific progress, or lead by example. Non-participants expressed concerns regarding the risk and costs of participation, particularly the fear of unknown side effects following vaccination, and distrust or fear of stigmatization.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the unique nature of the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak, front-line workers employed much of the same logic when choosing to participate as in other clinical trials in similar settings. Special consideration should be given to addressing perceived inequity, misunderstanding, and mistrust among the target populations in future trials.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). 1 March 2020; Volume 174 (Issue 3); 295-297.; DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5189
Isanaka S, Grantz KH, Berthé F, Schaefer MM, Adehossi E, et al.
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). 1 March 2020; Volume 174 (Issue 3); 295-297.; DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5189