Randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway device compared with tracheal intubation for in-hospital cardiac arrest (AIRWAYS-3): Protocol, design and implementation.

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest is approximately 18%, but for patients who require advanced airway management survival is lower. Those who do survive are often left with significant disability. Traditionally, resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients has included tracheal intubation, however insertion of a supraglottic airway has gained popularity as an alternative approach to advanced airway management. Evidence from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest suggests no significant differences in mortality or morbidity between these two approaches, but there is no randomised evidence for airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim of the AIRWAYS-3 randomised trial, described in this protocol paper, is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients will be allocated randomly to receive either a supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management. We will also estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. The primary outcome is functional status, measured using the modified Rankin Scale at hospital discharge or 30 days post-randomisation, whichever occurs first. AIRWAYS-3 presents ethical challenges regarding patient consent and data collection. These include the enrolment of unconscious patients without prior consent in a way that avoids methodological bias. Other complexities include the requirement to randomise patients efficiently during a time-critical cardiac arrest. Many of these challenges are encountered in other emergency care research; we discuss our approaches to addressing them. Trial registration: ISRCTN17720457. Prospectively registered on 29/07/2022.

The role of health and social factors in education outcome: A record-linked electronic birth cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Health status in childhood is correlated with educational outcomes. Emergency hospital admissions during childhood are common but it is not known how these unplanned breaks from schooling impact on education outcomes. We hypothesised that children who had emergency hospital admissions had an increased risk of lower educational attainment, in addition to the increased risks associated with other health, social and school factors. METHODS: This record-linked electronic birth cohort, included children born in Wales between 1 January 1998 and 31 August 2001. We fitted multilevel logistic regression models grouped by schools, to determine whether emergency hospital inpatient admission before age 7 years was associated with the educational outcome of not attaining the expected level in a teacher-based assessment at age 7 years (KS1). We adjusted for pregnancy, perinatal, socio-economic, neighbourhood, pupil mobility and school-level factors. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 64 934 children. Overall, 4680 (7.2%) did not attain the expected educational level. Emergency admission to hospital was associated with poor educational attainment (OR 1.12 95% Credible Interval (CI) 1.05, 1.20 for all causes during childhood, OR 1.19 95%CI 1.07, 1.32 for injuries and external causes and OR 1.31 95%CI 1.04, 1.22 for admissions during infancy), after adjusting for known determinants of education outcomes such as extreme prematurity, being small for gestational age and socio-economic indicators, such as eligibility for free school meals. CONCLUSION: Emergency inpatient hospital admission during childhood, particularly during infancy or for injuries and external causes was associated with an increased risk of lower education attainment at age 7 years, in addition to the effects of pregnancy factors (gestational age, birthweight) and social deprivation. These findings support the need for injury prevention measures and additional support in school for affected children to help them to achieve their potential.

Anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops to reduce antibiotic consumption in children with acute otitis media: the CEDAR RCT.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing in children. Options for improved pain control may influence antibiotic prescribing and consumption. OBJECTIVE: The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) investigated whether or not providing anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops reduced antibiotic consumption in children with AOM. Secondary objectives included pain control and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, parallel-group (two-group initially, then three-group) trial. SETTING: Primary care practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 1- to 10-year-old children presenting within 1 week of suspected AOM onset with ear pain during the preceding 24 hours and not requiring immediate antibiotics. Participating children were logged into the study and allocated using a remote randomisation service. INTERVENTIONS: Two-group trial - unblinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus usual care. Three-group trial - blinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus placebo ear drops and unblinded comparison with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was parent-reported antibiotic use by the child over 8 days following enrolment. Secondary measures included ear pain at day 2 and NHS and societal costs over 8 days. RESULTS: Owing to a delay in provision of the placebo drops, the recruitment period was shortened and most participants were randomly allocated to the two-group study (n = 74) rather than the three-group study (n = 32). Comparing active drops with usual care in the combined two-group and three-group studies, 1 out of 39 (3%) children allocated to the active drops group and 11 out of 38 (29%) children allocated to the usual-care group consumed antibiotics in the 8 days following enrolment [unadjusted odds ratio 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.55; p = 0.009; adjusted for delayed prescribing odds ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.87; p = 0.035]. A total of 43% (3/7) of patients in the placebo drops group consumed antibiotics by day 8, compared with 0% (0/10) of the three-group study active drops groups (p = 0.051). The economic analysis of NHS costs (£12.66 for active drops and £11.36 for usual care) leads to an estimated cost of £5.19 per antibiotic prescription avoided, but with a high degree of uncertainty. A reduction in ear pain at day 2 in the placebo group (n = 7) compared with the active drops group (n = 10) (adjusted difference in means 0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 2.79; p = 0.51) is consistent with chance. No adverse events were reported in children receiving active drops. LIMITATIONS: Estimated treatment effects are imprecise because the sample size target was not met. It is not clear if delayed prescriptions of an antibiotic were written prior to randomisation. Few children received placebo drops, which hindered the investigation of ear pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that reduced antibiotic use can be achieved in children with AOM by combining a no or delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy with anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops. Whether or not the active drops relieved ear pain was not established. FUTURE WORK: The observed reduction in antibiotic consumption following the prescription of ear drops requires replication in a larger study. Future work should establish if the effect of ear drops is due to pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09599764. 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. 23, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Alastair D Hay was funded by a NIHR Research Professorship (funding identifier NIHR-RP-02-12-012).

Ear infections are common in children < 10 years of age, with 40% of these children suffering from an ear infection at least once per year. During the infection, germs multiply in the confined space of the middle ear, resulting in a build-up of pressure that pushes on and stretches the ear drum. This causes severe pain and distress to the child, which in turn leads to disrupted family life. Although there is world-class evidence showing that antibiotics do not help, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advises against their use, > 85% of UK children with middle ear infections (acute otitis media) are prescribed an antibiotic, which is a higher percentage than for any other childhood infection. Antibiotics do not treat the child's pain and, in most cases, they do not help to treat the infection (because many ear infections are caused by viruses that do not respond to antibiotics), but they can cause side effects (such as diarrhoea) and increase the problem of antibiotic resistance, which is a major public health concern. The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) wanted to find out whether or not painkilling ear drops [benzocaine­phenazone otic solution (Auralgan^®) currently manufactured by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare(Pfizer Inc., New York, NY USA)] can, by treating children's ear pain, reduce the number of parents giving their children antibiotics for acute otitis media. Children were given the painkilling drops, placebo (dummy) drops or usual care. The study found that, if the children were given the painkilling drops, significantly fewer of them were given antibiotics. Unfortunately, there were not enough children who took part in the study to change advice on how doctors treat ear infections. However, these results suggest that ear drops help reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and should be investigated in a further larger study.