Biomarker-guided duration of antibiotic treatment in children hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection: statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study.

INTRODUCTION: The BATCH trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare procalcitonin-guided management of severe bacterial infection in children with current management. PRECISE is a mechanistic sub-study embedded into the BATCH trial. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study. METHODS: The BATCH trial will assess the effectiveness of an additional procalcitonin test in children (aged 72 h to 18 years) hospitalised with suspected or confirmed bacterial infection to guide antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Participants will be enrolled in the trial from randomisation until day 28 follow-up. The co-primary outcomes are duration of intravenous antibiotic use and a composite safety outcome. Target sample size is 1942 patients, based on detecting a 1-day reduction in intravenous antibiotic use (90% power, two-sided) and on a non-inferiority margin of 5% risk difference in the composite safety outcome (90% power, one-sided), while allowing for up to 10% loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics will be summarised overall, by trial arm, and by whether patients were recruited before or after the pause in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the primary analysis, duration of intravenous antibiotic use will be tested for superiority using Cox regression, and the composite safety outcome will be tested for non-inferiority using logistic regression. The intervention will be judged successful if it reduces the duration of intravenous antibiotic use without compromising safety. Secondary analyses will include sensitivity analyses, pre-specified subgroup analyses, and analysis of secondary outcomes. Two sub-studies, including PRECISE, involve additional pre-specified subgroup analyses. All analyses will be adjusted for the balancing factors used in the randomisation, namely centre and patient age. CONCLUSION: We describe the statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study, including definitions of clinical outcomes, reporting guidelines, statistical principles, and analysis methods. The trial uses a design with co-primary superiority and non-inferiority endpoints. The analysis plan has been written prior to the completion of follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BATCH: ISRCTN11369832, registered 20 September 2017, doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11369832. PRECISE: ISRCTN14945050, registered 17 December 2020, doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14945050.

Mid-Regional Pro-Adrenomedullin in Combination With Pediatric Early Warning Scores for Risk Stratification of Febrile Children Presenting to the Emergency Department: Secondary Analysis of a Nonprespecified United Kingdom Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Current sepsis guidelines do not provide good risk stratification of subgroups in whom prompt IV antibiotics and fluid resuscitation might of benefit. We evaluated the utility of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in identification of patient subgroups at risk of requiring PICU or high-dependency unit (HDU) admission or fluid resuscitation. DESIGN: Secondary, nonprespecified analysis of prospectively collected dataset. SETTING: Pediatric Emergency Department in a United Kingdom tertiary center. PATIENTS: Children less than 16 years old presenting with fever and clinical indication for venous blood sampling ( n = 1,183). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome measures were PICU/HDU admission or administration of fluid resuscitation, with a secondary outcome of definite or probable bacterial infection. Biomarkers were measured on stored plasma samples and children phenotyped into bacterial and viral groups using a previously published algorithm. Of the 1,183 cases, 146 children (12.3%) required fluids, 48 (4.1%) were admitted to the PICU/HDU, and 244 (20.6%) had definite or probable bacterial infection. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) was used to assess performance. MR-proADM better predicted fluid resuscitation (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78), than both procalcitonin (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.59-0.71) and Pediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS: AUC, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67). PEWS alone showed good accuracy for PICU/HDU admission 0.83 (0.78-0.89). Patient subgroups with high MR-proADM (≥ 0.7 nmol/L) and high procalcitonin (≥ 0.5 ng/mL) had increased association with PICU/HDU admission, fluid resuscitation, and bacterial infection compared with subgroups with low MR-proADM (< 0.7 nmol/L). For children with procalcitonin less than 0.5 ng/mL, high MR-proADM improved stratification for fluid resuscitation only. CONCLUSIONS: High MR-proADM and high procalcitonin were associated with increased likelihood of subsequent disease progression. Incorporating MR-proADM into clinical risk stratification may be useful in clinician decision-making regarding initiation of IV antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, and escalation to PICU/HDU admission.

