Carly Au

Background: The optimal target for systemic oxygenation in critically ill children is unknown. Liberal oxygenation is widely practised but is associated with harm in observational studies. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a conservative oxygenation target of peripheral oxygen saturation 88–92% compared with peripheral oxygen saturation > 94% in critically ill children admitted to paediatric intensive care unit as an emergency. Design and setting: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial conducted in 15 National Health Service paediatric intensive care units and associated emergency transport services across England and Scotland. Participants: Children aged > 38 weeks corrected gestational age and < 16 years, enrolled within 6 hours of being accepted for admission to paediatric intensive care unit as an emergency; receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with supplemental oxygen; and in face-to-face contact with paediatric intensive care unit or emergency transport services staff. Interventions: Adjustment of ventilator and inspired oxygen settings aiming to achieve peripheral oxygen saturation 88–92% (conservative oxygenation) or peripheral oxygen saturation > 94% (liberal oxygenation) during invasive mechanical ventilation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes: duration of organ support at 30 days, with death by day 30 ranked as the worst outcome (clinical effectiveness) and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefit at 12 months (cost-effectiveness). Secondary outcomes: incremental costs at 30 days; mortality at paediatric intensive care unit discharge, 30 days, 90 days and 12 months; time to liberation from ventilation; duration of organ support; length of paediatric intensive care unit and hospital stay; functional status at paediatric intensive care unit discharge; and health-related quality of life at 12 months. Results: Two thousand and forty children were randomised between 1 September 2020 and 15 May 2022. Consent was obtained for 1872 (94%) – 939 to the conservative and 933 to the liberal oxygenation group – who were included in the primary analysis. Duration of organ support or death in the first 30 days was lower in the conservative oxygenation group [probabilistic index 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.55; p = 0.04 Wilcoxon rank-sum test, adjusted odds ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.99)]. Both components of the composite primary outcome and secondary outcomes favoured conservative oxygenation. Average costs at 30 days strongly indicated lower costs with conservative oxygenation. Longer-term estimated incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years were lower and net monetary benefit marginally favoured conservative oxygenation but with wide uncertainty [incremental costs −£879 (95% confidence interval −9036 to 7278); quality-adjusted life-years 0.001 (−0.010 to 0.011); net monetary benefit £894 (95% confidence interval −7290 to 9078)]. Limitations: Exclusion of two large paediatric intensive care unit populations, due to a lack of equipoise and the number of participants excluded because of not being able to obtain deferred consent. Future work: Future work should focus on identification of the mechanisms underlying the observed benefit; trials of intermediate or lower peripheral oxygen saturation values in individuals at higher risk; and identification of individualised treatment effects in relation to oxygen therapy. Conclusions: A conservative oxygenation target resulted in a greater probability of a better outcome in terms of duration of organ support at 30 days or death. Longer-term survival and health-related quality of life were consistent with the primary outcome. While conservative oxygenation is likely to reduce costs in the short term, longer-term cost-effectiveness was surrounded with wide uncertainty. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR127547.

Background: Despite the increasing use of non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric intensive care units, there are no large randomised controlled trials comparing two commonly used non-invasive respiratory support modes, continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal cannula therapy. Objective: To evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula, compared with continuous positive airway pressure, when used as the first-line mode of non-invasive respiratory support in acutely ill children and following extubation, on time to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which the child was free of respiratory support (non-invasive and invasive). Design: A master protocol comprising two pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trials (step-up and step-down) with shared infrastructure, including internal pilot and integrated health economic evaluation. Setting: Twenty-five National Health Service paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units and/or high-dependency units) across England, Wales and Scotland. Participants: Critically ill children assessed by the treating clinician to require non-invasive respiratory support for (1) acute illness (step-up randomised controlled trial) or (2) within 72 hours of extubation (step-down randomised controlled trial). Interventions: High-flow nasal cannula delivered at a flow rate based on patient weight (Intervention) compared to continuous positive airway pressure of 7–8 cm H₂O pressure (Control). Main outcome measures: The primary clinical outcome was time to liberation from respiratory support. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was 180-day incremental net monetary benefit. Secondary outcomes included mortality at paediatric intensive care unit/high-dependency unit discharge, day 60 and day 180; (re)intubation rate at 48 hours; duration of paediatric intensive care unit/high-dependency unit and hospital stay; patient comfort; sedation use; parental stress; and health-related quality of life at 180 days. Results: In the step-up randomised controlled trial, out of 600 children randomised, 573 were included in the primary analysis (median age 9 months). Median time to liberation was 52.9 hours for high-flow nasal cannula (95% confidence interval 46.0 to 60.9 hours) and 47.9 hours (95% confidence interval 40.5 to 55.7 hours) for continuous positive airway pressure (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03, one-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.86 to ∞). The high-flow nasal cannula group had lower use of sedation (27.7% vs. 37%) and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs. 19.5 days). In the step-down randomised controlled trial, of the 600 children randomised, 553 were included in the primary analysis (median age 3 months). Median time to liberation for high-flow nasal cannula was 50.5 hours (95% confidence interval, 43.0 to 67.9) versus 42.9 hours (95% confidence interval 30.5 to 48.2) for continuous positive airway pressure (adjusted hazard ratio 0.83, one-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.70 to ∞). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for high-flow nasal cannula [5.6% vs. 2.4% for continuous positive airway pressure, adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 8.8)]. Limitations: The interventions were unblinded. A heterogeneous cohort of children with a range of diagnoses and severity of illness were included. Conclusions: Among acutely ill children requiring non-invasive respiratory support, high-flow nasal cannula met the criterion for non-inferiority compared with continuous positive airway pressure for time to liberation from respiratory support whereas in critically ill children requiring non-invasive respiratory support following extubation, the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula could not be demonstrated. Future work: (1) Identify risk factors for treatment failure. (2) Compare protocolised approaches to post-extubation non-invasive respiratory support, with standard care. (3) Explore alternative approaches for evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effect. (4) Explore reasons for increased mortality in high-flow nasal cannula group within step-down randomised controlled trial. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60048867. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/94/28) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Objectives To automatically populate the case report forms (CRFs) for an international, pragmatic, multifactorial, response-adaptive, Bayesian COVID-19 platform trial. Methods The locations of focus included 27 hospitals and 2 large electronic health record (EHR) instances (1 Cerner Millennium and 1 Epic) that are part of the same health system in the United States. This paper describes our efforts to use EHR data to automatically populate four of the trial’s forms: baseline, daily, discharge, and response-adaptive randomization. Results Between April 2020 and May 2022, 417 patients from the UPMC health system were enrolled in the trial. A MySQL-based extract, transform, and load pipeline automatically populated 499 of 526 CRF variables. The populated forms were statistically and manually reviewed and then reported to the trial’s international data coordinating center. Conclusions We accomplished automatic population of CRFs in a large platform trial and made recommendations for improving this process for future trials.

STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival. Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression). Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity. There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.