Conditions: Pleural Empyema
Keywords: Randomized controlled trial Pleural Empyema tPA DNase
Allocation: RANDOMIZED | Intervention model: PARALLEL
Enrollment: 97
Healthy volunteers: no

Brief summary:
Bacterial pneumonia can be complicated by the development of excess fluid and pus (pleural empyema) around the lungs in children. The incidence of pleural empyema in children has increased significantly in the last 10 years.

Short term morbidity for this condition is substantial, but unlike in adults, the long term outcome of this condition for children in developed countries is favourable. Inserting a chest drain and then adding a medicine (tissue plasminogen activator - tPA) to break down organized pus has been shown to be an effective therapy for reducing the duration of illness. However, this treatment is still suboptimal and prolonged hospitalization is common. Recent data from adults suggests that adding an additional medicine (DNase) to decrease the viscosity (thickness) of the fluid improves drainage and leads to better patient outcomes; however, there are no published studies on children.

This is a multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing the time to discharge from hospital after chest drain insertion in previously well children who present with pleural empyema, treated with intrapleural DNase and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) by chest drain for three doses over 48 hours compared with three doses over 48 hours of tPA alone. Other outcomes related to effectiveness, safety and cost will be assessed as well.

Detailed description:

Arms:
arm 1: None arm 2: None

Interventions: intervention 1: TPA (Tissue Plasminogen Activator) intervention 2: DNase intervention 3: Placebo
Intervention descriptions: intervention 1: Intrapleural administration of tPA 4 mg in 10 ml (≤10 kg) or 20 ml (\>10 kg) normal saline once daily for 3 days intervention 2: Intrapleural administration of DNase 5 mg diluted to 10 ml (≤10 kg) or 20 ml (\>10 kg) normal saline once daily for 3 days intervention 3: Intrapleural administration of normal saline 10 ml (≤10 kg) or 20 ml (\>10 kg)

Protocol document:
Prot_SAP_000.pdf: 
Study title:  
 
Intrapleural DNase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Pediatric Empyema (DTPA Trial) 
 
NCT number: 
NCT01717742 
 
Document date: 
Protocol – June 29, 2017. 
 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
1 
Research Protocol 
 
Intrapleural DNase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Pediatric Empyema (DTPA trial) 
 
Principal Investigator: 
Eyal Cohen, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario 
 
 
Co-Investigators:  
Sanjay Mahant, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario  
 
 
Felix Ratjen, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario 
Jeffrey Hoch, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario 
 
 
 
Bairbre Connolly, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario 
Kevin Thorpe, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario 
Muhammad Mamdani, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario 
 
 
Ian Maclusky, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario 
 
Sophie Laberge, CHU Sainte Justine, Montreal, Quebec 
Lucy Giglia, McMaster Children’s Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario 
Mark Walton, McMaster Children’s Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario 
Connie Yang, British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia  
 
 
 
 
 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
2 
SUMMARY 
Pneumonia is one of the most common reasons for hospitalization in children.  In recent years, 
there has been an increase in the incidence of pleural empyema, defined as pneumonia with a 
complicated effusion leading to respiratory compromise and/or extensive loculations.  With modern 
treatments, including antibiotics and intrapleural drainage with instillation of fibrinolytics, long-term 
outcomes are excellent.  However, substantial short-term morbidity persists, including prolonged 
hospital stay with a painful chest tube and ‘treatment failure’ necessitating further procedures. 
DNase (dornase alfa) may work synergistically with fibrinolytic drugs such as tissue 
plasminogen activator (tPA) leading to liquefaction of pleural collections and improved drainage.  
Based on an adult trial, there may be an additional benefit from the addition of intrapleural DNase to 
tPA, but this requires study in a pediatric population as the underlying disease (e.g. microbiology and 
natural history), and other, age-related biological factors may potentially affect treatment response.  
This randomized controlled trial aims to address the efficacy, cost effectiveness and safety of DNase 
combined with tPA compared with tPA alone in the management of childhood pleural empyema.  
 
STUDY AIMS 
Over-arching aim: The overarching aim of this research collaborative is to improve outcomes for 
children with pleural empyema.   
Primary Research Question: In previously well children who present with pleural empyema, does 
intrapleural DNase with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) via chest drain for three doses over 48 
hours improve the time to hospital discharge compared with three doses over 48 hours of tPA alone?    
Secondary Research Questions: Will there be differences between the groups with respect to other 
outcomes related to efficacy, cost and safety? 
 
TRIAL DESIGN 
Design: The study design will be a blinded, five-centre pragmatic, superiority randomized controlled 
trial in a parallel group, 1:1, two arm design. 
Procedure:  Previously healthy children (6 mo – 18 years) with pleural empyema requiring chest tube 
drainage will be recruited. 
Interventions: At the time of chest tube insertion, subjects will be randomized to intrapleural 
instillation of tPA alone or tPA with DNase for three doses over 48 hours. 
Outcome: Primary outcome is time to hospital discharge.  Secondary outcomes include time to 
meeting discharge criteria, time to drain removal, duration of fever after intervention, need for 
ventilatory support or non-invasive ventilation, serious bleeding, need for further procedural 
interventions, hospital readmission, cost and mortality. 
Sample Size: A sample size of 92 (46 per group) will have the power to detect a 2 day difference in 
length of stay between the groups. While we do not anticipate any post-randomization ineligibility, for 
example from misdiagnosis, we will increase the sample size by 5% to account for this possibility 
(total of 49 patients per group).  It is anticipated that over the study period, 180 children will be 
admitted to the five centres who meet eligibility criteria. 
Analysis: Student’s t-test will assess differences in the primary outcome between groups. 
 
FEASIBILITY 
The investigators are clinical experts with a strong track record in outcomes research in pediatric 
empyema and methodological experts in clinical trials. 
 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
3 
COMPLICATED PNEUMONIA (PLEURAL EMPYEMA) IN CHILDREN 
Pneumonia is one of the most common reasons for hospitalization in childhood, 1 and accounts 
for more inpatient resource utilization (cost) than any other pediatric diagnosis outside of the newborn 
period.2  Up to 50% of children hospitalized with pneumonia have an associated parapneumonic 
effusion.3 Most of these effusions are small and uncomplicated and will resolve with antimicrobial 
treatment of the underlying infection, but in some cases, a complicated effusion can develop 
characterized by enlargement leading to respiratory compromise and/or extensive loculations.  Such 
effusions, commonly referred to as pleural empyema, characteristically lead to substantial morbidity 
including respiratory distress, pain, and prolonged hospitalization leading to child school loss, parental 
work loss and stress on families.  These children generally do not respond to antibiotic therapy alone 
and require management with a drainage procedure. In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase 
noted in the incidence of pediatric pleural empyema in multiple countries. 4-9 A review of Canadian 
data (excluding Quebec and Manitoba) found that there are now over 1,400 new cases each year. 10 
Hospitalization data from the United States seems to suggest that this growth has been most apparent in 
young children, aged 2-4 years,11 with Canadian data documenting a recent increase in incidence rates 
by over 450% in those aged 1-4 years. 10 Although the exact cause of this epidemiologic change is 
somewhat unclear, postulated causes include pneumococcal serotype replacement and increasing 
antibiotic resistance.12  
There are important gaps in the scientific literature regarding the optimal therapy for pleural 
empyema in children that have been highlighted in various recent clinical practice guidelines that note 
that high quality evidence to support therapeutic recommendations is often lacking;13,14 of over 50 
recommendations considered in a recent review, only four (<8%) had high quality evidence.14 This 
problem is pervasive in child health research. High quality clinical evidence is often based on the 
results of randomized controlled trials, and our research group has identified a paucity of randomized 
controlled trials (RCTs) in child health. Over the past 20 years adult RCTs published in leading general 
and subspecialty medical journals have increased substantially, while pediatric RCTs have increased 
only modestly.15,16 This problem is particularly relevant in pharmaceutical (drug) trials, and has 
undoubtedly led to the widespread use of pharmaceutical products in children without sufficient data 
on efficacy or safety;17 Despite some legislative initiatives in the United States and Europe to promote 
drug trials in children, extensive logistical and financial disincentives persist.  Consequently, 79% of 
hospitalized children are treated with drugs for unapproved indications, otherwise known as ‘off-label’ 
use.18  
 
THERAPY FOR PLEURAL EMPYEMA IN CHILDREN 
Antibiotics: In children with pleural empyema, antibiotic coverage for likely causative organisms (S. 
pneumoniae, S.aureus and S. pyogenes) is essential.  Unfortunately, a specific antimicrobial etiology is 
identified in less than 20% of cases, 19 so empiric therapy is commonly used. Although the potential 
choice of agents is wide and guided by local policies and patterns of antibiotic-resistant organisms such 
as penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae and methicillin-resistant S.aureus (MRSA), recent published 
guidelines in both the United States 13 and Canada 20 suggest that empiric therapy with a third 
generation cephalosporin (ceftriaxone or cefotaxime) with the addition of either clindamycin or 
vancomycin if clinical, laboratory, or imaging characteristics are consistent with infection caused by S. 
aureus. 
 