Short-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery. METHODS: The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. RESULTS: Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679). CONCLUSION: Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation.

PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE followIng major lower limb amputation: a collaboratiVE study (PERCEIVE)-protocol for the PERCEIVE qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to proceed with a major lower limb amputation is life-changing and complex, and it is crucial that the right decision is made at the right time. However, medical specialists are known to poorly predict risk when assessing patients for major surgery, and there is little guidance and research regarding decisions about amputation. The process of shared decision-making between doctors and patients during surgical consultations is also little understood. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse in depth the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Consultations between patients and surgeons at which major lower limb amputation is discussed will be audio-recorded for 10-15 patients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews with patients (and relatives/carers) will then be conducted at two time points: as soon as possible/appropriate after a decision has been reached regarding surgery, and approximately 6 months later. Semi-structured interviews will also be conducted with 10-15 healthcare professionals working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) involved in amputation decision-making. This will include surgeons, anaesthetists and specialist physiotherapists at 2-4 NHS Health Boards/Trusts in Wales and England. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse the recorded consultations; interviews will be analysed thematically. Finally, workshops will be held with patients and healthcare professionals to help synthesise and interpret findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Wales REC 7 (20/WA/0351). Study findings will be published in international peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at national and international scientific meetings. Findings will also be disseminated to a wide NHS and lay audience via presentations at meetings and written summaries for key stakeholder groups.

The PERCEIVE quantitative study: PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcome following major lower-limb amputation: protocol for a collaboratiVE study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of outcomes following surgery with high morbidity and mortality rates is essential for informed shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. It is unknown how accurately healthcare professionals predict outcomes following major lower-limb amputation (MLLA). Several MLLA outcome-prediction tools have been developed. These could be valuable in clinical practice, but most require validation in independent cohorts before routine clinical use can be recommended. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals' predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools. METHOD: This study is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary MLLA for CLTI or diabetes. Healthcare professionals' accuracy in predicting outcomes at 30-days (death, morbidity and MLLA revision) and 1-year (death, MLLA revision and ambulation) will be evaluated. Sixteen existing outcome-prediction tools specific to MLLA will be examined for validity. Data collection began on 1 October 2020; the end of follow-up will be 1 May 2022. The C-statistic, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, reclassification tables and Brier score will be used to evaluate the predictive performance of healthcare professionals and prediction tools, respectively. STUDY REGISTRATION AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be registered locally at each centre in accordance with local policies before commencing data collection, overseen by local clinician leads. Results will be disseminated to all centres, and any subsequent presentation(s) and/or publication(s) will follow a collaborative co-authorship model.

Exploring patients' experiences of analgesia after major lower limb amputation: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient experiences, understanding and perceptions of analgesia following major lower limb amputation. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study, conducted as part of a randomised controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from two general hospitals in South Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Interview participants were patients enrolled in PLACEMENT (Perineural Local Anaesthetic Catheter aftEr Major lowEr limb amputatioN Trial): a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing the use of perineural catheter (PNC) versus standard care for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb amputation. PLACEMENT participants who completed 5-day postoperative follow-up, were able and willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, and had consented to be contacted, were eligible to take part in the qualitative study. A total of 20 interviews were conducted with 14 participants: 10 male and 4 female. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with participants over two time points: (1) up to 1 month and (2) at least 6 months following amputation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Interviews revealed unanticipated benefits of PNC usage for postoperative pain relief. Participants valued the localised and continuous nature of this mode of analgesia in comparison to opioids. Concerns about opioid dependence and side effects of pain relief medication were raised by participants in both treatment groups, with some reporting trying to limit their intake of analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest routine placement of a PNC following major lower limb amputation could reduce postoperative pain, particularly for patient groups at risk of postoperative delirium. This method of analgesic delivery also has the potential to reduce preoperative anxiety, alleviate the burden of pain management and minimise opioid use. Future research could further examine the comparison between patient-controlled analgesia and continuous analgesia in relation to patient anxiety and satisfaction with pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 85710690; EudraCT: 2016-003544-37.

