Pragmatic trials in critically ill children are CATCHing on

Framing the conversation: use of PRECIS-2 ratings to advance understanding of pragmatic trial design domains

Background

There continues to be debate about what constitutes a pragmatic trial and how it is distinguished from more traditional explanatory trials. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project, which includes five trials and a coordinating unit, has adopted the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) instrument. The purpose of the study was to collect PRECIS-2 ratings at two points in time to assess whether the tool was sensitive to change in trial design, and to explore with investigators the rationale for rating shifts.

Methods

A mixed-methods design included sequential collection and analysis of quantitative data (PRECIS-2 ratings) and qualitative data. Ratings were collected at two annual, in-person project meetings, and subsequent interviews conducted with investigators were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo 11 Pro for Windows. Rating shifts were coded as either (1) actual change (reflects a change in procedure or protocol), (2) primarily a rating shift reflecting rater variability, or (3) themes that reflect important concepts about the tool and/or pragmatic trial design.

Results

Based on PRECIS-2 ratings, each trial was highly pragmatic at the planning phase and remained so 1 year later in the early phases of trial implementation. Over half of the 45 paired ratings for the nine PRECIS-2 domains indicated a rating change from Time 1 to Time 2 (N = 24, 53%). Of the 24 rating changes, only three represented a true change in the design of the trial. Analysis of rationales for rating shifts identified critical themes associated with the tool or pragmatic trial design more generally. Each trial contributed one or more relevant comments, with Eligibility, Flexibility of Adherence, and Follow-up each accounting for more than one.

Conclusions

PRECIS-2 has proved useful for “framing the conversation” about trial design among members of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project. Our findings suggest that design elements assessed by the PRECIS-2 tool may represent mostly stable decisions. Overall, there has been a positive response to using PRECIS-2 to guide conversations around trial design, and the project’s focus on the use of the tool by this group of early adopters has provided valuable feedback to inform future trainings on the tool.

Procalcitonin-guided decision making for duration of antibiotic therapy in neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (NeoPIns)

BACKGROUND

Up to 7% of term and late-preterm neonates in high-income countries receive antibiotics during the first 3 days of life because of suspected early-onset sepsis. The prevalence of culture-proven early-onset sepsis is 0·1% or less in high-income countries, suggesting substantial overtreatment. We assess whether procalcitonin-guided decision making for suspected early-onset sepsis can safely reduce the duration of antibiotic treatment.

METHODS

We did this randomised controlled intervention trial in Dutch (n=11), Swiss (n=4), Canadian (n=2), and Czech (n=1) hospitals. Neonates of gestational age 34 weeks or older, with suspected early-onset sepsis requiring antibiotic treatment were stratified into four risk categories by their treating physicians and randomly assigned [1:1] using a computer-generated list stratified per centre to procalcitonin-guided decision making or standard care-based antibiotic treatment. Neonates who underwent surgery within the first week of life or had major congenital malformations that would have required hospital admission were excluded. Only principal investigators were masked for group assignment. Co-primary outcomes were non-inferiority for re-infection or death in the first month of life (margin 2·0%) and superiority for duration of antibiotic therapy. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00854932.

FINDINGS

Between May 21, 2009, and Feb 14, 2015, we screened 2440 neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis. 622 infants were excluded due to lack of parental consent, 93 were ineligible for reasons unknown (68), congenital malformation (22), or surgery in the first week of life (3). 14 neonates were excluded as 100% data monitoring or retrieval was not feasible, and one neonate was excluded because their procalcitonin measurements could not be taken. 1710 neonates were enrolled and randomly assigned to either procalcitonin-guided therapy (n=866) or standard therapy (n=844). 1408 neonates underwent per-protocol analysis (745 in the procalcitonin group and 663 standard group). For the procalcitonin group, the duration of antibiotic therapy was reduced (intention to treat: 55·1 vs 65·0 h, p<0·0001; per protocol: 51·8 vs 64·0 h; p<0·0001). No sepsis-related deaths occurred, and 9 (<1%) of 1710 neonates had possible re-infection. The risk difference for non-inferiority was 0·1% (95% CI -4·6 to 4·8) in the intention-to-treat analysis (5 [0·6%] of 866 neonates in the procalcitonin group vs 4 [0·5%] of 844 neonates in the standard group) and 0·1% (-5·2 to 5·3) in the per-protocol analysis (5 [0·7%] of 745 neonates in the procalcitonin group vs 4 [0·6%] of 663 neonates in the standard group).

INTERPRETATION

Procalcitonin-guided decision making was superior to standard care in reducing antibiotic therapy in neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis. Non-inferiority for re-infection or death could not be shown due to the low occurrence of re-infections and absence of study-related death.

FUNDING

The Thrasher Foundation, the NutsOhra Foundation, the Sophia Foundation for Scientific research.

Peripherally inserted central catheters are associated with lower risk of bloodstream infection compared with central venous catheters in paediatric intensive care patients: a propensity-adjusted analysis

PURPOSE

Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is an important cause of complications in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) could be an alternative to central venous catheters (CVCs) and the effect of PICCs compared with CVCs on CLABSI prevention is unknown in PICUs. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether PICCs were associated with a protective effect for CLABSI when compared to CVCs in critically ill children.

METHODS

We have carried out a retrospective multicentre study in four PICUs in São Paulo, Brazil. We included patients aged 0-14 years, who needed a CVC or PICC during a PICU stay from January 2013 to December 2015. Our primary endpoint was CLABSI up to 30 days after catheter placement. We defined CLABSI based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Networks (NHSN) 2015 surveillance definitions. To account for potential confounders, we used propensity scores with inverse probability weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 1660 devices (922 PICCs and 738 CVCs) in 1255 children were included. The overall CLABSI incidence was 2.28 (95% CI 1.70-3.07)/1000 catheter-days. After covariate adjustment using propensity scores, CVCs were associated with higher risk of CLABSI (adjHR 2.20, 95% CI 1.05-4.61; p = 0.037) compared with PICCs. In a sensitivity analysis, CVCs remained associated with higher risk of CLABSI (adjHR 2.18, 95% CI 1.02-4.64; p = 0.044) after adding place of insertion and use of parenteral nutrition to the model as a time-dependent variable.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC should be an alternative to CVC in the paediatric intensive care setting for CLABSI prevention.