Drainage procedures: Published clinical practice guidelines support the use of drainage procedures in 
addition to antibiotics in managing pleural empyema in children.13,14,21,22 These guidelines are based on 
aggregate reports suggesting significantly longer hospital stays, duration of antibiotic therapy and 
progression to surgical intervention in children treated with antibiotics alone.23  A variety of different 
drainage procedures have been reported in the literature including chest tube placement with or without 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
4 
fibrinolytics, repeated ultrasound-guided needle thoracentesis, video-assisted thorascopic surgery 
(VATS) and open thoracotomy with decortication.  A systematic review 24 and cost-effectiveness 
analysis 25 of the relative merits of each of these procedures has been conducted by our team.  Based on 
the best-available evidence, either of two approaches is the most effective therapy for treating 
childhood empyema: (a) insertion of a chest drain with regular instillation of fibrinolytics; or (b) 
VATS. Recent Canadian data suggests variability in practice across hospitals, although insertion of a 
chest drain with regular instillation of fibrinolyics may be more cost effective.25 
 
Fibrinolytics: The rationale for utilization of fibrinolytics in parapneumonic effusion is its role in 
dividing pleural septations and loculations that interfere with drainage. A variety of different 
fibrinolytic agents have been described in the literature: streptokinase, urokinase, and tissue 
plasminogen activator (tPA). Streptokinase is rarely used as it is antigenic generates a systemic 
antibody response similar to that found when the drug is given systemically.26 A randomized controlled 
trial in the United Kingdom comparing regular chest tube instillation of urokinase with saline for 3 
days in 60 children with parapneumonic effusions found that length of stay was significantly shorter 
with urokinase (7.4 vs. 9.5 days).27  Another trial from the UK comparing urokinase instillation with 
VATS in 60 children found no difference in the primary outcome of length of stay. 28  Urokinase is not 
available in North America. 
Current fibrinolytic utilization is based on availability in different jurisdictions (e.g. urokinase 
in Europe, tissue plasminogen activator in North America). North American studies of fibrinolyic 
agents have utilized recombinant tPA, and, similar to urokinase, evidence suggests that it substantially 
improves pleural drainage.  Early observational studies suggested that early administration (at the time 
of chest drain insertion) and frequent administration of tPA was associated with shortened hospital 
stays,29 similar efficacy to urokinase,30 and safety.29,30  A randomized controlled trial of 36 children 
comparing once daily tPA x 3 doses (4 mg in 40 mL normal saline at the time of insertion and then at 
24 and 48 hours) with VATS found similar hospital stays (6 vs. 6 days) and lower overall hospital 
charges in the tPA group. 31 
Safety data on fibrinolytics suggests no serious adverse events aside from intrapleural 
bleeding.29,30 Most bleeding is mild and clinically insignificant (i.e. does not lead to a drop in 
hemoglobin).  It is also difficult to differentiate the etiology of cases of clinically significant bleeding 
between the surgical procedure of insertion of the drain and the drug itself.  A recent review of the data 
at the Hospital for Sick Children suggests a prevalence of 2% for clinically significant bleeding 
(leading to a drop in hemoglobin) from chest drain insertion and/or fibrinolytic instillation 
(unpublished data).  Current guidelines support the instillation of tPA as standard of care for pleural 
empyema being treated with a drain.8,10-12 
 
DEOXYRIBONUCLEASE (DNase) 
Despite the utilization of fibrinolytics, pleural drainage can still be challenging leading to 
prolonged hospital stays with a painful chest tube in situ and ‘treatment failure’ whereby pleural 
disease persists that cannot be drained necessitating salvage procedures such as open thoracotomy.  
The need for subsequent procedures is somewhat centre dependent, and, in clinical trials of tPA in 
childhood empyema, ranges from 17%31 to 38%,32 but such procedures are associated with significant 
morbidity including pain and a variety of potential surgical complications.  One potential explanation 
for both the inadequate drainage leading to prolonged hospital stays and the phenomenon of ‘treatment 
failure’ is the presence of extracellular uncoiled DNA liberated from dead leukocytes and other 
bacterial components. Such residual material may increase viscosity, permit biofilm formation, and 
thus interfere with drainage.33-36  Fibrinolytic agents are not thought to reduce pleural viscosity, but 
recombinant human DNase has been shown in vitro to help decrease the viscosity by cleaving free 
DNA and hence liquefying parapneumonic pus.37,38  Subsequent animal studies have demonstrated that 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
5 
the combined effects of tPA and DNAse in a rabbit model of empyema is more effective than either 
agent alone.39 Small human (adult) case series have also described benefit from the addition of DNase 
to the treatment of empyema.40,41 
Safety data on DNase is primarily derived from its currently licensed indication, nebulization at 
a dose of 2.5 to 5 mg once or twice daily for the reduction of sputum viscosity in patients with cystic 
fibrosis. It is well tolerated with rash, voice alteration, chest pain and laryngitis as common side 
effects.42 
DNase RCT in adults: A pivotal randomized controlled trial led by Rahman et al. from the 
UKCRC Oxford Respiratory Trials Unit was recently published in the New England Journal of 
Medicine addressing the effectiveness of DNase in adult patients.42  The authors conducted a blinded 2-
by-2 factorial trial in which 210 adult patients with pleural infections were randomly assigned to four 
study treatments for 3 days: double placebo, intrapleural tPA and DNase, tPA and placebo, or DNase 
and placebo.  The primary outcome was the change in pleural opacity, measured as the percentage of 
the hemithorax occupied by effusion on chest radiography on day 7 compared with day 1.  Secondary 
outcomes included referral for surgery, duration of hospital stay and adverse events.  For the primary 
outcome, the authors found a significantly greater reduction in pleural opacity in the tPA-DNase group 
compared with the placebo group (-29.5±23.3% vs. -17.2±19.6%; mean difference -7.9%; 95% 
confidence interval (CI), -13.4 to  -2.4; p=.005).  The change in pleural opacity observed with tPA 
alone or DNase alone was not statistically different from that observed with placebo.  All secondary 
outcomes also pointed to superiority of tPA-DNase compared with other study arms.  Hospital stay for 
the tPA-DNase group (11.8±9.4 days) was about 50% shorter compared with placebo (24.8±56.1 days), 
whereas in the DNase-only group and the tPA-only group, length of stay was similar to placebo.  The 
frequency of surgical referral at 3 months was lower in the tPA-DNase group compared with placebo 
(4% vs. 16%; odds ratio for surgical referral, 0.17: 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.87, p=.03).  Surgical referrals 
were increased in the DNase-only group (odds ratio, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.30-9.75, p=.01), and were non-
significantly reduced in the tPA-only group (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.29, p=.1). Mortality 
rates were 8% at 3 months and 12% at 12 months, but were similar across all study groups.  
Inflammatory measures (C-reactive protein, systemic white blood cell count and odds of fever) were 
also assessed.  Significant (p<.05) differences were found in mean white count on day 7 and fever on 
day 6 or 7 between tPA-DNase and placebo. The new treatment was not associated with any excess of 
adverse events.  Serious adverse events described included intrapleural hemorrhage (n=2, both in the 
tPA-DNase group), gastrointestinal bleeding (n=2, both in the DNase group), hemoptysis (n=1, in the 
tPA-DNase group, and clinical deterioration (n=1, in the placebo group). 
The findings of this trial can best be explained by the synergistic effects of tPA and DNase.  
The fibrinolytic effects of tPA may disrupt fibrinous septations that would otherwise divide the 
infected collection, allowing DNase to liquefy the thick pus.  Similarly, the thinning of pleural fluid by 
DNase may provide more effective access for tPA to pleural septations. 
In summary, a large well-designed trial in adult patients showed that the combination of tPA and 
DNase therapy improves the drainage of pleural fluid in patients with pleural infection, reduces 
hospital stay and the need for thoracic surgery. Data for children are lacking at the present time. 
     
 
Extrapolating from Adult DNase trial to the management of children: The aforementioned 
review of pediatric pleural empyema suggests that current therapeutic options are still suboptimal. 
Short-term morbidity persists associated with prolonged hospitalization and pain/discomfort from chest 
tubes, as well as the need for secondary salvage surgical procedures with potential complications. 
There may be an additional benefit from the addition of intrapleural DNase to tPA instillation into 
chest drains.  However, extrapolating from adult studies in pleural empyema to children is problematic 
as pediatric pleural empyema is in many ways a different disease for the following reasons: 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
6 
(a) Mortality rates differ substantially.  The mortality rate in adults is thought to be 10-20%,43 44-46 
and comorbidities are common.  Most children who develop pleural empyema are otherwise 
healthy, and mortality is extremely rare in those treated with a drainage procedure. No mortality 
has been described in pediatric empyema RCTs.23,24    
(b) Epidemiologic trends showing a rising incidence in empyema have been primarily 
demonstrated in children.  Although microbiologic confirmation is often elusive, this does 
suggest that the microbial etiology of pediatric empyema (e.g. pneumococcal serotypes not 
covered by conventional vaccines) may differ from adult patients. 
(c) Therapies that have been found to be ineffective in adult patients have been effective in 
children. For example, intrapleural streptokinase was not found to be beneficial in an adult trial 
(MIST1 trial),46 but was found to be useful for some children in a pediatric trial,47 and in a case 
series.48 
Therefore, although there is a biological rationale and clinical efficacy data from adults, currently it is 
not known whether the addition of DNase to tPA will provide improvement in outcomes for pediatric 
pleural empyema. 
 