A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Risk Prediction Tools Used to Estimate Mortality, Morbidity, and Other Outcomes Following Major Lower Limb Amputation.

OBJECTIVE: The decision to undertake a major lower limb amputation can be complex. This review evaluates the performance of risk prediction tools in estimating mortality, morbidity, and other outcomes following amputation. METHODS: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies reporting on risk prediction tools that predict outcomes following amputation. Outcome measures included the accuracy of the risk tool in predicting a range of post-operative complications, including mortality (both short and long term), peri-operative morbidity, need for re-amputation, and ambulation success. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis In Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: The search identified 518 database records. Twelve observational studies, evaluating 13 risk prediction tools in a total cohort of 61 099 amputations, were included. One study performed external validation of an existing risk prediction tool, while all other studies developed novel tools or modified pre-existing generic calculators. Two studies conducted external validation of the novel/modified tools. Nine tools provided risk estimations for mortality, two tools provided predictions for post-operative morbidity, two for likelihood of ambulation, and one for re-amputation to the same or higher level. Most mortality prediction tools demonstrated acceptable discrimination performance with C statistic values ranging from 0.65 to 0.81. Tools estimating the risk of post-operative complications (0.65 - 0.74) and necessity for re-amputation (0.72) also performed acceptably. The Blatchford Allman Russell tool demonstrated outstanding discrimination for predicting functional mobility outcomes post-amputation (0.94). Overall, most studies were at high risk of bias with poor external validity. CONCLUSION: This review identified several risk prediction tools that demonstrate acceptable to outstanding discrimination for objectively predicting an array of important post-operative outcomes. However, the methodological quality of some studies was poor, external validation studies are generally lacking, and there are no tools predicting other important outcomes, especially quality of life.

Perineural local anaesthetic catheter after major lower limb amputation trial (PLACEMENT): results from a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled effectiveness trial evaluating the use of a perineural catheter (PNC) after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain as the primary outcome. DESIGN: Randomised controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: Two vascular Centres in South Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 50 patients scheduled for major lower limb amputation (below or above knee) for complications of peripheral vascular disease. INTERVENTIONS: The treatment arm received a PNC placed adjacent to the sciatic or tibial nerve at the time of surgery, with continuous infusion of levobupivacaine hydrochloride 0.125% for up to 5 days. The control arm received neither local anaesthetic nor PNC. Both arms received usual perioperative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients who were randomised and the proportion of recruited patients who provided primary effectiveness outcome data. Secondary outcomes were: the proportion of recruited patients reaching 2 and 6 month follow-up and supplying pain data; identification of key cost drivers; development of an economic analysis framework for a future effectiveness trial; identification of barriers to recruitment and site set-up; and identification of the best way to measure postoperative pain. RESULTS: Seventy-six of 103 screened patients were deemed eligible over a 10 month period. Fifty (64.5%) of these patients were randomised, with one excluded in the perioperative period. Forty-five (91.3%) of 49 recruited patients provided enough pain scores on a 4-point verbal rating scale to allow primary effectiveness outcome evaluation. Attrition rates were high; 18 patients supplied data at 6 month follow-up. Costs were dominated by length of hospital stay. Patients and healthcare professionals reported that trial processes were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment of patients into a trial comparing PNC use to usual care after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain measured on a 4-point verbal rating scale is feasible. Evaluation of longer-term symptoms is difficult. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 85 710 690. EudraCT: 2016-003544-37.

