FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): protocol for a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of non-invasive respiratory support in critically ill children.

INTRODUCTION: Over 18 000 children are admitted annually to UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), of whom nearly 75% receive respiratory support (invasive and/or non-invasive). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has traditionally been used to provide first-line non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in PICUs; however, high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC), a novel mode of NRS, has recently gained popularity despite the lack of high-quality trial evidence to support its effectiveness. This feasibility study aims to inform the design and conduct of a future definitive randomised clinical trial (RCT) comparing the two modes of respiratory support. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a three-centre randomised feasibility study over 12 months. Patients admitted to participating PICUs who satisfy eligibility criteria will be recruited to either group A (primary respiratory failure) or group B (postextubation). Consent will be obtained from parents/guardians prior to randomisation in 'planned' group B, and deferred in emergency situations (group A and 'rescue' group B). Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either CPAP or HFNC using sealed, opaque envelopes, from a computer-generated randomisation sequence with variable block sizes. The study protocol specifies algorithms for the initiation, maintenance and weaning of HFNC and CPAP. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including the number of eligible patients in each group, feasibility of randomising >50% of eligible patients and measures of adherence to the treatment protocols. Data will also be collected on patient outcomes (eg, mortality and length of PICU stay) to inform the selection of an appropriate outcome measure in a future RCT. We aim to recruit 120 patients to the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North East-Tyne&Wear South (15/NE/0296). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02612415; pre-results

First-line support for assistance in breathing in children: statistical and health economic analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC trial

BACKGROUND: The FIRST-ABC trial comprises of two pragmatic, multicentre, parallel groups, non-inferiority randomised clinical trials designed to evaluate the clinical non-inferiority of first-line use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in critically ill children who require non-invasive respiratory support (NRS). OBJECTIVES: To describe the pre-specified statistical and health economic analysis for the FIRST-ABC trial before completion of patient recruitment and data collection. METHODS: The statistical analysis plan was designed by the chief investigators and statisticians. We define the primary and secondary outcomes, summarise methods for data collection and safety monitoring, and present a detailed description of the planned statistical and health economic analysis. RESULTS: The primary clinical outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support. The primary effect estimate will be the adjusted hazard ratio, reported with a 95% confidence interval. As a sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis will be repeated using time to start weaning of NRS. Subgroup analyses will be performed to test for interactions between the effect of allocated treatment group and pre-specified baseline covariates. The health economic analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and report the mean (95% confidence interval) incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness up to 6 months. All analyses will be performed separately for each of the two trials, and any results will not be combined. CONCLUSION: The FIRST-ABC trial will assess the non-inferiority of HFNC compared to CPAP in two parallel trials with shared infrastructure (step-up RCT and step-down RCT). We have developed a pre-specified statistical and health economics analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC study before trial completion to minimise analytical bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN60048867 . Registered on 19 June 2019

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in prostate cancer

This paper demonstrates how economic modelling can be used to derive estimates of the cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in the management of clinically localised and moderately graded prostate cancer. The model uses a Markov process and is populated using published evidence and local data. The robustness of the results has been tested using sensitivity analysis. Three treatment policies of 'monitoring' (observation), radical prostatectomy, or a selection-based management policy using DNA-ploidy as an experimental marker, have been evaluated. Modelling indicates that a policy of managing these tumours utilising experimental markers has an estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of pound 12 068. Sensitivity analysis shows the results to be relatively sensitive to quality-of-life variables. If novel and experimental markers can achieve specificity in excess of 80%, then a policy of radical surgery for those identified as being at high risk and conservative treatment for the remainder would be both better for patients and cost-effective. The analysis suggests that a radical prostatectomy treatment policy for the moderately graded tumours (Gleason grades -7) modelled in this paper may be inferior to a conservative approach in the absence of reliable prognostic markers, being both more costly and yielding fewer QALYs

Establishing and augmenting acceptability of the Fever trial: a mixed methods feasibility study

Introduction: Paediatric clinical trials in critical care settings are challenging to conduct. Establishing trial acceptability can help inform trial design and avoid research waste. This paper reports on how research with parents and staff established and augmented perspectives and the design of a trial investigating temperature thresholds in critically ill children with fever and infection (Fever trial). // Methods: We used a mixed methods approach to explore perspectives at three time points: 1) before, 2) during and 3) after a pilot trial. This included: 1) pre-trial focus groups with staff and interviews with parents; 2) questionnaires with parents of randomised children following trial recruitment; 3) post-trial interviews with parents and focus groups and a survey with staff. Data analysis drew on Sekhon et al (2017) theoretical framework of acceptability. // Results: 1) 25 parents were interviewed and 56 staff took part focus groups, 2) 60 parents of 57 randomised children took part in questionnaires, 3) 19 parents were interviewed and 50 staff took part in focus group and 48 in a survey. There was initial support for the trial, although both groups raised concerns regarding proposed thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed pilot trial protocol changes and training, which assisted practitioner ‘buy in’. However, concerns about children being in pain or discomfort when weaned from ventilation led to cases of withdrawal and protocol non-adherence. Nevertheless, 95% of parents provided consent and all supported the trial. Those trained by the Fever team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Trusting parent and staff relationships were linked to trial acceptability. // Conclusions: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience augmented perspectives, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. The proposed trial was deemed feasible. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform the design of future trial feasibility studies

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial): a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE: To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study. DESIGN: Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial. SETTING: English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). PARTICIPANTS: (1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al's theoretical framework of acceptability. RESULTS: There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818

Central nervous system relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era: results of the UK NCRI R-CHOP-14 versus 21 trial

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is associated with a dismal prognosis. Here, we report an analysis of CNS relapse for patients treated within the UK NCRI phase III R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone) 14 versus 21 randomised trial. Patients and methods: The R-CHOP 14 versus 21 trial compared R-CHOP administered two- versus three weekly in previously untreated patients aged ≥18 years with bulky stage I-IV DLBCL (n = 1080). Details of CNS prophylaxis were retrospectively collected from participating sites. The incidence and risk factors for CNS relapse including application of the CNS-IPI were evaluated. Results: 177/984 patients (18.0%) received prophylaxis (intrathecal (IT) methotrexate (MTX) n = 163, intravenous (IV) MTX n = 2, prophylaxis type unknown n = 11 and IT MTX and cytarabine n = 1). At a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 21 cases of CNS relapse (isolated n = 11, with systemic relapse n = 10) were observed, with a cumulative incidence of 1.9%. For patients selected to receive prophylaxis, the incidence was 2.8%. Relapses predominantly involved the brain parenchyma (81.0%) and isolated leptomeningeal involvement was rare (14.3%). Univariable analysis demonstrated the following risk factors for CNS relapse: performance status 2, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, IPI, >1 extranodal site of disease and presence of a 'high-risk' extranodal site. Due to the low number of events no factor remained significant in multivariate analysis. Application of the CNS-IPI revealed a high-risk group (4-6 risk factors) with a 2- and 5-year incidence of CNS relapse of 5.2% and 6.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Despite very limited use of IV MTX as prophylaxis, the incidence of CNS relapse following R-CHOP was very low (1.9%) confirming the reduced incidence in the rituximab era. The CNS-IPI identified patients at highest risk for CNS recurrence. ClinicalTrials.gov: ISCRTN number 16017947 (R-CHOP14v21); EudraCT number 2004-002197-34

Prognostic indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era: an analysis of the UK National Cancer Research Institute R-CHOP 14 versus 21 phase 3 trial

We compared the International Prognostic Index (IPI), Revised (R)‐IPI and age‐adjusted (aa)‐IPI as prognostic indices for patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the UK National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) R‐CHOP 14 versus 21 trial (N = 1080). The R‐IPI and aa‐IPI showed no marked improvement compared to the IPI for overall and progression‐free survival, in terms of model fit or discrimination. Similar results were observed in exploratory analyses incorporating the Grupo Español de Linfomas/Transplante de Médula Ósea (GELTAMO)‐IPI, where baseline β2‐microglobulin data were available (N = 655). Although our findings support current use of the IPI, a novel prognostic tool to better delineate a high‐risk DLBCL group in the rituximab era is needed

biomArker-guided Duration of Antibiotic treatment in hospitalised Patients with suspecTed Sepsis (ADAPT-Sepsis): A protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

AIM: To describe the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine whether treatment protocols monitoring daily CRP (C-reactive protein) or PCT (procalcitonin) safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised adult patients with sepsis. DESIGN: Multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: UK NHS hospitals. TARGET POPULATION: Hospitalised critically ill adults who have been commenced on intravenous antibiotics for sepsis. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY: Three protocols for guiding antibiotic discontinuation will be compared: (a) standard care; (b) standard care + daily CRP monitoring; (c) standard care + daily PCT monitoring. Standard care will be based on routine sepsis management and antibiotic stewardship. Measurement of outcomes and costs. Outcomes will be assessed to 28 days. The primary outcomes are total duration of antibiotics and safety outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include: escalation of care/re-admission; infection re-lapse/recurrence; antibiotic dose; length and level of critical care stay and length of hospital stay. Ninety-day all-cause mortality rates will also be collected. An assessment of cost effectiveness will be performed. CONCLUSION: In the setting of routine NHS care, if this trial finds that a treatment protocol based on monitoring CRP or PCT safely allows a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy, and is cost effective, then this has the potential to change clinical practice for critically ill patients with sepsis. Moreover, if a biomarker-guided protocol is not found to be effective, then it will be important to avoid its use in sepsis and prevent ineffective technology becoming widely adopted in clinical practice

Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets in critically ill children: the randomised multiple-centre pilot Oxy-PICU trial

BACKGROUND: Oxygen saturation monitoring for children receiving respiratory support is standard worldwide. No randomised clinical trials have compared peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO_{2}) targets for critically ill children. The harm of interventions to raise SpO_{2} to > 94% may exceed their benefits. METHODS: We undertook an open, parallel-group randomised trial of children > 38 weeks completed gestation and  94%) or a conservative oxygenation group (SpO_{2} = 88–92% inclusive). Outcomes were measures of feasibility: recruitment rate, protocol adherence and acceptability, between-group separation of SpO_{2} and safety. The Oxy-PICU trial was registered before recruitment: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03040570. RESULTS: A total of 159 children met the inclusion criteria, of whom 119 (75%) were randomised between April and July 2017, representing a rate of 10 patients per month per site. The mean time to randomisation from first contact with an intensive care team was 1.9 (SD 2.2) h. Consent to continue in the study was obtained in 107 cases (90%); the children’s parents/legal representatives were supportive of the consent process. The median (interquartile range, IQR) of time-weighted individual mean SpO_{2} was 94.9% (92.6–97.1) in the conservative oxygenation group and 97.5% (96.2–98.4) in the liberal group [difference 2.7%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.3–4.0%, p < 0.001]. Median (IQR) time-weighted individual mean FiO_{2} was 0.28 (0.24–0.37) in the conservative group and 0.37 (0.30–0.42) in the liberal group (difference 0.08, 95% CI 0.03–0.13, p < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in length of stay, duration of organ support or mortality. Two prespecified serious adverse events (cardiac arrests) occurred, both in the liberal oxygenation group. CONCLUSION: A definitive clinical trial of peripheral oxygen saturation targets is feasible in critically ill children