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: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:INTRODUCTION:In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. METHODS:The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR6134; Pre-results.

Project description:ImportanceAntibiotic therapy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis is effective in adult patients, but its application in pediatric patients remains controversial.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of antibiotic treatment vs appendectomy as the primary therapy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in pediatric patients.Data sourcesThe PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized clinical trials were searched through April 17, 2016. The search was limited to studies published in English. Search terms included appendicitis, antibiotics, appendectomy, randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, randomized, placebo, drug therapy, randomly, and trial.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials and prospective clinical controlled trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in pediatric patients (aged 5-18 years) were included in the meta-analysis. The outcomes included at least 2 of the following terms: success rate of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy, complications, readmissions, length of stay, total cost, and disability days.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently extracted by 2 reviewers. The quality of the included studies was examined in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Data were pooled using a logistic fixed-effects model, and the subgroup pooled risk ratio with or without appendicolith was estimated.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the success rate of treatment. The hypothesis was formulated before data collection.ResultsA total of 527 articles were screened. In 5 unique studies, 404 unique patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (aged 5-15 years) were enrolled. Nonoperative treatment was successful in 152 of 168 patients (90.5%), with a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects risk ratio of 8.92 (95% CI, 2.67-29.79; heterogeneity, P?=?.99; I2?=?0%). Subgroup analysis showed that the risk for treatment failure in patients with appendicolith increased, with a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects risk ratio of 10.43 (95% CI, 1.46-74.26; heterogeneity, P?=?.91; I2?=?0%).Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis shows that antibiotics as the initial treatment for pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis may be feasible and effective without increasing the risk for complications. However, the failure rate, mainly caused by the presence of appendicolith, is higher than for appendectomy. Surgery is preferably suggested for uncomplicated appendicitis with appendicolith.

Project description:BackgroundStandard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) uses a combination of drugs deemed essential to minimise treatment failure and drug resistance. Protease inhibitors are potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance, and have potential use as monotherapy after viral load suppression is achieved with combination treatment. We aimed to assess clinical risks and benefits of protease inhibitor monotherapy in long-term clinical use: in particular, the effect on drug resistance and future treatment options.MethodsIn this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years of age) positive for HIV attending 43 public sector treatment centres in the UK who had suppressed viral load (<50 copies per mL) for at least 24 weeks on combination ART with no change in the previous 12 weeks and a CD4 count of more than 100 cells per μL. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or to switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (PI-mono); we recommended ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted darunavir (800 mg) once daily or ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted lopinavir (400 mg) twice daily, with prompt return to combination treatment if viral load rebounded. All treatments were oral. Randomisation was with permuted blocks of varying size and stratified by centre and baseline ART; we used a computer-generated, sequentially numbered randomisation list. The primary outcome was loss of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-level or high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was deemed sensitive at trial entry (assessed at 3 years; non-inferiority margin of 10%). We estimated probability of rebound and resistance with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN04857074.FindingsBetween Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010, we randomly allocated 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296). At 3 years, one or more future drug options had been lost in two participants (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·7%) in the OT group and six (2·1%) in the PI-mono group: difference 1·4% (-0·4 to 3·4); non-inferiority shown. 49 (16·8%) participants in the OT group and 65 (22·0%) in the PI-mono group had grade 3 or 4 clinical adverse events (difference 5·1% [95% CI -1·3 to 11·5]; p=0·12); 45 (six treatment related) and 56 (three treatment related) had serious adverse events.InterpretationProtease inhibitor monotherapy, with regular viral load monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment for rebound, preserved future treatment options and did not change overall clinical outcomes or frequency of toxic effects. Protease inhibitor monotherapy is an acceptable alternative for long-term clinical management of HIV infection.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

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