A multi-centre, pragmatic, three-arm, individually randomised, non-inferiority, open trial to compare immediate orally administered, immediate topically administered or delayed orally administered antibiotics for acute otitis media with discharge in children: The Runny Ear Study (REST): study protocol

Outcome measures for use in trials of paediatric otorrhoea: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric otorrhoea (PO) describes a middle ear infection that results in a perforation of the tympanic membrane and ear discharge, in children and young people (CYP). Prolonged infection may be associated with hearing loss and developmental delay. The current management of paediatric otorrhoea is variable, including non-invasive treatments (conservative, oral antibiotics, topical antibiotics) and surgery, reflecting the lack of a sufficiently strong evidence base. Outcome reporting is fundamental to producing reliable and meaningful evidence to inform best practice.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: to determine which outcome measures are currently used to evaluate treatment success in studies of non-surgical treatments for paediatric otorrhoea.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

to identify outcome measurement instruments used in the literature and assess their applicability for use in clinical trials of PO.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023407976). Database searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane was performed on June 6, 2023, covering from Jan 1995 to May 2023. Randomised controlled trials or study protocols involving CYP with PO were included following PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane's tool.

RESULTS

Of the 377 papers identified, six were included in the systematic review. The primary outcome of five of the studies related to otorrhoea cessation; both time to cessation and proportion recovered at various time points were used as measures. Two measurement instruments were identified: Otitis Media-6 Questionnaire and the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire. Both were shown to be applicable measurement instruments when used in clinical trials of PO.

CONCLUSIONS

To promote homogeneity and facilitate meaningful comparison and combination of studies, we propose that time to cessation of otorrhoea from onset of otorrhoea should be used as the primary outcome in future studies. Further research is needed to establish if this is the most important outcome to children and their caregivers.

Topical or oral antibiotics for children with acute otitis media presenting with ear discharge: study protocol of a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Around 15%-20% of children with acute otitis media present with ear discharge due to a spontaneous tear or perforation of the eardrum (AOMd). Current guidance recommends clinicians to consider oral antibiotics as first-line treatment in this condition. The opening in the eardrum however should allow topical antibiotics to enter the middle ear directly. Local administration of antibiotics does not expose children to systemic side effects and may put less selective resistance pressure on bacteria. Evidence on the effectiveness of this approach in children with AOMd is lacking.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A primary care-based, open, individually randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. The trial aims to recruit 350 children aged 6 months to 12 years with AOMd and ear pain and/or fever. Participants will be randomised to 7 days of hydrocortisone-bacitracin-colistin eardrops five drops three times daily or amoxicillin oral suspension 50 mg/kg body weight per day, divided over three doses. Parents will keep a daily diary of AOM symptoms, adverse events and complications for 2 weeks. In addition, they will record AOM recurrences, healthcare utilisation and societal costs for 3 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of children without ear pain and fever at day 3. Secondary outcomes include ear pain and fever intensity/severity; days with ear discharge; eardrum perforation at 2 weeks; adverse events during first 2 weeks; costs; and cost effectiveness at 2 weeks and 3 months. The primary analyses will be intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be conducted as well.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The medical research ethics committee Utrecht, The Netherlands has given ethical approval (17-400/G-M). Parents/guardians of participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at relevant (inter)national scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Netherlands National Trial Register; NTR6723. Date of registration: 27 November 2017.

Immediate oral versus immediate topical versus delayed oral antibiotics for children with acute otitis media with discharge: the REST three-arm non-inferiority electronic platform-supported RCT

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media is a painful infection of the middle ear that is commonly seen in children. In some children, the eardrum spontaneously bursts, discharging visible pus (otorrhoea) into the outer ear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of immediate topical antibiotics or delayed oral antibiotics with the clinical effectiveness of immediate oral antibiotics in reducing symptom duration in children presenting to primary care with acute otitis media with discharge and the economic impact of the alternative strategies.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, three-arm, individually randomised (stratified by age < 2 vs. ≥ 2 years), non-inferiority, open-label trial, with economic and qualitative evaluations, supported by a health-record-integrated electronic trial platform [TRANSFoRm (Translational Research and Patient Safety in Europe)] with an internal pilot.

