Healthcare use, costs and quality of life in patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving conservative management: results from a multi-centre observational study (PACKS).

BACKGROUND: Previous research has explored the cost of providing renal replacement therapies in patients with end-stage kidney disease and their quality of life. This is the first study to examine the healthcare costs of patients receiving conservative care without dialysis for end-stage kidney disease. This alternative to dialysis is an option for patients who prefer a supportive and palliative care approach. AIM: Descriptive cost and quality of life analyses alongside a UK-based multi-centre observational study in patients receiving conservative management for end-stage kidney disease. DESIGN: Health service use was recorded up to 12 months after making the decision to receive conservative management. Mean costs were calculated for each 3-month time period. The annual cost was calculated in two ways: by using only patients with complete cost data and by using all available data weighted by the number of patients at each time point. SETTING: In total, 42 patients who opted for conservative management over dialysis were recruited. RESULTS: Mean costs were £1622 (0-3 months), £1008 (3-6 months), £554 (6-9 months) and £2626 (9-12 months). Mean annual cost based on complete data ( n = 8) was £5511, and the weighted mean annual cost was £5620. CONCLUSION: The importance of this study is twofold. First, it provides substantive new information for health and social care planning of conservative management by demonstrating where demand exists for services, in both the United Kingdom and other countries with a comparable health service structure. Second, methodologically, it indicates that it is feasible to collect service use data directly from this patient population.

Postdischarge Unscheduled Care Burden After Lower Limb Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to postdischarge arthroplasty readmission rates, the unscheduled reattendance burden to primary care is under-reported. Understanding reasons for reattendance would allow for implementation of strategies to reduce this burden. The present study aims to quantify the out-of-hours (OOH) general practitioner and emergency department (ED) service reattendance burden and readmission rate after primary total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, with estimation of the associated costs. METHODS: This is a prospective consecutive cohort study. A prospective audit of all total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patients in 2016 in a single high-volume UK arthroplasty unit was performed. Incidence and reasons for reattendance to OOH and ED service, as well as readmission rates, at both 30 and 90 days following discharge are reported. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine patient characteristics, which results in increased reattendance and readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 2351 procedures resulted in 374 attendances of OOH service and 665 to ED with a total estimated cost of £190,000 within 90 days. The readmission rate was 6.8%. Risk factors for reattendance and readmission were increasing age and a prolonged length of stay. The use of a 5-day postdischarge phone call and a dedicated Arthroplasty Care Practitioner favors reduced reattendances but not the readmission rate, with the additional benefit of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The postdischarge arthroplasty reattendance burden is associated with significant costs, and strategies to reduce this should be developed. Further research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multicomponent strategies to reduce reattendance operating at scale.

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.

Background: Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives: To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting: Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants: Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded. Intervention: Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion. Main outcome measures: Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death. Results: The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Neutropenic sepsis, or infection with a low white blood cell count, can occur following cancer treatment. Usually patients receive treatment with intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics delivered into a vein) for two or more days. Patients at low risk of complications from their infection may be able to have a shorter period of intravenous antibiotics benefitting both patients and the NHS. The trial compared whether changing from intravenous to oral antibiotics (antibiotics taken by mouth as tablets or liquid) 12­24 hours after starting antibiotic treatment ('early switch') is as effective as usual care. Patients could take part if they had started intravenous antibiotics for low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients were randomly allocated to 'early switch' or to usual care. The main outcome measured was treatment failure. Treatment failure happened if fever persisted or recurred despite antibiotics, if patients needed to change antibiotics, if they needed to be re-admitted to hospital or needed to be admitted to intensive care within 14 days or died. We had originally intended that 628 patients would take part, but after review of the design of the study the number needed to take part was revised to 230. We were not able to complete the trial as planned as unfortunately only 129 patients took part. As the trial was smaller than expected we were not able to draw conclusions as to whether 'early switch' is no less effective than usual care. Our findings suggest that 'early switch' might result in a shorter time in hospital initially; however, treatment failure was more likely to occur, meaning some patients had to return to hospital for further antibiotics. There were no differences in side effects and no serious complications from treatment or treatment failure (such as intensive care admission or death) among the 65 patients in the 'early switch' group. Patients were satisfied with 'early switch'. Early switch may be a treatment option for some patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis who would prefer a shorter duration of hospital admission but accept a risk of needing hospital re-admission.

Co-ordinated multidisciplinary intervention to reduce time to successful extubation for children on mechanical ventilation: the SANDWICH cluster stepped-wedge RCT.

BACKGROUND: Daily assessment of patient readiness for liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation can reduce the duration of ventilation. However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of this in a paediatric population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a ventilation liberation intervention in critically ill children who are anticipated to have a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation (primary objective) and in all children (secondary objective). DESIGN: A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial with economic and process evaluations. SETTING: Paediatric intensive care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Invasively mechanically ventilated children (aged < 16 years). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention incorporated co-ordinated multidisciplinary care, patient-relevant sedation plans linked to sedation assessment, assessment of ventilation parameters with a higher than usual trigger for undertaking an extubation readiness test and a spontaneous breathing trial on low levels of respiratory support to test extubation readiness. The comparator was usual care. Hospital sites were randomised sequentially to transition from control to intervention and were non-blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation until the first successful extubation. The secondary outcome measures were successful extubation, unplanned extubation and reintubation, post-extubation use of non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy, post-extubation stridor, adverse events, length of intensive care and hospital stay, mortality and cost per respiratory complication avoided at 28 days. RESULTS: The trial included 10,495 patient admissions from 18 paediatric intensive care units from 5 February 2018 to 14 October 2019. In children with anticipated prolonged ventilation (n = 8843 admissions: control, n = 4155; intervention, n = 4688), the intervention resulted in a significantly shorter time to successful extubation [cluster and time-adjusted median difference -6.1 hours (interquartile range -8.2 to -5.3 hours); adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.02] and a higher incidence of successful extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.02; p = 0.03) and unplanned extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.51; p = 0.03), but not reintubation (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.36; p = 0.38). In the intervention period, the use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation was significantly higher (adjusted relative risk 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.49; p = 0.04), with no evidence of a difference in intensive care length of stay or other harms, but hospital length of stay was longer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.97; p = 0.01). Findings for all children were broadly similar. The control period was associated with lower, but not statistically significantly lower, total costs (cost difference, mean £929.05, 95% confidence interval -£516.54 to £2374.64) and significantly fewer respiratory complications avoided (mean difference -0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.16 to -0.03). LIMITATIONS: The unblinded intervention assignment may have resulted in performance or detection bias. It was not possible to determine which components were primarily responsible for the observed effect. Treatment effect in a more homogeneous group remains to be determined. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention resulted in a statistically significant small reduction in time to first successful extubation; thus, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain. FUTURE WORK: Future work should explore intervention sustainability and effects of the intervention in other paediatric populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16998143. 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. 26, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving therapy, but may involve related risks because of the breathing tube in the mouth and throat, the sedative drugs required to reduce anxiety and remaining confined to bed. Therefore, getting off the ventilator (called weaning) is an important patient outcome. Previous studies have shown that an organised approach involving nurses, doctors and physiotherapists reduces the time that patients spend on the ventilator. Our study involved more than 10,000 patients admitted to 18 children's intensive care units. We tested a co-ordinated staff approach for managing a child's sedation and ventilator needs against usual care, which was mainly consultant led and did not involve bedside nurses. We wanted to find out if this approach improved the outcomes for children and did not cause additional harm. We first collected information in the intensive care units when children were weaned from the ventilator using usual care. Following staff training in the new approach, we compared children's outcomes between the two approaches. Compared with usual care, the new approach reduced the time that children spent on the ventilator by between 5 and 9 hours, and increased children's chances of having their breathing tube removed successfully. Some children pulled out their breathing tubes themselves before it was medically planned to do so. This happened more with the new approach, but the chance of needing the breathing tube put back in was not different from usual care. With the new approach, more children needed to use a mask ventilator than those receiving usual care, although the length of time that this was required was not different from usual care. The intensive care length of stay was the same for children receiving the new approach and usual care. However, with the new approach, children stayed in hospital 1 day longer, which resulted in higher costs (£715 per child); thus, the clinical relevance is uncertain.

Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2): a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1ß and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1ß and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. METHODS: VAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1ß and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 104 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes. INTERPRETATION: Antibiotic use remains high in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antibiotic stewardship was not improved by a rapid, highly sensitive rule-out test. Prescribing culture, rather than poor test performance, might explain this absence of effect. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust.

Prevention of post-operative complications by using a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation for non-cardiac surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) and peri-operative myocardial infarction (MI) have a significant impact on the long-term mortality of surgical patients. Patients undergoing one-lung ventilation (OLV) for surgery are at a high risk of developing these complications. These complications could be associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and longer hospital stay with associated resource and economic burden. Simvastatin, a HMG-CoA reductase enzyme inhibitor has been shown to have pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects as well as being endothelial protective. The benefits of statins have been shown in various observational studies and in small proof-of-concept studies. There is an urgent need for a well-designed, large clinical trial powered to detect clinical outcomes. The Prevention HARP 2 trial will test the hypothesis 'simvastatin 80 mg when compared to placebo will reduce cardiac and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy, lobectomy or pneumonectomy'. METHODS/DESIGN: The Prevention HARP 2 trial is a UK multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Adult patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy, lobectomy or pneumonectomy will be eligible. Patients who are already on statins will be excluded from this trial. Patients will be randomised to receive simvastatin 80 mg or matched placebo for 4 days pre surgery and for up to 7 days post surgery. The primary outcome is a composite outcome of PPC and MI within 7 days post surgery. Various secondary outcome measures including clinical outcomes, safety outcomes and health economic outcomes will be collected. The study aims to recruit 452 patients in total across 12 UK sites. DISCUSSION: The results of the Prevention HARP 2 trial should add to our understanding of the benefits of peri-operative statins and influence clinical decision-making. Analysis of blood and urine samples from the patients will provide insight into the mechanism of simvastatin action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials registry, ID: ISRCTN48095567 . Registered on 11 November 2016.

Assessment of the effect of addition of 24 hours of oral tranexamic acid post-operatively to a single intraoperative intravenous dose of tranexamic acid on calculated blood loss following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (TRAC-24): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While it is has been proven that tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces blood loss in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA), there is little published evidence on the use of TXA beyond 3 h post-operatively. Most blood loss occurs after wound closure and the primary aim of this study is to determine if the use of oral TXA post-operatively for up to 24 h will reduce calculated blood loss at 48 h beyond an intra-operative intravenous bolus alone following primary THA and TKA. To date, most TXA studies have excluded patients with a history of thromboembolic disease. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a phase IV, single-centred, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to one of three groups: group 1, an intravenous (IV) bolus of TXA peri-operatively plus oral TXA post-operatively for 24 h; group 2, an IV bolus of TXA peri-operatively or group 3, standard care (no TXA). Eligible participants, including those with a history of thromboembolic disease, are allocated to these groups with a 2:2:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome is the indirectly calculated blood loss 48 h after surgery. Researchers and patients are not blinded to the treatment; however, staff processing blood samples are. Originally 1166 participants were required to complete this study, 583 THA and 583 TKA. However, following an interim analysis after 100 THA and 100 TKA participants had been recruited to the study, the data monitoring ethics committee recommended stopping group 3 (standard care). DISCUSSION: TRAC-24 will help to determine whether an extended TXA dosing regimen can further reduce blood loss following primary THA and TKA. By including patients with a history of thromboembolic disease, this study will add to our understanding of the safety profile of TXA in this clinical situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN58790500 . Registered on 3 June 2016, EudraCT: 2015-002661-36.