Dataset Information

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Appendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed. Methods:Multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5-16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12?hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (> or <48?hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1?year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children. Discussion:The APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies. Trial registration number:clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016.

SUBMITTER: Hall NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5843002 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

Hall Nigel J NJ Eaton Simon S Abbo Olivier O Arnaud Alexis P AP Beaudin Marianne M Brindle Mary M Bütter Andreana A Davies Dafydd D Jancelewicz Tim T Johnson Kathy K Keijzer Richard R Lapidus-Krol Eveline E Offringa Martin M Piché Nelson N Rintala Risto R Skarsgard Erik E Svensson Jan F JF Ungar Wendy J WJ Wester Tomas T Willan Andrew R AR Zani Augusto A St Peter Shawn D SD Pierro Agostino A

BMJ paediatrics open 20170518 1

<h4>Background</h4>Appendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendic ...[more]

PMID: 29637088

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:This article presents an overview of a prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority study designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-operative management (NOM) with operative management in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA). Here, we present the study protocol for this APRES study, a multicentre Australian study. The rationale and details of future analysis, in particular, non-inferiority calculations, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of each intervention. DESIGN:A multicentre, prospective randomised controlled clinical trial, conducted in 2 Australian tertiary paediatric hospitals. PARTICIPANTS:Children who meet the inclusion criteria of an age between 5 and 15?years and a clinical diagnosis of AUA will be invited to participate, and after consent will be randomised via a computer-based program into treatment groups. The study started in June 2016, and the target recruitment is 220 patients. INTERVENTIONS:Children in the control group will be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and appendicectomy, and those in the intervention group will be treated with antibiotic therapy alone. Primary outcome measures include unplanned or unnecessary operation and complications at 30?days. Secondary outcomes include longer term complications within 1 year, length of stay, time off work and school analgesic requirements and cost. ANALYSIS:Data analyses will be on the intention-to-treat principle using non-inferiority analysis. Analysis will include the Pearson ?2 test for categorical variables and independent sample t-test or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. Non-inferiority for NOM will be tested using 1-sided Wald tests with an ? level of 0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The research has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Children's Hospital Network. In addition, results will be reported through academic journals, seminars and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS:NCT02795793; ACTRN12616000788471.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Based on epidemiological, immunological and pathology data, the idea that appendicitis is not necessarily a progressive disease is gaining ground. Two types are distinguished: simple and complicated appendicitis. Non-operative treatment (NOT) of children with simple appendicitis has been investigated in several small studies. So far, it is deemed safe. However, its effectiveness and effect on quality of life (QoL) have yet to be established in an adequately powered randomised trial. In this article, we provide the study protocol for the APAC (Antibiotics versus Primary Appendectomy in Children) trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial randomises children aged 7-17 years with imaging-confirmed simple appendicitis between appendectomy and NOT. Patients are recruited in 15 hospitals. The intended sample size, based on the primary outcome, rate of complications and a non-inferiority margin of 5%, is 334 patients.NOT consists of intravenous antibiotics for 48-72 hours, daily blood tests and ultrasound follow-up. If the patient meets the predefined discharge criteria, antibiotic treatment is continued orally at home. Primary outcome is the rate of complications at 1-year follow-up. An independent adjudication committee will assess all complications and their relation to the allocated treatment. Secondary outcomes include, but are not limited to, delayed appendectomies, QoL, pain and (in)direct costs.The primary outcome will be analysed both according to the intention-to-treat principle and the per-protocol principle, and is presented with a one-sided 97.5% CI. We will use multiple logistic and linear regression for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively, to adjust for stratification factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam. Data monitoring is performed by an independent institute and a Data Safety Monitoring Board has been assigned. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed academic journals and at (international) conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02848820; NTR5977; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of Gram-negative bacteraemia is rising globally and remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The majority of patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia initially receive intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. However, it remains unclear whether patients can step down to oral antibiotics after appropriate clinical response has been observed without compromising outcomes. Compared with IV therapy, oral therapy eliminates the risk of catheter-associated adverse events, enhances patient quality of life and reduces healthcare costs. As current management of Gram-negative bacteraemia entails a duration of IV therapy with limited evidence to guide oral conversion, we aim to evaluate the clinical efficacy and economic impact of early stepdown to oral antibiotics.MethodsThis is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial. To be eligible, adult participants must be clinically stable / non-critically ill inpatients with uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia. Randomisation to the intervention or standard arms will be performed with 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants randomised to the intervention arm (within 72 h from index blood culture collection) will be immediately switched to an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Participants randomised to the standard arm will continue to receive IV therapy for at least 24 h post-randomisation before clinical re-assessment and decision-making by the treating doctor. The recommended treatment duration is 7 days of active antibiotics (including empiric therapy), although treatment regimen may be longer than 7 days if clinically indicated. Primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality, and the key secondary outcome is health economic evaluation, including estimation of total healthcare cost as well as assessment of patient quality of life and number of quality-adjusted life years saved. Assuming a 30-day mortality of 8% in the standard and intervention arms, with 6% non-inferiority margin, the target sample size is 720 participants which provides 80% power with a one-sided 0.025 α-level after adjustment for 5% drop-out.DiscussionA finding of non-inferiority in efficacy of oral fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus IV standard of care antibiotics may hypothetically translate to wider adoption of a more cost-effective treatment strategy with better quality of life outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05199324 . Registered 20 January 2022.