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE TO DATE FOR PEDIATRIC PLEURAL EMPYEMA 
Pleural empyema is a rising problem in children and leads to significant short-term morbidity. 
Rigorous evidence with pediatric data is essential to inform clinical decision-making.  The proposed 
trial brings clinical experts with a strong track record in outcomes research in pediatric empyema 
together with methodological experts in clinical trials in an effort to improve the outcomes of children 
admitted to hospital with pleural empyema. 
Although there is still some ongoing controversy, the best evidence from randomized controlled 
trials seems to suggest that either VATS or small bore percutaneous chest tube placement with 
instillation of fibrinolytics result in the best outcomes in pediatric pleural empyema as measured by 
hospital length of stay, although chest tube with fibrinolytic therapy may be more cost-effective.  
Fibrinolytics are a safe and effective therapy based on observational and randomized control trial 
evidence.   However, persistent short-term morbidity associated with prolonged hospitalization and 
pain/discomfort from chest tubes, as well as the need for secondary salvage surgical procedures.  Based 
on a well-designed study in adults, there may be an additional benefit from the addition of intrapleural 
DNase to tPA, but this requires study in a pediatric population as the underlying disease (e.g. 
microbiology and natural history), and other, age-related biological factors may potentially affect 
response to treatment.  This randomized controlled trial is designed to address the efficacy, cost 
effectiveness and safety of DNase combined with tPA compared with tPA alone in the management of 
childhood pleural empyema.  
 
STUDY AIMS 
Over-arching aim: The overarching aim of this research collaborative is to improve outcomes for 
children with pleural empyema.   
Primary Research Question: In previously well children who present with pleural empyema, does 
intrapleural DNase with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) via chest drain for three doses over 48 
hours improve the time to hospital discharge compared with three doses over 48 hours of tPA alone ?    
Primary Hypothesis: Three doses of DNase-tPA, when compared to three doses of tPA via chest drain 
will reduce the time to discharge after chest drain insertion in children hospitalized with pleural 
empyema.  
Secondary Research Questions: Will there be differences between the groups with respect to other 
outcomes related to efficacy, cost and safety? The following outcomes will be assessed: 
a) Time to meeting discharge criteria. 
b) Time to drain removal. 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
7 
c) Duration of fever, defined as the number of days with temperature >38oC. 
d) Need for ventilator support or non-invasive ventilation following intervention. 
e) Risk of serious bleed, defined as intrapleural bleeding resulting in a drop in hemoglobin of greater 
than 20 g/L or needing a transfusion. 
f) 
Need for further interventions, defined as the need for further intervention such as placement of 
another chest drain (by any technique) or surgical intervention such as thoracotomy and 
decortication, video-assisted thorascopic surgery, or pneumonectomy. 
g) Hospital readmission related to pleural empyema or its treatment within three months of discharge. 
h) Cost of the hospitalization. 
i) 
Mortality. 
j) 
Amount of effusion present at the time of drain removal (exploratory outcome). 
Secondary Hypotheses: DNase-tPA, when compared to tPA via chest drain, will: 
a)    Reduce the time of fever, time to meeting discharge criteria, time to drain removal and cost. 
b)    Not result in an increase in need for ventilator support or non-invasive  ventilation following 
intervention, nor an increase in risk of serious bleed, nor any need for further intervention, nor the risk 
of hospital readmission, nor the risk of mortality. 
 
TRIAL DESIGN (see Appendix 1 for trial schematic) 
Design: The study design will be a superiority randomized controlled trial in a parallel group, 1:1, two 
arm design.  
Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum: The primary purpose of this trial is to inform clinical decision 
making. Therefore, according to the framework described by co-investigator Kevin Thorpe and other 
trial methodologists, this trial has been designed along the pragmatic end of the pragmatic-explanatory 
continuum.49 Specifically, most study domains [eligibility criteria, follow-up intensity, primary 
outcome and primary analysis] will follow pragmatic approaches (“Does this intervention work under 
usual conditions?”); practitioner expertise and adherence and the flexibility of the interventions will 
follow approaches midway along the pragmatic-explanatory continuum (“Can this intervention work 
under ideal conditions?”). This protocol has been designed following the 2010 SPIRIT guidelines 
(Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Trials) 50 and results will be reported according to the 2008 
CONSORT guidelines for pragmatic trials.51 
 
METHODS 
Study Setting: This study will occur at major tertiary care children’s hospitals These sites were 
specifically chosen due to their size (they are among the largest children’s hospitals in Canada), 
relatively close proximity, and interest in collaborative work in improving outcomes in pleural 
empyema.  These centres also preferentially use chest drain with fibrinolytics (as opposed to VATS) as 
their first line treatment of choice for pleural empyema in children.  Furthermore, in allcentres, most 
chest drain insertion is performed using an image guided percutaneous technique performed by 
interventional radiologists and have similar antibiotic prescribing patterns.  Lastly, all centres are also 
implementing clinical pathways to standardize the management of this condition.  
 
Eligibility - Inclusion Criteria: 
1. age 6 months to 18 years  
2. hospitalized with diagnosis of pleural empyema requiring chest tube drainage with fibrinolytics as 
judged by the attending physician with the following criteria: 
(a) pneumonia with pleural effusion as documented on ultrasound of the chest; AND 
(b) need for further intervention in addition to antibiotics based on clinical criteria [(persistent fever 
despite on antibiotics for at least 48 hours OR significant respiratory distress tachypnea, hypoxia) as a 
result of the pleural fluid collection] 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
8 
 
Eligibility - Exclusion Criteria:  
1. empyema as a result of tuberculosis, fungus or non-infectious causes (e.g. malignancy) 
2. known coagulation impairment  
3. suspected or proven allergy to tPA or DNase 
4. chronic lung disease or other chronic illnesses (e.g. immunodeficiency or neurologic impairment) 
5. child has already undergone a drainage procedure (e.g. chest drain or VATS). 
6. recent administration of an investigational drug (within previous 30 days) 
7. pregnancy 
8. breastfeeding 
 
Interventions: Patients will be randomized to receive either: (a) tPA [alteplase (Cathflo®), Roche] at a 
dose of 4 mg followed by a placebo (saline) administered intrapleural via chest drain once daily for 3 
doses; or, (b) tPA at a dose of 4 mg followed by DNase [dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®), Roche] at a dose 
of 5 mg. Weight-based dosing will not be used for tPA or DNase, as pleural concentrations are 
unpredictable and variable. Pediatric studies of tPA29 31 and guidelines21 have utilized adult dosing. 
DNase will be constituted by the research pharmacies in clear liquids in a polyethylene syringe 42.  
Since the stability of a tPA-DNase admixture is unknown, the drugs will be administered sequentially 
with a 1 hour indwelling time for each drug as described in the aforementioned adult trial.  For tPA, the 
contents of the vial will be diluted to a total volume of 10 ml normal saline (tPA) for children less than 
or equal to 10 kg and 20 ml for children > 10 kg.  A flush of 5 ml of normal saline will be instilled after 
drug administration.  Following the instillation of tPA the drain will be clamped for one hour and then 
will be opened to drain under suction at a pressure of -20 cm H2O for one hour.  Then, either DNase or 
placebo will be instilled as a volume to 10 ml with normal saline for children less than or equal to 10 
kg and 20 ml for children > 10 kg, followed by the same 5 ml normal saline flush, the same one hour 
period of clamping and the same one hour period of drainage at -20 cm H2O.  Thus in total, each cycle 
of tPA-study drug instillation and drainage will take 4 hours to complete. The pharmacies will prepare 
the two arms (DNase or placebo) in a manner such that both are identical (packaging, colour, volume, 
texture, and odour) to ensure blinding.  The contents of the vials (tPA followed by DNase or placebo) 
will be instilled into the chest drain by clinicians caring for the child. The first dose of tPA will be 
given immediately (within 1 hour) after insertion of the chest drain by the interventional radiologist or 
surgeon in the procedure suite or by clinicians on the ward and DNase or placebo will be instilled on 
the ward. On the following day (day 1) and the subsequent day (day 2) a dose of tPA followed by the 
study drug will be administered in the morning, between 9 and 10 am, in a similar fashion.  Thus, each 
patient will receive a total of three doses of either tPA or tPA-DNase over 48 hours.   
 
Clinical Samples at the Hospital for Sick Children: At the SickKids site only, consent will be 
obtained to store samples of chest tube drainage from subjects. These samples will be used for future 
testing to determine the microbiological cause of empyema. 
 
Concomitant Medication: Patients in either arm will not receive any intrapleural drug other than 
directed from this study.   
 
Criteria for discontinuing study interventions: Patients who develop anaphylaxis or serious bleeding 
(requiring a blood transfusion or resulting in a hemoglobin drop of ≥ 20 g/L) while receiving study 
interventions will not receive further study drugs. Patients whose chest drains is displaced will only be 
replaced if clinically indicated for pleural fluid drainage and not for study drug administration alone.  
Outcomes for all patients who do not received the full study interventions will be analyzed in the group 
they were assigned to. 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
9 
 
Standard care: In keeping with a pragmatic-type trial design, all children will receive standard care 
for this condition including supportive care, laboratory investigations, imaging, antibiotics, chest drain 
care and removal and discharge as outlined in the standard care guidelines.  Although some variability 
is expected in care among treating physicians, rigorous randomization and blinding should ensure that 
confounders are equally distributed between groups.  A detailed care map will be adapted from the 
existing clinical practice guideline co-authored by team investigators (EC and SM) together with the 
Canadian Pediatric Society. Specific elements in the care plan include:  
a) Antimicrobial management - Patients in both treatment arms will receive standard therapy for 
pleural empyema in children as directed by the responsible physician and standardized guidelines. All 
participating hospitals currently recommend a 2nd or 3rd generation cephalosporin (cefuroxime or 
ceftriaxone or cefotaxime) as the empiric antimicrobial therapy with possible addition of clindamycin 
or vancomycin if S. Aureus is a suspected etiology. It is expected that antibiotic regimens will be 
tailored in line with local microbiology advice.  
b) Drain insertion - Chest drains will be placed using an image guided percutaneous technique by 
interventional radiologists or by a surgeon using a standardized technique under anesthesia agreed 
upon by all sites. The recommended size of catheter drain used will be an 8 or 10 French pigtail 
catheter. 
c) Drain management - Chest drain management will be at the discretion of treating physicians.  
Suggested management in the care pathway will include maintaining -20 cm H2O of continuous suction 
and once daily flushes with 10 ml of normal saline (on days where no study drug is administered) to 
maintain patency. 
d) Criteria for drainage removal - Similarly, although recommendations for drainage removal will be 
made in the care map (< 1ml/kg/d), ultimately the decision to remove the chest drain will be made at 
the discretion of the responsible physician likely based on a gestalt of clinical parameters (amount of 
drainage, appearance of the child, fever, etc.). All patients will likely be initially on a similar regime of 
antibiotics and then tailored based on microbiologic results.  
e)  Diagnostic imaging - There is no consensus on the type (ultrasound versus plain radiograph) or 
frequency of diagnostic imaging necessary after drain insertion in hospitalized children.  Therefore, in 
contrast to the aforementioned adult RCT of DNase, follow-up radiographs will only be assessed as an 
exploratory outcome in the study protocol.   
 
Outcomes - Primary outcome: Time to hospital discharge:  This outcome is the most common 
outcome measure in trials of childhood empyema. This is defined as the time, measured in hours, and 
reported in days rounded to a single decimal point, from insertion of the chest drain to discharge from 
hospital.  This will be assessed by a research assistant on a twice daily basis.  
 
Outcomes - Secondary outcomes: Secondary outcomes include measures of effectiveness, harm and 
cost-effectiveness. Formal clinical follow-up and review of other parameters such as radiographic 
resolution and lung function testing will not be performed as preliminary work from this group of 
investigators and others suggests that long-term outcomes in childhood pleural empyema are almost 
universally positive.  Our prospective cohort study has found that by six months, virtually all patients 
are asymptomatic and follow-up radiographs have normalized in 62/65 (95%) and pulmonary function 
tests normalize in 27/28 (96%).52 
a.   Time to meeting discharge criteria: This is defined as the time, measured in hours, and reported in 
days rounded to a single decimal point, from insertion of the chest drain to meeting discharge criteria. 
This will be assessed by a research assistant on a twice daily basis (9 AM and 4 PM) and defined as: no 
fever (temperature less than 38oC) for 24 hours, normal respiratory rate for age [using the World 
Health Organization (WHO) age-specific criteria (< 50 breaths/min for 2-12 months, < 40 breaths/min 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
10 
for 1 to 5 years, and < 20 breaths/min for ≥ 5 years)], no hypoxia (transcutaneous oxygen saturations in 
room air less than 92%), and drinking fluids well.   
b. Time to drain removal: This is defined as the time, measured in hours, and reported in days rounded 
to a single decimal point, from drain insertion to drain removal. 
c.  Duration of fever after intervention:  This is defined as the duration, measured in hours, and 
reported in days rounded to a single decimal point, of fever (defined as temperature >38oC taken by 
any method) from insertion of the chest drain until resolution.  This will be recorded  by a research 
assistant daily. 
d.  Need for ventilatory support or non-invasive ventilation following the intervention. 
e.  Serious bleeding: This is defined as intrapleural bleeding resulting in a drop in hemoglobin of 
greater than 20 g/L or needing a transfusion. 
f.  Need for further interventions: This is defined as the need for further intervention such as placement 
of another chest drain (by any technique) or surgical intervention such as thoracotomy and 
decortication, video-assisted thorascopic surgery, or pneumonectomy. 
g.  Hospital readmission: Any hospital readmission after discharge from hospital for initial treatment 
for pleural empyema within three months related to pleural empyema or its treatment (e.g. harm). All 
hospital readmissions will be categorized as empyema-related or not.  
h.  Cost of the hospitalization: An economic evaluation will compare the relative costs of DNase-tPA 
with tPA alone in previously well children who present with pleural empyema, using patient-level data 
from the trial. We will conduct the analysis from a hospital’s perspective because hospital 
administrators will be making reimbursement decisions for this intervention. Since empyema is an 
acute condition and the long-term consequences are negligible, the time horizon of the analysis will be 
the length of hospital stay. Since the primary effectiveness outcome is length of hospital stay or time to 
hospital discharge, which can be expressed in monetary terms (i.e. hospitalization cost), we will only 
compare the costs of the two strategies to avoid double-counting the effectiveness. The cost of each 
patient includes the cost of intervention (DNase-tPA or tPA alone) and costs incurred during the 
hospital stay (“hospitalization cost”). We will obtain the hospitalization costs of each patient from case 
costing data from hospital financial departments. We will calculate mean cost per patient by 
intervention group, based on initial intervention assignment, and incremental cost using simple linear 
regression: 
Ci = αi + βti +εi 
 
Where Ci is the cost for each patient i, α is the intercept term, t is an intervention dummy term (t=1 if 
the patient received DNase-tPA and t=0 for tPA alone), and ε is the stochastic error term. The 
regression coefficient β estimates the incremental cost of DNase-tPA compared with tPA alone. The 
regression statistics will show mean cost per patient by intervention group and the uncertainty around 
the mean estimates. We will also conduct sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the results. 
i.  Mortality: this will include mortality from any cause during the hospitalization for empyema. 
 
Exploratory outcome – chest radiography: In the aforementioned DNase trial in adults, changes in 
pleural opacity, measured as the percent of the hemithorax occupied by effusion on day 7 compared 
with day 1 was a primary outcome.  In pediatric empyema, this outcome is problematic because: (a) 
many children will be discharged prior to day 7; (b) hemithorax size differs substantially across 
different sized children; and, (c) requiring an additional chest radiograph may be a substantial 
disincentive for parental caregiver to provide consent participate particularly given the rising concerns 
of ionizing radiation in developing children. Further, radiographic changes are considered surrogate 
measures of clinical changes as they often lag behind clinical improvement. There is currently no 
standard as to the timing of radiographs in hospital, but it is our experience that virtually all children 
will have a radiograph performed shortly before and/or shortly after chest tube removal.  The 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
11 
radiograph closest to the time of drain removal will be reviewed by a blinded study radiologist (BC) to 
determine the percentage of hemithorax occupied using a 5 point ordinal scale utilized in previous 
studies ranging from no fluid present to fluid occupying >75% of the most affected hemithorax.  Given 
that radiographic improvement is time dependent, we do not have any a priori hypotheses about the 
results of this outcome across groups (i.e. those with the worst outcomes (chest drain duration) may 
potentially have better radiographs at the time of drain removal). 
 
Sample size: The primary endpoint is time to hospital discharge after intervention. The mean time to 
hospital discharge after chest tube insertion and fibrinolytics varies. Published studies with treatment 
arms that have included chest drain with fibrinolytics as the primary mode of insertion reported 
hospital days after the intervention from 6 to 15 days.23,24 Hospital length of stay tends to be shorter in 
published RCTs compared with observational studies of empyema, and the most recently published 
RCT using an identical tPA dosing regimen to that which we are proposing described a mean (SD) stay 
of 6.8 (2.9) days. 31 The desired power for the current proposal is 90% to detect a difference of 2 days 
in the mean time to hospital discharge between the treatment arms.  Based on discussions with clinical 
experts in the field, hospital administrators and parents of children with pleural empyema, it is believed 
that a 2 day difference between treatment groups is a minimal clinically meaningful difference, and this 
has been used in previous empyema trials. 27 The adult DNase trial found about a 50% difference in 
length of stay between treatment and placebo groups. 42 
Sample size was thus calculated assuming a type 1 error rate of 0.05 (2 sided), power (1-ß) of 
90%, a standard deviation of 2.9 days for each group to detect a difference of 2 days to be 46 per 
group.  Calculations were performed based on a t test of independent groups. While we do not 
anticipate any post-randomization ineligibility, for example from misdiagnosis, we will increase the 
sample size by 5% to account for this possibility (total of 49 patients per group). There will be no other 
adjustment to the sample size requirements due to loss to follow-up for the primary outcome as the 
primary outcome is assessed in hospital where the research coordinator will be able to ensure complete 
data collection.  
 
Recruitment: All study patients will be initially identified by research assistants who will review both 
(a) all new admissions to the relevant inpatient units in each study centre twice daily; and, (b) all 
referrals for chest drainage insertion at each centre. It is anticipated that most drains at both sites will 
be inserted by interventional radiologists, although a minority may be inserted by general surgeons. 
Physicians and radiologists/surgeons will also be asked to notify the site research assistant and/or site 
investigator of children admitted with pleural empyema who may be eligible for the study.  Patients 
will be approached, eligibility criteria confirmed, consent obtained, and enrolled after the decision to 
refer for chest drainage but before chest drain insertion occurs.  
 