SETTING

A total of 44 English general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged ≥ 12 months and < 16 years whose parents (or carers) were seeking medical care for unilateral otorrhoea (ear discharge) following recent-onset (≤ 7 days) acute otitis media.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) Immediate ciprofloxacin (0.3%) solution, four drops given three times daily for 7 days, or (2) delayed 'dose-by-age' amoxicillin suspension given three times daily (clarithromycin twice daily if the child was penicillin allergic) for 7 days, with structured delaying advice. All parents were given standardised information regarding symptom management (paracetamol/ibuprofen/fluids) and advice to complete the course.

COMPARATOR

Immediate 'dose-by-age' oral amoxicillin given three times daily (or clarithromycin given twice daily) for 7 days. Parents received standardised symptom management advice along with advice to complete the course.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time from randomisation to the first day on which all symptoms (pain, fever, being unwell, sleep disturbance, otorrhoea and episodes of distress/crying) were rated 'no' or 'very slight' problem (without need for analgesia).

METHODS

Participants were recruited from routine primary care appointments. The planned sample size was 399 children. Follow-up used parent-completed validated symptom diaries.

RESULTS

Delays in software deployment and configuration led to small recruitment numbers and trial closure at the end of the internal pilot. Twenty-two children (median age 5 years; 62% boys) were randomised: five, seven and 10 to immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotics, respectively. All children received prescriptions as randomised. Seven (32%) children fully adhered to the treatment as allocated. Symptom duration data were available for 17 (77%) children. The median (interquartile range) number of days until symptom resolution in the immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotic arms was 6 (4-9), 4 (3-7) and 4 (3-6), respectively. Comparative analyses were not conducted because of small numbers. There were no serious adverse events and six reports of new or worsening symptoms. Qualitative clinician interviews showed that the trial question was important. When the platform functioned as intended, it was liked. However, staff reported malfunctioning software for long periods, resulting in missed recruitment opportunities. Troubleshooting the software placed significant burdens on staff.

LIMITATIONS

The over-riding weakness was the failure to recruit enough children.

CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to answer the main research question because of a failure to reach the required sample size. Our experience of running an electronic platform-supported trial in primary care has highlighted challenges from which we have drawn recommendations for the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the research community. These should be considered before such a platform is used again.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12873692 and EudraCT 2017-003635-10.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Challenges to implementing electronic trial data collection in primary care: a qualitative study

Background

Within-consultation recruitment to primary care trials is challenging. Ensuring procedures are efficient and self-explanatory is the key to optimising recruitment. Trial recruitment software that integrates with the electronic health record to support and partially automate procedures is becoming more common. If it works well, such software can support greater participation and more efficient trial designs. An innovative electronic trial recruitment and outcomes software was designed to support recruitment to the Runny Ear randomised controlled trial, comparing topical, oral and delayed antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media with discharge in children. A qualitative evaluation investigated the views and experiences of primary care staff using this trial software.

Methods

Staff were purposively sampled in relation to site, role and whether the practice successfully recruited patients. In-depth interviews were conducted using a flexible topic guide, audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Sixteen staff were interviewed, including GPs, practice managers, information technology (IT) leads and research staff. GPs wanted trial software that automatically captures patient data. However, the experience of getting the software to work within the limited and complex IT infrastructure of primary care was frustrating and time consuming. Installation was reliant on practice level IT expertise, which varied between practices. Although most had external IT support, this rarely included supported for research IT. Arrangements for approving new software varied across practices and often, but not always, required authorisation from Clinical Commissioning Groups.

Conclusions

Primary care IT systems are not solely under the control of individual practices or CCGs or the National Health Service. Rather they are part of a complex system that spans all three and is influenced by semi-autonomous stakeholders operating at different levels. This led to time consuming and sometimes insurmountable barriers to installation at the practice level. These need to be addressed if software supporting efficient research in primary care is to become a reality.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01498-6.