PubMed2026
BACKGROUND: Improvements in neonatal and paediatric care in recent decades have increased the survival of children with non-progressive neurological impairment. Respiratory disease in children with neurological impairment is common, with symptoms difficult to manage and lower respiratory tract infection occurring frequently. To reduce these, prophylactic antibiotics are being increasingly used, but the type, duration and dose of antibiotics can vary considerably, and there is limited evidence about their effectiveness in children and young people. A joint United Kingdom and Australia multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing 52 weeks of azithromycin to placebo in children and young people with neurological impairment at risk of lower respiratory tract infection (PARROT) was planned to address this gap. PARROT was a multicentre, parallel group, blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 52-week duration with a planned sample size of 500 (250 in each arm) participants with neurological impairment. The primary outcome was the proportion of children and young people hospitalised with lower respiratory tract infection over the 52-week period. RESULTS: In total, 90 children and young people (62 in Australia, 28 in the United Kingdom) aged 3-17 years, with a diagnosed non-progressive, non-neuromuscular neurological impairment, who had persistent respiratory symptoms were randomised (1 : 1) to receive azithromycin or placebo. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were relatively well balanced across the two treatment groups and countries. Overall, mean (standard deviation) age was 9.2 (4.4) years, with 64% of participants having cerebral palsy, 67% being non-ambulant and 54% being totally tube-fed. At baseline, mean (standard deviation) numbers of hospital admissions with lower respiratory tract infection in the preceding year were 1.8 (2.0)/year, and general practitioner attendances 3.3 (3.0)/year. The PARROT trial was closed early to recruitment due to challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixty-five (72%) participants (azithromycin n = 30, placebo n = 35) completed 52 weeks of treatment and were not withdrawn early from the trial. Regarding the primary outcome, 11 (36.7%) in the azithromycin group were hospitalised with lower respiratory tract infection and 9 (25.7%) in the placebo group [absolute risk reduction 0.11 (95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.33), relative risk 1.43 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 2.97)]. Analysis of secondary outcome data was limited by the number of missing data, but parent-reported quality of life for young person and parent, sleep amount/quality for young person and parent, and respiratory symptoms were similar between groups and countries. LIMITATIONS: As PARROT was stopped early and was consequently underpowered, it is not possible to say whether azithromycin prophylaxis is any more effective than placebo in reducing the proportion of children admitted to hospital with lower respiratory tract infection after a 52-week period. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK: Although we cannot comment on the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in this context, we can draw some useful conclusions from this trial. Thus, the importance placed by families on hospitalisation and its prevalence in both treatment groups, even during the pandemic, would suggest that this is an appropriate primary outcome measure for future trials in this high-risk group of children and young people. Furthermore, the high attrition rate and large numbers of missing data, specifically for questionnaire-based outcomes at later follow-up points, should encourage researchers to be mindful of minimising trial burden to families for any future trials wherever possible. FUNDING: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/17/01.