Oral steroids for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children aged 2-8 years: the OSTRICH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Children with hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion (OME) are commonly managed through surgical intervention, hearing aids or watchful waiting. A safe, inexpensive, effective medical treatment would enhance treatment options. Small, poorly conducted trials have found a short-term benefit from oral steroids. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 7-day course of oral steroids in improving hearing at 5 weeks in children with persistent OME symptoms and current bilateral OME and hearing loss demonstrated by audiometry. DESIGN: Double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Ear, nose and throat outpatient or paediatric audiology and audiovestibular medicine clinics in Wales and England. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 2-8 years, with symptoms of hearing loss attributable to OME for at least 3 months, a diagnosis of bilateral OME made on the day of recruitment and audiometry-confirmed hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: A 7-day course of oral soluble prednisolone, as a single daily dose of 20 mg for children aged 2-5 years or 30 mg for 6- to 8-year-olds, or matched placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptable hearing at 5 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprised acceptable hearing at 6 and 12 months, tympanometry, otoscopic findings, health-care consultations related to OME and other resource use, proportion of children who had ventilation tube (grommet) surgery at 6 and 12 months, adverse effects, symptoms, functional health status, health-related quality of life, short- and longer-term cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 389 children were randomised. Satisfactory hearing at 5 weeks was achieved by 39.9% and 32.8% in the oral steroid and placebo groups, respectively (absolute difference of 7.1%, 95% confidence interval -2.8% to 16.8%; number needed to treat = 14). This difference was not statistically significant. The secondary outcomes were consistent with the picture of a small or no benefit, and we found no subgroups that achieved a meaningful benefit from oral steroids. The economic analysis showed that treatment with oral steroids was more expensive and accrued fewer quality-adjusted life-years than treatment as usual. However, the differences were small and not statistically significant, and the sensitivity analyses demonstrated large variation in the results. CONCLUSIONS: OME in children with documented hearing loss and attributable symptoms for at least 3 months has a high rate of spontaneous resolution. Discussions about watchful waiting and other interventions will be enhanced by this evidence. The findings of this study suggest that any benefit from a short course of oral steroids for OME is likely to be small and of questionable clinical significance, and that the treatment is unlikely to be cost-effective and, therefore, their use cannot be recommended. FUTURE WORK: Studies exploring optimal approaches to sharing natural history data and enhancing shared decision-making are needed for this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49798431 and EudraCT 2012-005123-32. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Perineural local anaesthetic catheter after major lower limb amputation trial (PLACEMENT): study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Pain after major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a significant problem. A perineural catheter (PNC) can be placed adjacent to the major nerve at the time of amputation with a continuous local anaesthetic infusion given postoperatively to try and reduce pain. Although low-quality observational data suggest that PNC usage reduces postoperative opioid requirements, there are limited data regarding its effect on pain. The aim of PLACEMENT is to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial to assess the impact of a PNC with continuous local anaesthetic infusion, inserted at the time of amputation, on short and medium-term postoperative outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: Fifty patients undergoing a major lower limb amputation (below or above the knee) for PAD will be recruited from two centres. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard postoperative analgesia, with or without insertion of a PNC and local anaesthetic infusion for the first 5 postoperative days. Outcome data will be captured for the first 5 days, including pain scores (primary outcome, captured three times a day), opioid use, nausea or vomiting, itching, dizziness and complications. Patients will be contacted 2 and 6 months after surgery to assess quality of life, phantom limb pain, chronic stump pain and total healthcare costs. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with at least 10 patients (dependent on saturation of analytic themes on preliminary coding) purposefully sampled to achieve variation in site and study arm. Interviews will explore patients' perception of post-amputation pain and its treatment, and experience of study processes. Semi-structured interviews with 5-10 health professionals will explore feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability of the study. Data from this pilot will be used to assess feasibility of, and estimate parameters to calculate the sample size for an effectiveness trial. Full ethical approval has been granted (Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 16/WA/0353). DISCUSSION: PLACEMENT will be the first study to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial on PNC usage for postoperative pain in amputees, and provide parameters to calculate the appropriate sample size for this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN85710690 . Registered on 21 October 2016. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 2016-003544-37. Registered on 24 August 2016.