Randomization – Sequence generation, allocation concealment and implementation: After 
informed consent is obtained, patients will be randomized into treatment groups using a random 
allocation sequence facilitated by the Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC), which will be the 
coordination and management centre for the trial and administered by the hospital research pharmacies.  
Randomization will be stratified by centre.  Blocking will be used to ensure that the two comparison 
groups are about the same size throughout the trial for each center and for the trial as a whole (about 49 
per group).  An allocation ratio of 1:1 with random block size will be used within each stratum (centre).  
This will help to ensure that clinicians, investigators, or outcome assessors will not decipher the block 
size. A computer-based pseudo-random number generator will be used to create treatment allocation 
tables for each study center.  After patient eligibility has been confirmed and consent obtained and just 
as the patient leaves the inpatient unit to the radiology suite or operating room for chest drain insertion, 
the site investigator, or his/her delegate, will assign the patient a unique study identification (ID) 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
12 
number in sequential order. The study ID will correspond with the randomization table held in the 
research pharmacy for dispensing blinded DNase or placebo.  The biostatistician will maintain a secure 
master list of the randomization codes and the assigned treatments will be checked against the master 
list at the end of the study.    
 
Blinding: Patients, their parents or other caregivers, site investigators, research assistants and 
coordinators, treating physicians (pediatricians, radiologists, and interventional radiologists or 
surgeons), treating nurses, and data managers will be blinded to the treatment allocation.  Group 
allocation will be concealed until the final data analysis is performed.  Intervention drugs will be 
blinded by the research pharmacy. Both arms will be constituted by the research pharmacies in clear 
liquids in a polyethylene container 42 in a manner such that both are identical (packaging, colour, 
volume, texture, and odour) to ensure blinding. After obtaining the treatment number from the central 
randomization centre, the study pharmacist will retrieve the corresponding vial and one of its treatment 
number labels will be attached to the patient’s case report form (CRF).   
 
Unblinding Procedures: We do not anticipate any circumstances that would require unblinding as 
knowledge of study arm is not anticipated to affect any treatments for patients. 
 
Data collection methods: Data collection for outcome measures will be mainly collected in hospital 
by the Research Assistant (RA). At baseline, the following data will be obtained: age, sex, duration of 
antibiotic treatment prior to chest drainage insertion (days), duration of fever prior to chest drain 
insertion (days), hypoxia in room air (oxygen saturations less than 92% in room air prior to 
intervention), microbiologic identification of causative agent (blood culture results, throat swab, pleural 
fluid culture, pleural fluid PCR), ultrasound of chest: pleural effusion size >10 mm <10 mm, stage of 
empyema on ultrasound of chest: Stage 1: anechoic nonseptated fluid; Stage 2: echoic fluid without 
septation; and Stage 3: septated fluid and Stage 4: septations with solid appearing components 
comprising more than one third of the effusion.53  All ultrasounds will be reviewed by a blinded study 
radiologist (BC). In addition, patients will receive a follow-up phone call from the RA at 3 months 
enquiring about any possible readmissions and ongoing symptoms of fever, shortness of breath and/or 
exercise intolerance.   
 
Data management: The Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC) of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge 
Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital will serve as the data management centre under the direction of co-
investigator Muhammad Mamdani. AHRC employs state-of-the-art web based data management 
software, Medidata RAVE™ (5.6.3), a secure encrypted web based clinical trial data management 
system which is fully configurable and incorporates sophisticated data validation rules to ensure high 
quality data capture. RAVE™ allows for remote web-based data entry directly from the hospital sites, 
facilitating real time data access. 
 
Statistical Analysis:  
Baseline characteristics: Patient characteristics and descriptive variables will be presented for each 
treatment arm: age, sex, duration of antibiotic treatment prior to chest drain insertion (days), duration 
of fever prior to chest drain insertion (days), hypoxia, defined as saturations in room air less than 92% 
(yes/no), bacterial identification and subtype, pleural effusion size on ultrasound (>10 mm, <10mm), 
stage of empyema on ultrasound (frequency).  For continuous variables, means and standard deviations 
(SD) or medians (inter-quartile ranges) will be presented.  For categorical variables, proportions will be 
presented.   
 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
13 
Primary outcome: Data will be analyzed according to intention to treat principles for the primary 
outcome (e.g. patients who do not receive all three doses of study drug will be analyzed in the group 
they were assigned to). Exceptions to this principle will only include any patient who dies in hospital 
and will be excluded from the analysis of time to hospital discharge. Given that the primary outcome 
and other acute secondary outcomes are obtained during hospitalization, it is anticipated that there will 
be no missing data for these outcomes with the possible, but unlikely exception of in-hospital death, 
which is rare in childhood empyema.  For the follow up outcomes at 3 months, the proportion of 
patients who follow up will be presented for each treatment arm, and patients who are lost to follow up 
will be stated but omitted from the analysis.  The primary outcome, time (in days) to hospital 
discharge, will be described as the difference between the two means with the 95% confidence 
intervals. The student’s t-test (independent two sample test assuming equal group size and variance), 
will be used to detect a difference between the two treatment groups. If the resulting data is 
inappropriate for a t-test (increasing variance with the mean is the biggest concern since the test is quite 
robust to non-normality in the population), a suitable transformation or non-parametric test may be 
used. If feasible, a secondary analysis of the primary outcome will analyze time to discharge, treating 
death as a competing risk, using methods for survival data. Since randomization is stratified between 
five centres, the analysis will adjust for this stratification by including centre as a covariate in a 
multiple linear regression model, to obtain adjusted treatment effects. Additionally, a treatment by 
centre interaction will be tested to see if the treatment effect differs between centres. Subgroup 
analyses will also be conducted to explore any potential differences in outcomes by age or sex. 
 
Secondary outcomes and exploratory outcome: For the secondary and exploratory outcomes that are 
continuous variables (e.g. duration of drain insertion, hospital stay after intervention to meeting 
discharge criteria, duration of fever after the intervention, amount of hemithorax occupied by pleural 
effusion in radiographs) the difference between the two means with the 95% confidence intervals will 
be presented.  The student’s t test will be used to detect a difference between the treatment groups. 
Dichotomous outcomes (serious bleeding, need for further interventions, need for ventilatory support, 
mortality) will be described as the absolute number and proportion.  A Fisher’s exact test will be used 
to detect a significant (p<0.05) difference between the two treatment arms.  The treatment effect will 
also be presented as the relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. These analyses will be viewed as 
hypothesis generating, and therefore, no correction for multiple testing is planned. 
 
Data Monitoring and Safety: Data monitoring will be conducted with a Data Monitoring Committee 
(DMC) composed of a pediatric hospitalist, a respiratory physician and an interventional radiologist.  
The DMC will be completely independent of the investigators, and will be provided with clinical 
information from the trial case report forms for death, surgical events and adverse events, including 
those that were described in the adult DNase trial (hemoptysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, chest pain, 
nausea, transient confusion and rash).  The DMC will be able to request additional information from 
clinicians.   
 
Adverse Event Reporting: All serious unexpected adverse events will be reported to the REB; as per 
SickKids REB guidelines. All serious adverse drug reactions to the study medication will be reported 
to Health Canada within 15 calendar days or for death or life-threatening events, within 7 calendar 
days. In the latter case, a follow-up report will be filed within 8 calendar days. Adverse reactions will 
be managed according to the standard clinical management practices. All adverse events and adverse 
reactions will also be reported to the PI within 24 hours.  
 
Quality Assurance: This project will be monitored by The Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC) 
during the data collection phase of the project. The aim is to ensure that all researchers are maintaining 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
14 
the highest ethical, scientific and safety standards for all study participants, and are in compliance with 
all relevant policies, provincial and federal legislation, and international guidelines such as ICH- Good 
Clinical Practice. All studies are categorized according to the Continuing Review Matrix based on the 
type of study and the level of risk (I to IV) to research subjects and the Clinical Research Monitor will 
review at minimum 10% of the research subjects’ records for study eligibility, informed consent, 
adherence to study protocol, reporting of adverse drug reactions and adverse events, and data quality 
including computer database security and storage of records. Findings of the will be presented to the 
Research Ethics Board and lead PI in a written report, and specific recommendations arising from the 
report will be implemented in a timely manner. 
 
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Informed consent will be obtained from parental caregivers. Given 
the young age of children with empyema (average age of 4 years), it is anticipated that most will not be 
able to consent/assent to participate.  Informed consent/assent will be obtained from all those who are 
able to provide it. Potential known adverse events from study interventions are mainly local as the 
drugs are not systemically absorbed and include intrapleural bleeding, rash, voice alteration, chest pain 
and laryngitis. Aside from receiving the study interventions, participation will require parents to agree 
to be contacted by research personnel for a short (< 5 min) phone call three months post-discharge.   
 
Feasibility and Timelines: Internal data from decision support services at the three participating 
hospitals indicates that in fiscal year 2010-11, there were a total of 92 children with chest drains 
inserted for pleural empyema (25 at Sainte Justine, 33 at CHEO and 34 at SickKids), and, in 2009-10, 
98 children received a chest tube (28 at Sainte Justine, 37 at CHEO and 33 at SickKids).    Based on a 
review of the patients who had chest drains inserted at SickKids from 2008-2011, less than 5% of these 
will be ineligible for this trial (e.g. due to a comorbid condition such as cerebral palsy).  Thus, it is 
anticipated that a total of 180 potentially eligible patients will be available for recruitment, at three of 
the five sites, over two years for this clinical trial.  
Our previous experience with this population indicates a willingness to participate in research.  
In an observational study of long-term outcomes in pediatric empyema requiring participants to 
complete detailed follow-up questionnaires and attend an appointment for physical examination, 
spirometry and radiography for six months, 88/94 (94%) consented to participate, of whom 6 (7%) 
were lost to follow-up at one month and a further 8 (9%) at 6 months.   


9HUVLRQ-XQH







.12:/('*(75$16/$7,21.7$&7,9,7,(6
.7DFWLYLWLHVZLOOEHIDFLOLWDWHGE\WKHOHDGHUVKLSRIWHDPLQYHVWLJDWRUVORFDOO\QDWLRQDOO\DQG
LQWHUQDWLRQDOO\/RFDOO\ILQGLQJVZLOOEHSUHVHQWHGWRFOLQLFDOJURXSVDQGLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKH
HPS\HPD&OLQLFDO3UDFWLFH*XLGHOLQHVDWDOOVLWHV1DWLRQDOO\ILQGLQJVZLOOEHSUHVHQWHGDWWKH&DQDGLDQ
3HGLDWULF6RFLHW\¶V$QQXDO0HHWLQJIRFXVHGRQWKH+RVSLWDO3HGLDWULFV6HFWLRQZKRVHFXUUHQW3UHVLGHQW
LV'U0DKDQWDQGZKRVH3UHVLGHQWHOHFWLV'U&RKHQ,QWHUQDWLRQDOO\ZHZLOOSUHVHQWILQGLQJVDWWKH
3HGLDWULF$FDGHPLF6RFLHW\¶V$QQXDO0HHWLQJWKHODUJHVWLQWHUQDWLRQDOSHGLDWULFUHVHDUFKPHHWLQJ
IDFLOLWDWHGE\WKH3HGLDWULF5HVHDUFKLQ,QSDWLHQW6HWWLQJV35,6JURXSDQLQWHUQDWLRQDOKRVSLWDOLVW
UHVHDUFKDQG.7RUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWLVFROHGE\'U0DKDQW*LYHQWKHEURDGLQWHUHVWLQWKHWRSLFZH
DQWLFLSDWHSXEOLFDWLRQRIILQGLQJVLQDKLJKLPSDFWJHQHUDOPHGLFDORUSHGLDWULFMRXUQDO


,03$&72)678'<
3OHXUDOHPS\HPDLQFKLOGUHQKDVEHHQGUDPDWLFDOO\LQFUHDVLQJLQSUHYDOHQFHRYHUWKHSDVW\HDUVDQG
KDVLPSRUWDQWVKRUWWHUPPRUELGLW\8QOLNHLQDGXOWVORQJWHUPRXWFRPHLVYHU\IDYRUDEOHDQG
WUHDWPHQWLQWHUYHQWLRQVDUHDLPHGDWUHGXFLQJWKHGXUDWLRQRILOOQHVV&KHVWGUDLQDJHZLWKILEULQRO\WLFV
KDVEHHQVKRZQWREHDQHIIHFWLYHWKHUDS\LQFKLOGUHQEXWGXUDWLRQRILOOQHVVLVVWLOOORQJ7KLVVWXG\
ZLOOH[DPLQHWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIDGGLQJ'1DVHWRVHHLILWUHVXOWVLQFOLQLFDOO\PHDQLQJIXO
LPSURYHPHQWLQRXWFRPHV7KHVWXG\EULQJVWRJHWKHUDJURXSRIFOLQLFLDQLQYHVWLJDWRUVZLWKDWUDFN
UHFRUGRIVFKRODUO\ZRUNIRFXVHGRQH[SDQGLQJWKHHYLGHQFHEDVHIRUPDQDJLQJWKLVFRPPRQFRQGLWLRQ
WRJHWKHUZLWKUHVHDUFKHUVZLWKH[SHUWLVHLQFOLQLFDOWULDOVPHWKRGRORJ\7KHUHVXOWVZLOODQVZHUDQ
LPSRUWDQWFOLQLFDOTXHVWLRQDQGJXLGHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHPRVWHIIHFWLYHWKHUDS\IRUFKLOGUHQZLWK
SOHXUDOHPS\HPD


References 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
16 
1. 
Rudan I, Tomaskovic L, Boschi-Pinto C, Campbell H. Global estimate of the incidence of 
clinical pneumonia among children under five years of age. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 
2004;82:895-903. 
2. 
Srivastava R, Keren R, Luan X, et al. A strategy for prioritizing pediatric inpatient comparative 
effectiveness research. E-PAS 2011; 41451 2011. 
3. 
Lichenstein R, Suggs AH, Campbell J. Pediatric pneumonia. Emergency medicine clinics of 
North America 2003;21:437-51. 
4. 
Obando Santaella I, Sanchez Tatay D, Mateos Wichmann I, Torronteras Santiago R, Leon Leal 
JA. [Increase in the incidence of parapneumonic pleural effusions]. An Pediatr (Barc) 2006;64:176-7. 
5. 
Playfor SD, Smyth AR, Stewart RJ. Increase in incidence of childhood empyema. Thorax 
1997;52:932. 
6. 
Hendrickson DJ, Blumberg DA, Joad JP, Jhawar S, McDonald RJ. Five-fold increase in 
pediatric parapneumonic empyema since introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatr 
Infect Dis J 2008;27:1030-2. 
7. 
Goldbart AD, Leibovitz E, Porat N, et al. Complicated community acquired pneumonia in 
children prior to the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugated vaccine. Scandinavian journal of 
infectious diseases 2009;41:182-7. 
8. 
Rees JH, Spencer DA, Parikh D, Weller P. Increase in incidence of childhood empyema in 
West Midlands, UK. Lancet 1997;349:402. 
9. 
Thompson A, Reid A, Shields M, Steen H, Taylor R. Increased incidence in childhood 
empyema thoracis in Northern Ireland. Ir Med J 1999;92:438. 
10. 
Finley C, Clifton J, Fitzgerald JM, Yee J. Empyema: an increasing concern in Canada. Can 
Respir J 2008;15:85-9. 
11. 
Li ST, Tancredi DJ. Empyema Hospitalizations Increased in US Children Despite 
Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine. Pediatrics 2009. 
12. 
Spencer D, Iqbal S, Hasan A, Hamilton L. Empyema thoracis is still increasing in UK children. 
BMJ 2006;332:1333. 
13. 
Bradley JS, Byington CL, Shah SS, et al. The management of community-acquired pneumonia 
in infants and children older than 3 months of age: clinical practice guidelines by the Pediatric 
Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical infectious 
diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2011;53:e25-76. 
14. 
Balfour-Lynn I, Abrahamson E, Cohen G, et al. BTS guidelines for the management of pleural 
infection in children. Thorax 2005;60(Supple 1):i1-21. 
15. 
Cohen E, Uleryk E, Jasuja M, Parkin PC. An absence of pediatric randomized controlled trials 
in general medical journals, 1985-2004. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2007;60:118-23. 
16. 
Cohen E, Goldman RD, Ragone A, et al. Child vs adult randomized controlled trials in 
specialist journals: a citation analysis of trends, 1985-2005. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent 
medicine 2010;164:283-8. 
17. 
Caldwell PH, Murphy SB, Butow PN, Craig JC. Clinical trials in children. Lancet 
2004;364:803-11. 
18. 
Shah SS, Hall M, Goodman DM, et al. Off-label drug use in hospitalized children. Archives of 
pediatrics & adolescent medicine 2007;161:282-90. 
19. 
Weinstein M. Management of parapneumonic effusions: current practice and controversies. 
Current Pediatric Reviews 2006;2:259-63. 
20. 
N Le Saux JRCPS, Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee. Pneumonia in healthy 
Canadian children and youth: Practice points for management. Paediatr Child Health 2011;16:417-20. 
21. 
Chibuk TK, Cohen E, Robinson JL, Mahant S, Hartfield DS, Canadian Paediatric Society HPS. 
Paediatric complicated pneumonia: Diagnosis and management of empyema. Paediatr Child Health 
2011;16:425-7. 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
17 
22. 
Kokoska ER, Chen MK. Position paper on video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery as treatment of 
pediatric empyema. J Pediatr Surg 2009;44:289-93. 
23. 
Avansino J, Goldman B, Sawin R, Flum D. Primary operative versus nonoperative therapy for 
pediatric empyema: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2005;115:1652-9. 
24. 
Mahant S, Cohen E, Weinstein M, Wadhwa A. Video-assisted thorascopic surgery vs chest 
drain with fibrinolytics for the treatment of pleural empyema in children: a systematic review of 
randomized controlled trials. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 2010;164:201-3. 
25. 
Cohen E, Weinstein M, Fisman D. What is the most cost-effective therapy for pediatric 
empyema? Pediatrics 2008;121:1250-7. 
26. 
Laisaar T, Pullerits T. Effect of intrapleural streptokinase administration on antistreptokinase 
antibody level in patients with loculated pleural effusions. Chest 2003;123:432-5. 
27. 
Thomson A, Hull J, Kumar M, Wallis C, Lynn IB. Randomised trial of intrapleural urokinase in 
the treatment of childhood empyema. Thorax 2001;57:343-7. 
28. 
Sonnappa S, Cohen G, Owens C, et al. Comparison of urokinase and video-assisted thorascopic 
surgery for treatment of childhood empyema. Am J Resp Respir Crit Care Med 2006;174:221-7. 
29. 
Weinstein M, Restrepo R, Chait PG, Connolly B, Temple M, Macarthur C. Effectiveness and 
safety of tissue plasminogen activator in the management of complicated parapneumonic effusions. 
Pediatrics 2004;113:e182-e5. 
30. 
Wells RG, Havens PL. Intrapleural fibrinolysis for parapneumonic effusion and empyema in 
children. Radiology 2003;228:370-8. 
31. 
St Peter SD, Tsao K, Harrison C, et al. Thoracoscopic decortication vs tube thoracostomy with 
fibrinolysis for empyema in children: a prospective, randomized trial. J Pediatr Surg 2009;44:106-11; 
discussion 11. 
32. 
Kurt B, Winterhalter K, Connors R, Betz B, Winters J. Therapy of parapneumonica effusions in 
children: video-assisted thorascopic surgery versus conventional thoracostomy drainage. Pediatrics 
2006;118:e547-53. 
33. 
Hall-Stoodley L, Nistico L, Sambanthamoorthy K, et al. Characterization of biofilm matrix, 
degradation by DNase treatment and evidence of capsule downregulation in Streptococcus pneumoniae 
clinical isolates. BMC microbiology 2008;8:173. 
34. 
Thomas VC, Thurlow LR, Boyle D, Hancock LE. Regulation of autolysis-dependent 
extracellular DNA release by Enterococcus faecalis extracellular proteases influences biofilm 
development. Journal of bacteriology 2008;190:5690-8. 
35. 
Izano EA, Amarante MA, Kher WB, Kaplan JB. Differential roles of poly-N-acetylglucosamine 
surface polysaccharide and extracellular DNA in Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus 
epidermidis biofilms. Applied and environmental microbiology 2008;74:470-6. 
36. 
Eckhart L, Fischer H, Barken KB, Tolker-Nielsen T, Tschachler E. DNase1L2 suppresses 
biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. The British journal of 
dermatology 2007;156:1342-5. 
37. 
Light RW, Nguyen T, Mulligan ME, Sasse SA. The in vitro efficacy of varidase versus 
streptokinase or urokinase for liquefying thick purulent exudative material from loculated empyema. 
Lung 2000;178:13-8. 
38. 
Simpson G, Roomes D, Heron M. Effects of streptokinase and deoxyribonuclease on viscosity 
of human surgical and empyema pus. Chest 2000;117:1728-33. 
39. 
Zhu Z, Hawthorne ML, Guo Y, et al. Tissue plasminogen activator combined with human 
recombinant deoxyribonuclease is effective therapy for empyema in a rabbit model. Chest 
2006;129:1577-83. 
40. 
Simpson G, Roomes D, Reeves B. Successful treatment of empyema thoracis with human 
recombinant deoxyribonuclease. Thorax 2003;58:365-6. 


