Otitis media at 6-monthly assessments of Australian First Nations children between ages 12-36 months: Findings from two randomised controlled trials of combined pneumococcal conjugate vaccines

OBJECTIVES

In remote communities of northern Australia, First Nations children with hearing loss are disproportionately at risk of poor school readiness and performance compared to their peers with no hearing loss. The aim of this trial is to prevent early childhood persisting otitis media (OM), associated hearing loss and developmental delay. To achieve this, we designed a mixed pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) schedule that could maximise immunogenicity and thereby prevent bacterial otitis media (OM) and a trajectory of educational and social disadvantage.

METHODS

In two sequential parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trials, eligible infants were first allocated 1:1:1 to standard or mixed PCV primary schedules at age 28-38 days, then at age 12 months to a booster dose (1:1) of 13-valent PCV, PCV13 (Prevenar13®, +P), or 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugated vaccine, PHiD-CV10 (Synflorix®, +S). Here we report findings of standardised ear assessments conducted six-monthly from age 12-36 months, by booster dose.

RESULTS

From March 2013 to September 2018, 261 children were allocated to booster + P (n = 131) or + S (n = 130). There were no significant differences in prevalence of any OM diagnosis by booster dose or when stratified by primary schedule. We found high, almost identical prevalence of OM in both boost groups at each age (for example 88% of 129 and 91% of 128 children seen, respectively, at primary endpoint age 18 months, difference -3% [95% Confidence Interval -11, 5]). At each age prevalence of bilateral OM was 52%-78%, and tympanic membrane perforation was 10%-18%.

CONCLUSION

Despite optimal pneumococcal immunisation, the high prevalence of OM persists throughout early childhood. Novel approaches to OM prevention are needed, along with improved early identification strategies and evaluation of expanded valency PCVs.

Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial

The CLARITY trial (Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease) is a two-arm, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial being run in India and Australia that investigates the effectiveness of angiotensin receptor blockers in addition to standard care compared to placebo (in Indian sites) with standard care in reducing the duration and severity of lung failure in patients with COVID-19. The trial was designed as a Bayesian adaptive sample size trial with regular planned analyses where pre-specified decision rules will be assessed to determine whether the trial should be stopped due to sufficient evidence of treatment effectiveness or futility. Here, we describe the statistical analysis plan for the trial and define the pre-specified decision rules, including those that could lead to the trial being halted. The primary outcome is clinical status on a 7-point ordinal scale adapted from the WHO Clinical Progression scale assessed at day 14. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. A Bayesian adaptive trial design was selected because there is considerable uncertainty about the extent of potential benefit of this treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394117. Registered on 19 May 2020Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2020/07/026831

Version and revisions

Version 1.0. No revisions.

Facing the Ethical Challenges: Consumer Involvement in COVID-19 Pandemic Research

Consumer involvement in clinical research is an essential component of a comprehensive response during emergent health challenges. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the moderation of research policies and regulation to facilitate research may raise ethical issues. Meaningful, diverse consumer involvement can help to identify practical approaches to prioritize, design, and conduct rapidly developed clinical research amid current events. Consumer involvement might also elucidate the acceptability of flexible ethics review approaches that aim to protect participants whilst being sensitive to the challenging context in which research is taking place. This article describes the main ethical challenges arising from pandemic research and how involving consumers and the community could enable resolution of such issues.

Midwives' attitudes, beliefs and concerns about childhood vaccination: A review of the global literature

Vaccine hesitancy in industrialised countries is an area of concern. Health professionals play a significant role in parental vaccination decisions, however, to date the role of midwives has not been widely explored. This review sought to describe the attitudes and communication practices of midwives in developed countries towards childhood vaccines. Medline, Cinahl, PsychInfo, Embase and the grey literature were searched. Inclusion criteria were qualitative and quantitative studies reporting midwives' beliefs, attitudes and communication practices toward childhood vaccination. The search returned 366 articles, of which 359 were excluded by abstract. Two additional articles were identified from the grey literature and references, resulting in nine studies from five countries included in the review. Across the studies, the majority of midwives supported vaccination, although a spectrum of beliefs and concerns emerged. A minority expressed reservations about the scientific justification for vaccination, which focussed on what is not yet known rather than mistrust of current evidence. Most midwives felt that vaccines were safe; a minority were unsure, or believed they were unsafe. The majority of midwives agreed that childhood vaccines are necessary. Among those who expressed doubt, a commonly held opinion was that vaccine preventable diseases such as measles are relatively benign and didn't warrant vaccination against them. Finally, the midwifery model of care was shown to focus on providing individualised care, with parental choice being placed at a premium. The midwifery model care appears to differ in approach from others, possibly due to a difference in the underpinning philosophies. Research is needed to understand how midwives see vaccination, and why there appears to be a spectrum of views on the subject. This information will inform the development of resources tailored to the midwifery model of care, supporting midwives in advocating for childhood vaccination.