A 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care over 52 weeks in adults with bronchiectasis: a protocol for the CLEAR clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the management of bronchiectasis (BE) highlight the lack of evidence to recommend mucoactive agents, such as hypertonic saline (HTS) and carbocisteine, to aid sputum removal as part of standard care. We hypothesise that mucoactive agents (HTS or carbocisteine, or a combination) are effective in reducing exacerbations over a 52-week period, compared to usual care. METHODS: This is a 52-week, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, open-label trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HTS 6% and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care - the Clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care (CLEAR) trial. Patients will be randomised to (1) standard care and twice-daily nebulised HTS (6%), (2) standard care and carbocisteine (750 mg three times per day until visit 3, reducing to 750 mg twice per day), (3) standard care and combination of twice-daily nebulised HTS and carbocisteine, or (4) standard care. The primary outcome is the mean number of exacerbations over 52 weeks. Key inclusion criteria are as follows: adults with a diagnosis of BE on computed tomography, BE as the primary respiratory diagnosis, and two or more pulmonary exacerbations in the last year requiring antibiotics and production of daily sputum. DISCUSSION: This trial's pragmatic research design avoids the significant costs associated with double-blind trials whilst optimising rigour in other areas of trial delivery. The CLEAR trial will provide evidence as to whether HTS, carbocisteine or both are effective and cost effective for patients with BE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2017-000664-14 (first entered in the database on 20 October 2017). ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN89040295. Registered on 6 July/2018. Funder: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (15/100/01). SPONSOR: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Ethics Reference Number: 17/NE/0339. Protocol version: v3.0 Final_14052018.

The cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline inhalations for infant bronchiolitis: a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HS) inhalations for infant bronchiolitis, compared to normal saline inhalations or standard treatment without inhalations as controls. METHODS: The decision tree in the decision analysis was used to calculate the expected costs. Actual cost data were obtained from our retrospective case-control study on bronchiolitis treatment. The effectiveness of treatment, based on the hospitalization rate of those admitted to the emergency department and the length of stay (LOS) of those who were hospitalized, was collected from previous studies. For the effectiveness estimations, we made a meta-analysis summarizing the results of the meta-analysis of the Cochrane review in 2013 and the results of 10 studies published after it. RESULTS: The mean hospitalization rate was 24.7% in the HS inhalation group and 32.6% in the control group [risk ratio: 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.96] and the mean LOS was 3.736 (HS group) and 4.292 (controls) days (mean difference: - 0.55 days, 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.15), respectively. The expected costs per patient, when both inpatients and outpatients were included, were €816 ($1111) in the HS inhalation group and €962 ($1310) in the control group. The expected costs per hospitalization, when only inpatients were included, were €2600 ($3540) in the HS inhalation group and €2890 ($3935) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: HS inhalations slightly reduced the expected hospitalization costs of infant bronchiolitis. However, the low effectiveness, rather than the cost, is the factor that will limit the use of HS inhalations in infant bronchiolitis.

Comparison of salt with low-dose furosemide and carperitide for treating acute decompensated heart failure: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Hypertonic saline with furosemide has been proposed for a long time as an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We previously reported the efficacy of continuous infusion of 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide in treatment for ADHF. Although this therapeutic strategy can be a useful option for effective decongestion in treatment for ADHF, there is no study that assesses the effect and safety of saline supplementation compared with standard therapy in Japan. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion compared with carperitide. We compared clinical outcomes, adverse events, and cost for patients receiving carperitide (carperitide group) with those for patients receiving 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide (salt group) during the initial hospitalization for ADHF. The cost analysis was performed on the basis of the previous report about cost-effectiveness of acute heart failure. A total of 175 ADHF patients received either carperitide (n = 111) or 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion (n = 64) as initial treatment. There were no differences in length of hospital stay (27 ± 19 vs. 25 ± 16 day, p = 0.170) and infusion period (7.2 ± 6.1 vs. 8.4 ± 7.5 day, p = 0.474) between the two groups. The incidence of rehospitalization did not differ at 1 month (7.6 vs. 6.6 %, p = 1.000) and 1 year (36.8 vs. 37.7 %, p = 0.907) between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier curves revealed no significant difference for 1 year all-cause mortality between the two groups (log-rank, p = 0.724). The single hospitalization cost was 95,314 yen lower and the yearly hospitalization cost 125,628 yen lower in the salt group compared with the carperitide group. Thus, intravenous 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion is as effective as carperitide in terms of clinical outcome and is a cost-effective therapeutic strategy for the treatment of ADHF.

