To investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) improves neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness.

Phase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Twenty-one hospitals in the UK.

Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or subacute encephalitis, with a planned sample size of 308.

Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment.

The primary outcome was a ‘good recovery’ at 12 months after randomisation, defined as a score of≤2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended.

The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and IVIG safety data.

18 participants were recruited from 12 hospitals and randomised to receive either IVIG (n=10) or placebo (n=8) between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. The study was terminated early following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment, and therefore did not reach the predetermined sample size required to achieve the primary study objective; thus, the results are descriptive. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 of the 18 participants (IVIG n=5/10 (50%), placebo n=4/8 (50%)) made a good recovery and 5 participants (IVIG n=3/10 (30%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) made a poor recovery. Three participants (IVIG n=1/10 (10%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Two participants were found to have specific autoantibodies associated with autoimmune encephalitis. No serious adverse events were reported in participants receiving IVIG.

The IgNiTE (ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis) study findings support existing evidence of poor neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis. However, the study was halted prematurely and was therefore underpowered to evaluate the effect of early IVIG treatment compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis.

Clinical Trials.gov NCT02308982; ICRCTN registry ISRCTN15791925.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids are some of the most frequently used drug classes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness differences may exist among different intranasal specific medications. This systematic review aims to analyse and synthesise all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in rhinitis nasal and ocular symptoms and in rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality-of-life.

We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs (1) assessing patients ≥12 years old with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis and (2) comparing the use of intranasal antihistamines or corticosteroids versus placebo. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), the Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Certainty in the body of evidence for the analysed outcomes will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will perform a random-effects meta-analysis for each assessed medication and outcome, presenting results as pooled mean differences and standardised mean differences. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses, considering (1) the risk of bias, (2) the follow-up period and (3) the drug dose.

Ethical considerations will not be required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-review journal.

CRD42023416573.

One-third of children in England have special educational needs (SEN) provision recorded during their school career. The proportion of children with SEN provision varies between schools and demographic groups, which may reflect variation in need, inequitable provision and/or systemic factors. There is scant evidence on whether SEN provision improves health and education outcomes.

The Health Outcomes of young People in Education (HOPE) research programme uses administrative data from the Education and Child Health Insights from Linked Data—ECHILD—which contains data from all state schools, and contacts with National Health Service hospitals in England, to explore variation in SEN provision and its impact on health and education outcomes. This umbrella protocol sets out analyses across four work packages (WP). WP1 defined a range of ‘health phenotypes’, that is health conditions expected to need SEN provision in primary school. Next, we describe health and education outcomes (WP1) and individual, school-level and area-level factors affecting variation in SEN provision across different phenotypes (WP2). WP3 assesses the impact of SEN provision on health and education outcomes for specific health phenotypes using a range of causal inference methods to account for confounding factors and possible selection bias. In WP4 we review local policies and synthesise findings from surveys, interviews and focus groups of service users and providers to understand factors associated with variation in and experiences of identification, assessment and provision for SEN. Triangulation of findings on outcomes, variation and impact of SEN provision for different health phenotypes in ECHILD, with experiences of SEN provision will inform interpretation of findings for policy, practice and families and methods for future evaluation.

Research ethics committees have approved the use of the ECHILD database and, separately, the survey, interviews and focus groups of young people, parents and service providers. These stakeholders will contribute to the design, interpretation and communication of findings.