Project description:BackgroundVancomycin is the most widely used antibiotic for neonatal Gram-positive sepsis, but clinical outcome data of dosing strategies are scarce. The NeoVanc programme comprised extensive preclinical studies to inform a randomised controlled trial to assess optimised vancomycin dosing. We compared the efficacy of an optimised regimen to a standard regimen in infants with late onset sepsis that was known or suspected to be caused by Gram-positive microorganisms.MethodsNeoVanc was an open-label, multicentre, phase 2b, parallel-group, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing the efficacy and toxicity of an optimised regimen of vancomycin to a standard regimen in infants aged 90 days or younger. Infants with at least three clinical or laboratory sepsis criteria or confirmed Gram-positive sepsis with at least one clinical or laboratory criterion were enrolled from 22 neonatal intensive care units in Greece, Italy, Estonia, Spain, and the UK. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the optimised regimen (25 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 15 mg/kg every 12 h or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age, for 5 ± 1 days) or the standard regimen (no loading dose; 15 mg/kg every 24 h, 12 h, or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age for 10 ± 2 days). Vancomycin was administered intravenously via 60 min infusion. Group allocation was not masked to local investigators or parents. The primary endpoint was success at the test of cure visit (10 ± 1 days after the end of actual vancomycin therapy) in the per-protocol population, where success was defined as the participant being alive at the test of cure visit, having a successful outcome at the end of actual vancomycin therapy, and not having a clinically or microbiologically significant relapse or new infection requiring antistaphylococcal antibiotics for more than 24 h within 10 days of the end of actual vancomycin therapy. The non-inferiority margin was -10%. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02790996).FindingsBetween March 3, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 242 infants were randomly assigned to the standard regimen group (n=122) or the optimised regimen group (n=120). Primary outcome data in the per-protocol population were available for 90 infants in the optimised group and 92 in the standard group. 64 (71%) of 90 infants in the optimised group and 73 (79%) of 92 in the standard group had success at test of cure visit; non-inferiority was not confirmed (adjusted risk difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 2]). Incomplete resolution of clinical or laboratory signs after 5 ± 1 days of vancomycin therapy was the main factor contributing to clinical failure in the optimised group. Abnormal hearing test results were recorded in 25 (30%) of 84 infants in the optimised group and 12 (15%) of 79 in the standard group (adjusted risk ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·07 to 3·59], p=0·030). There were six vancomycin-related adverse events in the optimised group (one serious adverse event) and four in the standard group (two serious adverse events). 11 infants in the intention-to-treat population died (six [6%] of 102 infants in the optimised group and five [5%] of 98 in the standard group).InterpretationIn the largest neonatal vancomycin efficacy trial yet conducted, no clear clinical impact of a shorter duration of treatment with a loading dose was demonstrated. The use of the optimised regimen cannot be recommended because a potential hearing safety signal was identified; long-term follow-up is being done. These results emphasise the importance of robust clinical safety assessments of novel antibiotic dosing regimens in infants.FundingEU Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration.

Project description:BackgroundThe STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month 2011 WHO-recommended regimen. In STREAM stage 2, we aimed to compare two bedaquiline-containing regimens with the 9-month STREAM stage 1 regimen.MethodsWe did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 13 hospital clinics in seven countries, in individuals aged 15 years or older with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of second-line injectable. Randomisations were stratified by site, HIV status, and CD4 count. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome) at 76 weeks; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable outcomes. All comparisons used groups of participants randomly assigned concurrently. For non-inferiority to be shown, the upper boundary of the 95% CI should be less than 10% in both modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses, with prespecified tests for superiority done if non-inferiority was shown. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631.FindingsBetween March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 1436 participants were screened and 588 were randomly assigned. Of 517 participants in the mITT population, 133 (71%) of 187 on the control regimen and 162 (83%) of 196 on the oral regimen had a favourable outcome: a difference of 11·0% (95% CI 2·9-19·0), adjusted for HIV status and randomisation protocol (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). By 76 weeks, 108 (53%) of 202 participants on the control regimen and 106 (50%) of 211 allocated to the oral regimen had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4; five (2%) participants on the control regimen and seven (3%) on the oral regimen had died. Hearing loss (Brock grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in participants on the control regimen than in those on the oral regimen (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0015). Of 134 participants in the mITT population who were allocated to the 6-month regimen, 122 (91%) had a favourable outcome compared with 87 (69%) of 127 participants randomly assigned concurrently to the control regimen (adjusted difference 22·2%, 95% CI 13·1-31·2); six (4%) of 143 participants on the 6-month regimen had grade 3 or 4 hearing loss.InterpretationBoth bedaquiline-containing regimens, a 9-month oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of second-line injectable, had superior efficacy compared with a 9-month injectable-containing regimen, with fewer cases of hearing loss.FundingUSAID and Janssen Research & Development.

Dataset Information

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets