Dataset Information

Dexamethasone versus prednisone for children receiving asthma treatment in the paediatric inpatient population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Asthma exacerbations are a leading cause of paediatric hospitalisations. Corticosteroids are key in the treatment of asthma exacerbations. Most current corticosteroids treatment regimens for children admitted with asthma exacerbation consist of a 5-day course of prednisone or prednisolone. However, these medications are associated with poor taste and significant vomiting, resulting in poor compliance with the treatment course. While some centres already use a short course of dexamethasone for treating children hospitalised with asthma, there is no evidence to support this practice in the inpatient population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This single-site, pragmatic, feasibility randomised controlled trial will determine the feasibility of a non-inferiority trial, comparing two treatment regimens for children admitted to the hospital and receiving asthma treatment. Children 18 months to 17 years presenting to a Canadian tertiary care centre will be randomised to receive either a short course of dexamethasone or a longer course of prednisone/prednisolone once admitted to the inpatient units. The primary clinical outcome for this feasibility study will be readmission to hospital or repeat emergency department visits, or unplanned visits to primary healthcare providers for asthma symptoms within 4 weeks of hospital discharge. Feasibility outcomes will include recruitment and allocation success, compliance with study procedures, retention rate, and safety and tolerability of study medications. We plan on recruiting 51 children, and between-group comparisons of the clinical outcome will be conducted to gain insights on probable effect sizes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Research Ethics Board approval has been obtained for this study. The results of this study will inform a multisite trial comparing prednisone/prednisolone to dexamethasone in inpatient asthma treatment, which will have the potential to improve the delivery of asthma care, by improving compliance with a mainstay of treatment. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, organisations and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03133897; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Pound CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303595 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dexamethasone versus prednisone for children receiving asthma treatment in the paediatric inpatient population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Pound Catherine M CM McDonald Jaime J Tang Ken K Seidman Gillian G Jetty Radha R Zaidi Sarah S Plint Amy C AC

BMJ open 20181214 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Asthma exacerbations are a leading cause of paediatric hospitalisations. Corticosteroids are key in the treatment of asthma exacerbations. Most current corticosteroids treatment regimens for children admitted with asthma exacerbation consist of a 5-day course of prednisone or prednisolone. However, these medications are associated with poor taste and significant vomiting, resulting in poor compliance with the treatment course. While some centres already use a short course of ...[more]

PMID: 30552284

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionA minority of school-aged children with asthma have persistent poor control and experience frequent asthma attacks despite maximal prescribed maintenance therapy. These children have higher morbidity and risk of death. The first add-on biologic therapy, omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks immunoglobulin (Ig)E, was licensed for children with severe asthma in 2005. While omalizumab is an effective treatment, non-response is common. A second biologic, mepolizumab which blocks interleukin 5 and targets eosinophilic inflammation, was licensed in 2018, but the licence was granted by extrapolation of adult clinical trial data to children. This non-inferiority (NI) trial will determine whether mepolizumab is as efficacious as omalizumab in reducing asthma attacks in children with severe therapy resistant asthma (STRA) and refractory difficult asthma (DA).Methods and analysisThis is an ongoing multicentre 1:1 randomised NI open-label trial of mepolizumab and omalizumab. Up to 150 children and young people (CYP) aged 6-17 years with severe asthma will be recruited from specialist paediatric severe asthma centres in the UK. Prior to randomisation, children will be monitored for medication adherence for up to 16 weeks to determine STRA and refractory DA diagnoses. Current prescribing recommendations of serum IgE and blood eosinophils will not influence eligibility or enrolment. The primary outcome is the 52-week asthma attack rate. Bayesian analysis using clinician-elicited prior distributions will be used to calculate the posterior probability that mepolizumab is not inferior to omalizumab. Secondary outcomes include Composite Asthma Severity Index, Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, lung function measures (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), bronchodilator reversibility), fractional exhaled nitric oxide, Asthma Control Test (ACT), health outcomes EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and optimal serum IgE and blood eosinophil levels that may predict a response to therapy. These outcomes will be analysed in a frequentist framework using longitudinal models.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee REC Number 19/SC/0634 and had Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (EudraCT 2019-004085-17). All parents/legal guardians will give informed consent for their child to participate in the trial, and CYP will give assent to participate. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at international conferences and disseminated via our patient and public involvement partners.Trial registration numberISRCTN12109108; EudraCT Number: 2019-004085-17.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is a common neurological disease with a rapidly rising incidence due to increasing age and widespread use of anticoagulants. Surgical intervention by burr-hole craniotomy (BHC) is the current standard practice for symptomatic patients, but associated with complications, a recurrence rate of up to 30% and increased mortality. Dexamethasone (DXM) therapy is, therefore, used as a non-surgical alternative but considered to achieve a lower success rate. Furthermore, the benefit of DXM therapy appears much more deliberate than the immediate relief from BHC. Lack of evidence and clinical equipoise among caregivers prompts the need for a head-to-head randomised controlled trial. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of primary DXM therapy versus primary BHC on functional outcome and cost-effectiveness in symptomatic patients with CSDH. METHODS/DESIGN:This study is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Consecutive patients with a CSDH with a Markwalder Grading Scale (MGS) grade 1 to 3 will be randomised to treatment with DXM or BHC. The DXM treatment scheme will be 16 mg DXM per day (8 mg twice daily, days 1 to 4) which is then halved every 3 days until a dosage of 0.5 mg a day on day 19 and stopped on day 20. If the treatment response is insufficient (i.e. persistent or progressive symptomatology due to insufficient haematoma resolution), additional surgery can be performed. The primary outcomes are the functional outcome by means of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months and cost-effectiveness at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life at 3 and 12 months using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Quality of Life after Brain Injury Overall Scale (QOLIBRI), haematoma thickness after 2 weeks on follow-up computed tomography (CT), haematoma recurrence during the first 12 months, complications and drug-related adverse events, failure of therapy within 12 months after randomisation and requiring intervention, mortality during the first 3 and 12 months, duration of hospital stay and overall healthcare and productivity costs. To test non-inferiority of DXM therapy compared to BHC, 210 patients in each treatment arm are required (assumed adjusted common odds ratio DXM compared to BHC 1.15, limit for inferiority <?0.9). The aim is to include a total of 420 patients in 3 years with an enrolment rate of 60%. DISCUSSION:The present study should demonstrate whether treatment with DXM is as effective as BHC on functional outcome, at lower costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EUCTR 2015-001563-39 . Date of registration: 29 March 2015.

Project description:IntroductionThere is increasing evidence demonstrating the benefits of exercise in counteracting cancer treatment-related fatigue. Immunotherapy is an established treatment for advanced melanoma, and is associated with fatigue in a third of patients. The safety and efficacy of exercise in counteracting treatment-related fatigue in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapy are yet to be determined. This study aims to assess the safety, adherence to and acceptability of a mixed-methods parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial of a personalised, 12-week semi-supervised exercise programme prescribed by an exercise physiologist (iMove) in 30 patients with stage IV melanoma scheduled to commence immunotherapy: single agent ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab, or combination ipilimumab and nivolumab. The trial will be used to provide preliminary evidence of the potential efficacy of exercise for managing fatigue.Methods and analysisThirty participants will be recruited from a specialist cancer centre between May and September, 2019. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive iMove, or usual care (an information booklet about exercise for people with cancer). Feasibility data comprise: eligibility; recruitment and retention rates; adherence to and acceptability of exercise consultations, personalised exercise programme and study measures; and exercise-related adverse events. Patient-reported outcome measures assess potential impact of the exercise intervention on: fatigue, role functioning, symptoms and quality of life. Follow-up will comprise five time points over 24 weeks. Physical assessments measure physical fitness and functioning.Ethics and disseminationThis study was reviewed and approved by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/48927/PMCC-2019). The findings from this trial will be disseminated via conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals, and by engagement with clinicians, media, government and consumers. In particular, we will promote the outcomes of this work among the oncology community should this pilot indicate benefit for patients.Trial registration numberACTRN12619000952145; Pre-results.

Project description:Background People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programs incorporating intensive, repetitive, and task-specific exercises using digital devices such as virtual reality gaming systems, tablet and smartphone applications, and wearable devices. The Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial (n = 300) showed improvements in mobility in people using these types of digital devices in addition to their usual rehabilitation care when the intervention was provided by an additional study-funded physiotherapist. However, it is not clear if this intervention can be implemented by hospital physiotherapists with a usual clinical load. The AMOUNT Implementation trial aims to explore the feasibility of conducting a large-scale implementation trial. Methods A pragmatic, assessor blinded, feasibility hybrid type II randomized controlled trial will be undertaken at a public hospital in Australia. There will be two phases. Phase I (Implementation phase) will involve implementing the digital devices into physiotherapy practice. Physiotherapists from the rehabilitation ward will receive a multifaceted implementation strategy guided by the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) theoretical model. The implementation strategy includes identifying and training a clinical champion; providing digital devices and education and training; facilitating use of the devices through clinical reasoning sessions and journal clubs; and audit and feedback of exercise dosage documentation. Phase II (Trial phase) will involve randomising 30 eligible inpatients from the same ward into either usual care or usual care plus an additional 30 min or more of exercises using digital devices. This intervention will be provided by the physiotherapists who took part in the implementation phase. We will collect data on feasibility, implementation, and patient-level clinical outcomes. The three primary outcome measures are the extent to which physiotherapists document the dosage of exercises provided to participants (feasibility criteria: exercise practice sheets complete for ≥85% of all participants); ability to recruit participants; and fidelity to the protocol of using digital devices to prescribe exercises (feasibility criteria: average of ≥ 30mins per day for > 50% intervention participants). Discussion This feasibility study will provide important information to guide the planning and conduct of a future large-scale implementation trial. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; ACTRN12621000938808; registered 19/07/2021. Trial sponsor: Prince of Wales Hospital. 320–346 Barker Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. Protocol version: 6.2 7th April 2021. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-023-01298-y.

Project description:IntroductionAcute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection.Methods and analysisThe LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes.Ethics and disseminationThe LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Dexamethasone versus prednisone for children receiving asthma treatment in the paediatric inpatient population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Dexamethasone versus prednisone for children receiving asthma treatment in the paediatric inpatient population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets