Assessment of the feasibility and clinical value of further research to evaluate the management options for children with Down syndrome and otitis media with effusion: a feasibility study

The use of hearing tests to assess otitis media with effusion in children with Down syndrome

BACKGROUND

Down syndrome is associated with an increased risk for otitis media with effusion (OME), a childhood condition in which fluid accumulates in the middle ear, potentially leading to hearing loss. The American Academy of Pediatrics Down syndrome guidelines and the American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery OME guidelines recommend hearing testing to assess the hearing status of children with Down syndrome diagnosed with OME.

METHODS

Through an Institutional Review Board approved retrospective chart review at Children's Mercy, this project assessed how clinical factors affect the frequency in which children with Down syndrome receive hearing testing after diagnosis of OME. The study included data from all children with Down syndrome between 1 and 8 years old diagnosed with OME in the Down syndrome, general pediatrics, and otolaryngology clinics between 2018 and 2020. Demographics and clinical factors, including clinic setting, were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 124 patients identified, 91.1 % were diagnosed with OME in the otolaryngology clinic and 33.1 % received hearing testing. While most diagnoses occurred in the otolaryngology clinic, a higher proportion of hearing testing at the time of diagnosis occurred in the Down syndrome clinic. This could be explained by the fact that the Down syndrome clinic is a multidisciplinary clinic, where yearly visits include hearing screening. Bivariate analysis using chi-square or Fisher's tests showed that clinic setting had a significant association (p-value <0.001) with hearing testing. However, logistic regression depicted all clinical factors had an insignificant effect on hearing testing at 5 % significance.

CONCLUSION

While results indicate hearing testing is largely not performed to assess OME early in otolaryngology clinics, they may be used to assess intervention efficacy post-diagnosis. Results point to the importance of Down syndrome clinics in early diagnosis of hearing loss leading to timely referrals to otolaryngology clinics which diagnose and manage OME in children with Down syndrome.

Topical and oral steroids for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. Although most episodes of OME in children resolve spontaneously within a few months, when persistent it may lead to behavioural problems and a delay in expressive language skills. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, medical, surgical and other treatments, such as autoinflation. Oral or topical steroids are sometimes used to reduce inflammation in the middle ear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of topical and oral steroids for OME in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies on 20 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared topical or oral steroids with either placebo or watchful waiting (no treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes, determined by a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise, were: 1) hearing, 2) OME-specific quality of life and 3) systemic corticosteroid side effects. Secondary outcomes were: 1) presence/persistence of OME, 2) other adverse effects (including local nasal effects), 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial outcomes, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function and 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies in this review (2770 children). Most studies of oral steroids used prednisolone for 7 to 14 days. Studies of topical (nasal) steroids used various preparations (beclomethasone, fluticasone and mometasone) for between two weeks and three months. All studies had at least some concerns regarding risk of bias. Here we report our primary outcomes and main secondary outcome, at the longest reported follow-up. Oral steroids compared to placebo Oral steroids probably result in little or no difference in the proportion of children with normal hearing after 12 months (69.7% of children with steroids, compared to 61.1% of children receiving placebo, risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.33; 1 study, 332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in OME-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) in OM8-30 score 0.07, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.34; 1 study, 304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Oral steroids may reduce the number of children with persistent OME at 6 to 12 months, but the size of the effect was uncertain (absolute risk reduction ranging from 13.3% to 45%, number needed to treat (NNT) of between 3 and 8; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain regarding the risk of systemic corticosteroid side effects, and we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome. Oral steroids compared to no treatment Oral steroids may result in little or no difference in the persistence of OME after three to nine months (74.5% children receiving steroids versus 73% of those receiving placebo; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 2 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence on adverse effects was very uncertain. We did not identify any evidence on hearing or disease-related quality of life. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to placebo We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean change in hearing threshold after two months was -0.3 dB lower (95% CI -6.05 to 5.45; 1 study, 78 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that nasal steroids make little or no difference to disease-specific quality of life after nine months (OM8-30 score, MD 0.05 higher, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.46; 1 study, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of nasal steroids on persistence of OME at up to one year. Two studies reported this: one showed a potential benefit for nasal steroids, the other showed a benefit with placebo (2 studies, 206 participants). The evidence was also very uncertain regarding the risk of corticosteroid-related side effects, as we were unable to provide a pooled effect estimate. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to no treatment We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean difference in final hearing threshold after four weeks was 1.95 dB lower (95% CI -3.85 to -0.05; 1 study, 168 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nasal steroids may reduce the persistence of OME after eight weeks, but the evidence was very uncertain (58.5% of children receiving steroids, compared to 81.3% of children without treatment, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 2 studies, 134 participants). We did not identify any evidence on disease-related quality of life or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, oral steroids may have little effect in the treatment of OME, with little improvement in the number of children with normal hearing and no effect on quality of life. There may be a reduction in the proportion of children with persistent disease after 12 months. However, this benefit may be small and must be weighed against the potential for adverse effects associated with oral steroid use. The evidence for nasal steroids was all low- or very low-certainty. It is therefore less clear if nasal steroids have any impact on hearing, quality of life or persistence of OME. Evidence on adverse effects was very limited. OME is likely to resolve spontaneously for most children. The potential benefit of treatment may therefore be small and should be balanced with the risk of adverse effects. Future studies should aim to determine which children are most likely to benefit from treatment, rather than offering interventions to all children.

Management outcomes of otitis media with effusion in children with down syndrome: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assesses the current state of uncertainty concerning the management options used for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children with trisomy 21.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of adhering to the PRISMA statement of studies evaluating the management of OME in trisomy 21 children prior to September 2021 was conducted. Studies were identified using the following medical databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Scopus and Medline. Data extraction was performed by screening of titles and abstracts based on eligibility criteria, followed by full-article analysis of selected records.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included in this review. Studies showed conflicting outcomes regarding the different interventions used for OME in children with trisomy 21. Of those evaluating pressure equalizing tubes (PET), some studies report pronounced complication rates and recommend using a conservative approach unless complications arise and/or hearing loss is severe. In contrast, other studies reported significantly reduced complication rates and improved hearing with earlier intervention and adaptations to PETs. Hearing aids may be provided after multiple failed PETs.

CONCLUSION

Clinical equipoise still persists regarding the best method to manage children with trisomy 21 who have OME. Although PETs exhibited the lowest complication rates and highest improvement rates, further prospective trials are warranted to assess the various treatment modalities and determine which of them would provide the best outcome while reducing complications as well as the age of treatment.

Topical and oral steroids for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of topical and oral steroids for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children.

Respiratory and otolaryngological disorders in Down syndrome from one center in Brazil

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common chromosomal condition. Anatomical and functional variations in the upper and lower airways are component manifestations of the syndrome and increase the risk of various medical problems. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of otorhinolaryngological and respiratory diseases in a DS outpatient clinic over a 3-year period. Medical records data from 1207 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Newborn Hearing Screening was positive in 7.1% of patients. Brainstem auditory evoked potential was performed in 1101 children and showed a hearing loss of 19.8% in the first year. It was positive in 21% of 1021 exams. Audiometry was altered in 64 of 994 exams (6.4%), showing a conductive loss in 90%. Adenotonsillectomy was performed in 308 (25.5%) patients, and 169 (14.0%) required serous otitis ventilation tubes. Asthma was observed in 140 (11.6%) patients, and allergic rhinitis in 544 (56.6%). There were hospitalizations for invasive infection in 480 (39.8%) children, and two (0.2%) patients had severe septicemia from pulmonary focus. Five (0.4%) infants had laryngotracheomalacia, and one patient had anomalous right tracheal bronchus. Recognizing the prevalence of respiratory and otorhinolaryngological disorders in patients with DS allows the promotion of optimal follow-up and early treatment, preventing the development of sequelae.

Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is a common and costly medical condition. This systematic review sought to identify evidence gaps in published model-based economic analyses addressing hearing loss to inform model development for an ongoing Lancet Commission.

METHODS

We searched the published literature through 14 June 2020 and our inclusion criteria included decision model-based cost-effectiveness analyses that addressed diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of hearing loss. Two investigators screened articles for inclusion at the title, abstract, and full-text levels. Data were abstracted and the studies were assessed for the qualities of model structure, data assumptions, and reporting using a previously published quality scale.

FINDINGS

Of 1437 articles identified by our search, 117 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these model-based analyses were set in high-income countries (n = 96, 82%). The evaluated interventions were hearing screening (n = 35, 30%), cochlear implantation (n = 34, 29%), hearing aid use (n = 28, 24%), vaccination (n = 22, 19%), and other interventions (n = 29, 25%); some studies included multiple interventions. Eighty-six studies reported the main outcome in quality-adjusted or disability-adjusted life-years, 24 of which derived their own utility values. The majority of the studies used decision tree (n = 72, 62%) or Markov (n = 41, 35%) models. Forty-one studies (35%) incorporated indirect economic effects. The median quality rating was 92/100 (IQR:72-100).

INTERPRETATION

The review identified a large body of literature exploring the economic efficiency of hearing healthcare interventions. However, gaps in evidence remain in evaluation of hearing healthcare in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in investigating interventions across the lifespan. Additionally, considerable uncertainty remains around productivity benefits of hearing healthcare interventions as well as utility values for hearing-assisted health states. Future economic evaluations could address these limitations.

FUNDING

NCATS 3UL1-TR002553-03S3.

An evaluation of the Hear Glue Ear mobile application for children aged 2-8 years old with otitis media with effusion

Objectives

To evaluate the acceptability and usability of the Hear Glue Ear mobile application to guide families and support speech and language development in children with otitis media with effusion (OME). To assess the validity of the app’s game-based hearing test to estimate changes in hearing levels between audiology appointments.

Method

This evaluation examined 60 children aged 2–8 with and without OME, attending Cambridge Community Audiology clinics. Children’s performance in the app’s hearing test was compared to their pure tone average (PTA) obtained in clinic. Children and caregivers completed questionnaires after their first interaction with the app, and after one week of using it at home. 18 clinicians completed anonymous questionnaires after trialling the app.

Results

Results from the app’s hearing test show a significant correlation with clinic PTA values (r22=−0.656,p=0.000251). 73.1% of caregivers supported their child using the app regularly and 85% thought it enabled them to give more accurate reports to clinicians. After one week, 87.0% of families downloaded and used the app at home, and 85.7% of these felt it provided strategies to help their child. 100% of children liked the app and 93.3% found it easy to use. 77.8% of clinicians supported patients using the app regularly.

Conclusions

Hear Glue Ear is acceptable to children, caregivers and clinicians as part of OME management. The app’s hearing test provides a valid estimate of fluctuating hearing levels. Hear Glue Ear is a free, accessible and family-centred intervention to provide trusted information and support development, as NICE guidance recommends.

A mixed-methods study of the management of hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children with Down syndrome

Objectives

To scope current service provision across England for management of otitis media with effusion and hearing loss in children with Down syndrome; to explore professional decision‐making about managing otitis media with effusion and hearing loss; and to explore patient and public views on the direction of future research.

Design

Mixed methods including a service evaluation of NHS clinical practice through a structured telephone survey; a qualitative study of professional decision‐making with in‐depth interviews collected and analysed using grounded theory methods; patient/public involvement consultations.

Participants

Twenty‐one audiology services in England took part in the evaluation; 10 professionals participated in the qualitative study; 21 family members, 10 adults with Down syndrome and representatives from two charities contributed to the consultations.

Results

There was variation across services in the frequency of routine hearing surveillance, approaches to managing conductive hearing loss in infancy and provision of hearing aids and grommets. There was variation in how professionals describe their decision‐making, reflecting individual treatment preferences, differing approaches to professional remit and institutional factors. The consultations identified that research should focus on improving practical support for managing the condition and supporting decision‐making about interventions.

Conclusions

There is system‐level variation in the provision of services and individual‐level variation in how professionals make clinical decisions. As a consequence, there is inequity of access to hearing health care for children with Down syndrome. Future research should focus on developing core outcomes for research and care, and on improving decision support for families.

What factors influence recruitment to a birth cohort of infants with Down's syndrome?

OBJECTIVE

To understand how to maximise recruitment of young infants with Down's syndrome (DS) into research through qualitative interviews with parents and care providers. In complex neonatal and genetic conditions such as DS, frequently diagnosed after birth, parents may go through a period of adaptation. These factors need consideration when overcoming barriers to recruitment.

PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN

Participants, who were drawn from health professionals and volunteers working with families experiencing DS, were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. Semistructured telephone interviews were completed with nine paediatricians, three research nurses and six family support workers. Five of those interviewed had a child with DS. The interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

A positive decision to take part in a 'from-birth' cohort study depends on factors such as the child's overall health, parent demographics (educational background and ethnicity), medical interactions that take place with the families (communication) and study logistics. The data suggest that recruitment methods need to take all these factors into consideration. Multiple recruitment methods should be considered including face to face, through parent and support groups, websites and social media. There also needs to be flexibility in the research timings to fit around the needs of the child and parents.

CONCLUSION

Researchers need to be aware of the variable responses elicited by families to a diagnosis of DS for their baby and be sensitive to the child's current medical status. This does not preclude recruitment into studies, but to maximise uptake good communication and flexibility is essential.

Quality of life improvement after pressure equalization tube placement in Down syndrome: A prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate quality-of-life changes after bilateral pressure equalization tube placement with or without adenoidectomy for the treatment of chronic otitis media with effusion or recurrent acute otitis media in a pediatric Down syndrome population compared to controls.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case-control observational study.

METHODS

The OM Outcome Survey (OMO-22) was administered to both patients with Down syndrome and controls before bilateral tube placement with or without adenoidectomy and at an average of 6-7 months postoperatively. Thirty-one patients with Down syndrome and 34 controls were recruited. Both pre-operative and post-operative between-group and within-group score comparisons were conducted for the Physical, Hearing/Balance, Speech, Emotional, and Social domains of the OMO-22.

RESULTS

Both groups experienced improvement of mean symptom scores post-operatively. Patients with Down syndrome reported significant post-operative improvement in mean Physical and Hearing domain item scores while control patients reported significant improvement in Physical, Hearing, and Emotional domain item scores. All four symptom scores in the Speech domain, both pre-operatively and post-operatively, were significantly worse for Down syndrome patients compared to controls (p ≤ 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical placement of pressure equalizing tubes results in significant quality of life improvements in patients with Down syndrome and controls. Problems related to speech and balance are reported at a higher rate and persist despite intervention in the Down syndrome population. It is possible that longer follow up periods and/or more sensitive tools are required to measure speech improvements in the Down syndrome population after pressure equalizing tube placement ± adenoidectomy.