Saline in acute bronchiolitis RCT and economic evaluation: hypertonic saline in acute bronchiolitis - randomised controlled trial and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Acute bronchiolitis is the most common cause of hospitalisation in infancy. Supportive care and oxygen are the cornerstones of management. A Cochrane review concluded that the use of nebulised 3% hypertonic saline (HS) may significantly reduce the duration of hospitalisation. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that HS reduces the time to when infants were assessed as being fit for discharge, defined as in air with saturations of > 92% for 6 hours, by 25%. DESIGN: Parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, cost-utility analysis and systematic review. SETTING: Ten UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Infants with acute bronchiolitis requiring oxygen therapy were allocated within 4 hours of admission. INTERVENTIONS: Supportive care with oxygen as required, minimal handling and fluid administration as appropriate to the severity of the disease, 3% nebulised HS every ± 6 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The trial primary outcome was time until the infant met objective discharge criteria. Secondary end points included time to discharge and adverse events. The costs analysed related to length of stay (LoS), readmissions, nebulised saline and other NHS resource use. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using an existing utility decrement derived for hospitalisation in children, together with the time spent in hospital in the trial. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and other databases from inception or from 2010 onwards, searched ClinicalTrials.gov and other registries and hand-searched Chest, Paediatrics and Journal of Paediatrics to January 2015. REVIEW METHODS: We included randomised/quasi-randomised trials which compared HS versus saline (± adjunct treatment) or no treatment. We used a fixed-effects model to combine mean differences for LoS and assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: The trial randomised 158 infants to HS (n = 141 analysed) and 159 to standard care (n = 149 analysed). There was no difference between the two arms in the time to being declared fit for discharge [median 76.6 vs. 75.9 hours, hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.20] or to actual discharge (median 88.5 vs. 88.7 hours, HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.23). There was no difference in adverse events. One infant developed bradycardia with desaturation associated with HS. Mean hospital costs were £2595 and £2727 for the control and intervention groups, respectively (p = 0.657). Incremental QALYs were 0.0000175 (p = 0.757). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7.6M per QALY gained was not appreciably altered by sensitivity analyses. The systematic review comprised 15 trials (n = 1922) including our own. HS reduced the mean LoS by -0.36 days (95% CI -0.50 to -0.22 days). High levels of heterogeneity (I (2) = 78%) indicate that the result should be treated cautiously. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, HS had no clinical benefit on LoS or readiness for discharge and was not a cost-effective treatment for acute bronchiolitis. Claims that HS achieves small reductions in LoS must be treated with scepticism. FUTURE WORK: Well-powered randomised controlled trials of high-flow oxygen are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as NCT01469845 and CRD42014007569. FUNDING DETAILS: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 66. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Effects of hypertonic saline, alternate day and daily rhDNase on healthcare use, costs and outcomes in children with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Daily recombinant human deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase) is an established but expensive treatment in cystic fibrosis (CF). An alternative lower cost therapy is hypertonic saline (HS), which has been shown to improve lung function in short term studies. This study compares the costs and consequences of daily rhDNase with alternate day rhDNase and HS in children with CF. METHODS: In an open, randomised, crossover trial, 48 children with CF were allocated consecutively to 12 weeks of once daily 2.5 mg rhDNase, alternate day 2.5 mg rhDNase, and twice daily 5 ml 7% HS. Outcomes assessed included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and quality of life. All healthcare resource use was prospectively recorded for each patient. Unit costs were collected and combined with resource use data to give the total health service costs per patient for each treatment strategy. RESULTS: Daily rhDNase resulted in a significantly greater increase in mean FEV(1) than HS (8%, 95% CI 2 to 14) but there was no significant difference in FEV(1) between daily and alternate day rhDNase (2%, 95% CI -4 to 9). Over a 12 week period the mean incremental costs of daily rhDNase compared with HS was pound 1409 (95% CI pound 440 to pound 2318), and the incremental cost of using daily rather than alternate day rhDNase was pound 513 (95% CI - pound 546 to pound 1510). CONCLUSIONS: Daily rhDNase is more effective than 5 ml 7% HS twice daily delivered by jet nebuliser, but significantly increases healthcare costs. Administering rhDNase on an alternate day rather than a daily basis is as effective, with a potential for cost savings.