Effect of patient characteristics and disease manifestations on the outcome of acute otitis media at 2 months

Ear discharge in children presenting with acute otitis media: observational study from UK general practice

BACKGROUND

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance to treat otitis media in older children immediately with antibiotics only if they have ear discharge is based on limited evidence.

AIM

To determine the clinical significance and outcome of ear discharge in children with acute otitis media, in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Observational cohort study of children with acute otitis media comparing those with and without ear discharge at presentation.

SETTING

Primary care in East Somerset.

METHOD

Two hundred and fifty-six children aged 6 months to 10 years were recruited from primary care. Clinical features and other characteristics were recorded at presentation. Follow-up was undertaken at 2 weeks and 3 months.

RESULTS

Children with otitis media who present with ear discharge are much more likely to be treated with antibiotics irrespective of age (adjusted odds ratio 15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3 to 66). Most with discharge have proven bacterial infection (58%, 95% CI = 42 to 72%). They have a more severe systemic illness, with higher axillary temperature (80% increase in odds of ear discharge for each additional degree centigrade, P = 0.02), pulse rate (9% increase in odds for each extra beat, P<0.001), and Yale score (mean 10.5 versus 9.0, P = 0.003). They may also have an increased likelihood of adverse outcome (adjusted odds ratio of pain at 1 week 2.9; further episodes of acute otitis media 3.3; hearing difficulty at 3 months 4.7; all P<0.10).

CONCLUSION

Ear discharge defines a group of children with otitis media who are sicker and may be at higher risk of adverse outcome. NICE guidance to treat them with antibiotics is supported.

Diagnosis and management of acute otitis media

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline provides recommendations to primary care clinicians for the management of children from 2 months through 12 years of age with uncomplicated acute otitis media (AOM). The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians convened a committee composed of primary care physicians and experts in the fields of otolaryngology, epidemiology, and infectious disease. The subcommittee partnered with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center to develop a comprehensive review of the evidence-based literature related to AOM. The resulting evidence report and other sources of data were used to formulate the practice guideline recommendations. The focus of this practice guideline is the appropriate diagnosis and initial treatment of a child presenting with AOM. The guideline provides a specific definition of AOM. It addresses pain management, initial observation versus antibacterial treatment, appropriate choices of antibacterials, and preventive measures. Decisions were made based on a systematic grading of the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, as well as expert consensus when definitive data were not available. The practice guideline underwent comprehensive peer review before formal approval by the partnering organizations. This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance in the management of children with AOM. Rather, it is intended to assist primary care clinicians by providing a framework for clinical decision-making. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all children with this condition. These recommendations may not provide the only appropriate approach to the management of this problem.

The challenges of IRB review and human subjects protections in practice-based research

Practice-based research raises unique challenges with respect to human subjects protections and institutional review board (IRB) review. In this paper, three challenges posed by practice-based research are analyzed: (1) IRB review for clinician investigators who are not affiliated with an institution that has an IRB; (2) multiple IRB review; and (3) required human subjects protection training of key personnel. Investigators should be proactive in addressing required IRB review in practice-based research. In particular, they need to ensure that appropriate IRB review is obtained for all performance sites and plan for review for unaffiliated investigators. Practice-based research investigators and professional societies should educate IRB members and policy makers and publish articles regarding how IRBs might best address human subjects concerns in practice-based research. Furthermore, practice-based research investigators and professional societies should work with IRBs and the Office for Human Research Protections to facilitate centralized or cooperative review of practice-based research. Finally, practice-based research investigators need to ensure that their clinician investigators receive appropriate training in human subjects protection. Practice-based research investigators and professional societies can facilitate this process by helping to define and implement the appropriate training for busy practice-based research clinicians and office staff.

Evidence assessment of management of acute otitis media: II. Research gaps and priorities for future research

OBJECTIVES

To report research gaps and priorities of future research identified during an evidence assessment process on the management of acute otitis media (AOM).

METHODS

A conceptual framework for management of AOM was developed to guide the evidence assessment. An 11-member technical expert panel guided the selection of key questions, prioritization of influencing factors, development of scope, definition of AOM, and search strategy through polling processes and conference calls. Quality of clinical trials was evaluated using established scales. Outcome measures were abstracted from each study.

RESULTS

A total of 3461 titles and abstracts were screened, and 760 full-length articles were reviewed. Of the 760 articles, 80 studies addressed the key questions. In defining AOM, 42 (52.5%) of the 80 studies included the middle-ear effusion component, only 2 (2.5%) included the rapid onset component, and 26 (32.5%) included the signs/symptoms of inflammation component. None of the 80 studies used all 3 components. Of the 74 controlled trials, 39 (53%) were of acceptable quality (Jadad score of 3 or higher). The technical experts did not agree in the ranking of the importance of the 41 influencing factors (Kendall's coefficient of concordance was 0.0022). Another poll also indicated diverse opinions of the experts on the importance of 7 key questions derived from the conceptual framework (Kendall coefficient of concordance is 0.21). Furthermore, our review found that the type and definition of outcome measure varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large body of literature on AOM, its quality is uneven and its findings are not generalizable. Future research should try to answer all key questions and investigate all risk factors in well-designed, scientific studies.