Version June 29, 2017. 
 
 
 
18 
41. 
Fujiwara K, Yasumitsu T, Nakagawa K, Shiono S, Fukuhara K. [Intrapleural streptokinase-
streptodornase in the treatment of empyema and hemothorax]. Kyobu geka The Japanese journal of 
thoracic surgery 2002;55:1115-9. 
42. 
Rahman NM, Maskell NA, West A, et al. Intrapleural use of tissue plasminogen activator and 
DNase in pleural infection. The New England journal of medicine 2011;365:518-26. 
43. 
Farjah F, Symons RG, Krishnadasan B, Wood DE, Flum DR. Management of pleural space 
infections: a population-based analysis. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 
2007;133:346-51. 
44. 
Ferguson AD, Prescott RJ, Selkon JB, Watson D, Swinburn CR. The clinical course and 
management of thoracic empyema. QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians 
1996;89:285-9. 
45. 
Davies CW, Kearney SE, Gleeson FV, Davies RJ. Predictors of outcome and long-term 
survival in patients with pleural infection. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 
1999;160:1682-7. 
46. 
Maskell NA, Davies CW, Nunn AJ, et al. U.K. Controlled trial of intrapleural streptokinase for 
pleural infection. The New England journal of medicine 2005;352:865-74. 
47. 
Singh M, Mathew JL, Chandra S, Katariya S, Kumar L. Randomized controlled trial of 
intrapleural streptokinase in empyema thoracis in children. Acta paediatrica 2004;93:1443-5. 
48. 
Rosen H, Nadkarni V, Theroux M, Padman R, Klein J. Intrapleural streptokinase as adjunctive 
treatment for persistent empyema in pediatric patients. Chest 1993;103:1190-3. 
49. 
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator 
summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = 
journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 2009;180:E47-57. 
50. 
Chan AW, Tetzlaff J, Altman dG, Gotzsche PC, Horobjartsson A. The Spirit Initiative: 
Defining 
Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Trials. Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of 
Health Research. [http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-healthresearch-
reporting/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-underdevelopment/. 
Accessed January 11, 2012. (Accessed at  
51. 
Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an 
extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008;337:a2390. 
52. 
Cohen E, Weinstein M, Mahant S, et al. The natural history of complicated pneumonia: A 
prospective observational study. . E-PAS 2011;1645.5. 
53. 
Jaffe A, Calder AD, Owens CM, Stanojevic S, Sonnappa S. Role of routine computed 
tomography in paediatric pleural empyema. Thorax 2008;63:897-902. 
 
 
 
 


9HUVLRQ-XQH




$SSHQGL[7ULDO6FKHPDWLF







































IROORZHGE\POQRUPDOVDOLQHIOXVK

Trial Entry 
Children aged 6 months to 18 years 
Hospitalized with pleural empyema requiring drainage with fibrinolytics as 
defined by: 
a) Pneumonia with pleural effusion as documented on chest ultrasound 
AND 
b) Need for further investigation in addition to antibiotics based on clinical 
criteria, persistent fever despite on antibiotics for at least 48 hours  OR  
Significant respiratory distress (tachypnea, hypoxia) as a result of the 
pleural fluid collection 
Randomize 
tPA arm 
[4 mg tPA in 10 ml (≤10 kg) or 20 ml 
(>10 kg) normal saline]*, then placebo 
(10 ml normal saline (≤10 kg) or 20 ml 
(>10 kg)]* 
tPA-DNase arm 
[4 mg tPA  in 10 ml (≤10 kg) or 20 ml 
(> 10 kg) normal saline]*, then 5 mg 
DNase diluted to 10 ml normal saline 
(≤10 kg) or 20 ml (>10 kg)]* 
Outcomes 
Primary: time to hospital discharge 
 
Secondary: time to meeting discharge criteria, time to drain removal, 
Duration of fever after intervention, need for ventilatory support or 
non-invasive ventilation, serious bleeding, need for further 
interventions, hospital readmissions, cost of the hospitalization, 
mortality, chest radiography (exploratory outcome) 

ICF_001.pdf: 
Study title:  
 
Intrapleural DNase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Pediatric Empyema (DTPA Trial) 
 
NCT number: 
NCT01717742 
 
Document date: 
Parent consent form – October 12, 2017. 
 


Parent/Legal Guardian Consent Form  
Version Date: October 12, 2017. 
Page 1 of  5 
 
 
 
 
 
Research Consent Form (Parent/Legal Guardian) 
 
Title of Research Project: 
Intrapleural DNase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Pediatric Empyema (DTPA trial) 
 
Principal/Qualified Investigator:  
 
 
Dr. Eyal Cohen 
 
Phone:  
(416) 813-5795 
 
 
 
 
Sub/Co-investigators:  
     
 
Dr. Sanjay Mahant  
 
Phone:  
(416) 813-8422    
Dr. Bairbre Connolly  
Phone:  
(416) 813-6034 
 
Purpose of the Research: 
Your child has developed pneumonia (a lung infection). The lung is separated from the chest wall 
by an area known as the pleural cavity. If the lung becomes inflamed from an infection, such as 
with pneumonia, large amounts of fluid can leak into the pleural cavity and fluid builds up in this 
space. This fluid can also become infected and can develop into very thick pus, which is called an 
"empyema". The antibiotics given to treat the pneumonia have a hard time getting into pus. This 
means that patients remain sicker for a longer time, and need antibiotic treatment for a much longer 
period.  
 
To prevent this from happening, usual treatment for an empyema is to drain the pus as much as 
possible by inserting a small plastic drainage tube (a chest tube) between the ribs into the pleural 
cavity. The pus can become very thick and solid (similar to a blood clot). This can plug up the 
chest tube, preventing it from draining all the fluid. This is a common problem, and usually a drug 
which breaks down the pus is injected through the chest tube into the pleural cavity to prevent this 
from happening. The drug that is used to do this at SickKids and other hospitals is called tissue 
plasminogen activator (tPA). The main problem with tPA is that it doesn’t always work. The chest 
tube still gets plugged up, delaying how quickly the child gets better.  
 
Adding another drug called Dornase alfa (DNase) might improve the treatment success of tPA. 
Pus contains dead bacteria and dead white cells (the immune cells the body produces to fight 
infection). Both bacteria and white cells contain DNA, which is released when they die. The DNA 
that is freed into the fluid clumps together, adding to the “clotting” of the fluid that plugs up the 
chest tube. DNase breaks up free DNA. It doesn’t get into living cells, and therefore cannot harm 
them, but simply works on the DNA released by dead cells.   
 
We think that DNase may add to the effectiveness of tPA in treating empyema. There is currently 
one study in adults which showed that adding DNase to the pleural cavity after tPA led to a better 
outcome than tPA alone. Patients in this study had a reduced length of hospital stay, decreased 
need for further surgery, and improved fever, without any known harmful side effects from the 
addition of the DNase. However, there are no published studies on using DNase and tPA in 
children with empyema. 
 


Parent/Legal Guardian Consent Form  
Version Date: October 12, 2017.  
Page 2 of  5 
 
 
This research study is comparing the time to discharge from hospital after chest drain insertion in 
previously well children who have  pleural empyema, treated with DNase and tPA by chest drain 
for three doses over two days (48 hours) compared with three doses over 48 hours of tPA alone. 
We will also examine other outcomes related to effectiveness, safety and cost. 
 
Description of the Research: 
Standard of care for children with pleural empyema at SickKids includes inserting a chest drain 
and adding tPA to break down the organized pus. If you agree to participate in this research study, 
we will insert tPA into your child’s chest drain and then we will insert either a placebo (saline fluid 
that does not contain any medicine) or DNase. Your child will have an equal chance (like the flip 
of a coin) of receiving either the tPA and placebo or the tPA and DNase. Neither you nor the 
investigators will know who has been given which dose until the end of the study. Should it become 
necessary, that information can be obtained.  
 
Right after the chest tube is inserted, the tPA and DNase or tPA and placebo will be inserted into 
the chest drain by the medical team caring for your child one at a time (first tPA, then either DNase 
or placebo). The tPA will be given first while your child is in the procedure suite.  This will take 
an extra 15 minutes and then your child will return to the ward.  After the tPA is given, the drain 
is closed (clamped) for one hour to allow the drug to work in the pleural space.  The drain will 
then be opened for one hour.  Then, either DNase or placebo will be given in the same way (with 
the tube clamped for one hour and then drained for one hour). On the following two days (day 2 
and day 3), a dose of the study drugs will be administered in the morning, between 9 and 10 am, 
in a similar fashion. Thus, your child will receive a total of three doses of either tPA and placebo 
or tPA and DNase over 48 hours. Your child will not receive any other drugs in the pleural cavity 
during these 3 days.  After the 3 days of treatment, your child will receive standard of care for 
pleural empyema by his/her medical team. This may or may not include more drugs in his/her 
pleural cavity.  
 
As part of your child’s usual care, the amount of chest tube drainage is recorded. For this study, 
we would like to collect some of this drainage and store it at SickKids for future testing to look at 
the cause of empyema. The only change to your child’s care will be the randomization (like 
flipping of a coin) to placebo or DNase. All other parts of your child’s care will remain the same 
as if he/she was not in the study, and will be decided by your child’s medical team. Your child will 
receive standard care for this condition including laboratory investigations, imaging, antibiotics, 
chest drain care and removal as outlined in the standard care guidelines and as directed by your 
child’s medical team. 
 
We would like to include a total of 98 children for this study from SickKids, BC Children’s 
Hospital in Vancouver, McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Alberta Children’s Hospital 
in Calgary, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, and St. Justine Hospital in 
Montreal. Approximately 49 children will receive tPA and placebo and approximately 49 will 
receive tPA and DNase. We expect approximately 50 children will be enrolled in this study at 
SickKids. 
 
We will review your child’s health record to obtain information on your child’s length of stay and 
treatments during your child’s hospitalization.  After your child is discharged home, we will call 
you in three months to see how your child is doing. We expect that this phone call will take less 
than 5 minutes.  After this, your child’s participation in the study is complete. 
 


Parent/Legal Guardian Consent Form  
Version Date: October 12, 2017.  
Page 3 of  5 
 
 
Although tPA is commonly used at SickKids and other hospitals in children with pleural empyema, 
Health Canada has not approved its use in children. However, Health Canada has reviewed and 
has approved the use of tPA and DNase for this study. 
 
Pregnant or nursing women are not eligible to participate in this study. If your child is female and 
able to get pregnant, a urine pregnancy test will be done. The results of the pregnancy test are 
confidential and a doctor or a nurse will explain the results of the test to your child in private.  
There can be many reasons why potential research subjects do not qualify for this study, one of 
which is pregnancy. Privacy laws mandate that the pregnant woman be told in confidence that she 
is pregnant, and appropriate supportive counseling should be offered at the same time. It is the 
pregnant woman’s choice to reveal the pregnancy to her family and the duty of the physician is to 
support her in any decision she makes. Therefore reasons why your child cannot participate or, if 
enrolled, why she can’t continue to participate, may only be revealed to you as ‘your child’s 
screening reveals she cannot continue with/be part of the study’ or ‘your child’s condition no 
longer fulfils the criteria for the study’.  
 
Potential Harms: 
Side effects of DNase include chest pain, fever, upset stomach, hoarseness, sore throat, shortness 
of breath, laryngitis, runny nose, decreased lung function, rash, hives, and inflammation of the eye. 
Side effects to DNase are rare (less than 1 in 1000 people), and are usually mild and temporary. 
The most common side effect of tPA is bleeding, especially when it is inserted into the 
bloodstream. In this study the drug will be inserted into the pleural cavity. Therefore, the risk of 
bleeding due to tPA is low. In an adult RCT examining the effectiveness of tPA and DNase 
compared to tPA alone for empyema, there was no difference in the occurrence of side effects 
between the groups that received tPA alone and those that received tPA and DNase. 
 
Potential Discomforts or Inconvenience: 
The only anticipated inconvenience will be the time it takes to complete a short questionnaire by 
telephone, 3 months after your child is discharged. We expect this phone call to take less than 5 
minutes.  
 
Potential Benefits: 
 
To individual subjects: 
Your child may or may not benefit directly from participating in this study. We can provide the 
results of the study to you after the study is completed if you are interested.  
 
 
To society: 
This study will ultimately help the care of children hospitalized with pleural empyema by 
informing medical teams of the best way to treat the condition.  
 
Alternatives to participation: 
If you choose for your child to not take part in this study, your child will receive standard treatment 
as directed by his/her doctor. This will likely include insertion of a chest tube and insertion of tPA 
into the chest tube. 
 
Confidentiality: 
We will respect your privacy. No information about who your child is will be given to anyone or 
be published without your permission, unless the law requires us to do this. For example, the law 


Parent/Legal Guardian Consent Form  
Version Date: October 12, 2017.  
Page 4 of  5 
 
 
requires us to give information about your child if a child has been abused, if your child has an 
illness that could spread to others, if you or someone else talks about suicide (killing themselves), 
or if the court orders us to give them the study papers. 
 
SickKids Clinical Research Monitors, employees of the sponsor or funder, The Applied Health 
Research Centre (St. Michael’s Hospital), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or the regulator 
of the study may see your child’s health record to check on the study. For example, people from 
Health Canada Health Products and Food Branch, if necessary, may look at your child’s records. 
 
By signing this consent form, you agree to let these people look at your child’s records. We will 
put a copy of this research consent form in your child’s patient health records. We will give you a 
copy for your files. 
 
The data produced from this study will be stored in a secure, locked location. The data will also 
be entered into a secure, password protected database stored at The Applied Health Research 
Centre located at St. Michaels Hospital. Only members of the research team (and maybe those 
individuals described above) will have access to the data. This could include external research 
team members. Following completion of the research study, the data will be kept as long as 
required and then destroyed as required by SickKids policy. Published study results will not reveal 
your identity.  
 
Reimbursement: 
There will be no reimbursement for participation in this study.  
 
Participation: 
If you choose to let your child take part in this study you can take your child out of the study at 
any time. The care your child gets at Sick Kids will not be affected in any way by whether your 
child takes part in this study. 
 
New information that we get while we are doing this study may affect your decision to take part 
in this study. If this happens, we will tell you about this new information. And we will ask you 
again if you still want to be in the study. 
 
During this study we may create new tests, new medicines, or other things that may be worth some 
money. Although we may make money from these findings, we cannot give your child any of this 
money now or in the future because your child took part in this study. 
 
In some situations, the study doctor or the company paying for the study may decide to stop the 
study. This could happen even if the medicine (or treatment) given in the study is helping your 
child. If this happens, the study doctor will talk to you about what will happen next. 
 
If your child becomes ill or is harmed because of study participation, we will treat your child for 
free. Your signing this consent form does not interfere with your legal rights in any way. The study 
staff, any people who gave money for the study, or the hospital are still responsible, legally and 
professionally, for what they do. 
 
 
 
 


Parent/Legal Guardian Consent Form  
Version Date: October 12, 2017.  
Page 5 of  5 
 
 
Sponsorship: 
The sponsor of this study is Dr. Eyal Cohen and The Hospital for Sick Children. The funder of this 
research is the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Physician Services Incorporated 
(PSI).  
 
Conflict of Interest: 
Dr. Eyal Cohen  and the other research team members have no conflict of interest to declare. 
 
Consent: 
 
By signing this form, I agree that: 
1)  
You have explained this study to me. You have answered all my questions. 
2) 
You have explained the possible harms and benefits (if any) of this study. 
3) 
I know what I could do instead of having my child take part in this study. I understand that 
I have the right to refuse to let my child take part in the study. I also have the right to take my child 
out of the study at any time. My decision about my child taking part in the study will not affect my 
child’s health care at Sick Kids. 
4) 
I am free now, and in the future, to ask questions about the study. 
5) 
I have been told that my child’s medical records will be kept private except as described to 
me. 
6) 
I understand that no information about my child will be given to anyone or be published 
without first asking my permission.  
7) I have been given sufficeient time to read and think about the information in this consent form.   
 
 
_____________________________________         ____________________________________        
Printed Name of Parent/Legal Guardian 
          Parent/Legal Guardian’s signature & date 
 
 
_____________________________________       ___________________________________ 
Printed Name of person who explained consent 
Signature & date 
 
 
____________________________________         ___________________________________ 
Printed Witness’ name (if the parent/legal 
 
  Witness’ signature & date 
guardian does not read English) 
 
If you have any questions about this study, please call Dr. Eyal Cohen  at 416-813-7654 x202626. 
 
If you have questions about your rights as a subject in a study or injuries during a study, please 
call the Research Ethics Manager at 416-813-5718.