Different temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever due to infection: the FEVER feasibility RCT.


Journal

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2019
Historique:
entrez: 23 2 2019
pubmed: 23 2 2019
medline: 5 6 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Fever accelerates host immune system control of pathogens but at a high metabolic cost. The optimal approach to fever management and the optimal temperature thresholds used for treatment in critically ill children are unknown. To determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different temperature thresholds for antipyretic management. A mixed-methods feasibility study comprising three linked studies - (1) a qualitative study exploring parent and clinician views, (2) an observational study of the epidemiology of fever in children with infection in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and (3) a pilot RCT with an integrated-perspectives study. Participants were recruited from (1) four hospitals in England via social media (for the FEVER qualitative study), (2) 22 PICUs in the UK (for the FEVER observational study) and (3) four PICUs in England (for the FEVER pilot RCT). (1) Parents of children with relevant experience were recruited to the FEVER qualitative study, (2) patients who were unplanned admissions to PICUs were recruited to the FEVER observational study and (3) children admitted with infection requiring mechanical ventilation were recruited to the FEVER pilot RCT. Parents of children and clinicians involved in the pilot RCT. The FEVER qualitative study and the FEVER observational study had no interventions. In the FEVER pilot RCT, children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) using research without prior consent (RWPC) to permissive (39.5 °C) or restrictive (37.5 °C) temperature thresholds for antipyretics during their PICU stay while mechanically ventilated. (1) The acceptability of FEVER, RWPC and potential outcomes (in the FEVER qualitative study), (2) the size of the potentially eligible population and the temperature thresholds used (in the FEVER observational study) and (3) recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between groups and distribution of potential outcomes (in the FEVER pilot RCT). In the FEVER qualitative study, 25 parents were interviewed and 56 clinicians took part in focus groups. Both the parents and the clinicians found the study acceptable. Clinicians raised concerns regarding temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain/discomfort. In the FEVER observational study, 1853 children with unplanned admissions and infection were admitted to 22 PICUs between March and August 2017. The recruitment rate was 10.9 per site per month. The majority of critically ill children with a maximum temperature of > 37.5 °C received antipyretics. In the FEVER pilot RCT, 100 eligible patients were randomised between September and December 2017 at a recruitment rate of 11.1 per site per month. Consent was provided for 49 out of 51 participants in the restrictive temperature group, but only for 38 out of 49 participants in the permissive temperature group. A separation of 0.5 °C (95% confidence interval 0.2 °C to 0.8 °C) between groups was achieved. A high completeness of outcome measures was achieved. Sixty parents of 57 children took part in interviews and/or completed questionnaires and 98 clinicians took part in focus groups or completed a survey. Parents and clinicians found the pilot RCT and RWPC acceptable. Concerns about children being in pain/discomfort were cited as reasons for withdrawal and non-consent by parents and non-adherence to the protocol by clinicians. Different recruitment periods for observational and pilot studies may not fully reflect the population that is eligible for a definitive RCT. The results identified barriers to delivering the definitive FEVER RCT, including acceptability of the permissive temperature threshold. The findings also provided insight into how these barriers may be overcome, such as by limiting the patient inclusion criteria to invasive ventilation only and by improved site training. A definitive FEVER RCT using a modified protocol should be conducted, but further work is required to agree important outcome measures for clinical trials among critically ill children. The FEVER observational study is registered as NCT03028818 and the FEVER pilot RCT is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16022198. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Fever accelerates host immune system control of pathogens but at a high metabolic cost. The optimal approach to fever management and the optimal temperature thresholds used for treatment in critically ill children are unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different temperature thresholds for antipyretic management.
DESIGN
A mixed-methods feasibility study comprising three linked studies - (1) a qualitative study exploring parent and clinician views, (2) an observational study of the epidemiology of fever in children with infection in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and (3) a pilot RCT with an integrated-perspectives study.
SETTING
Participants were recruited from (1) four hospitals in England via social media (for the FEVER qualitative study), (2) 22 PICUs in the UK (for the FEVER observational study) and (3) four PICUs in England (for the FEVER pilot RCT).
PARTICIPANTS
(1) Parents of children with relevant experience were recruited to the FEVER qualitative study, (2) patients who were unplanned admissions to PICUs were recruited to the FEVER observational study and (3) children admitted with infection requiring mechanical ventilation were recruited to the FEVER pilot RCT. Parents of children and clinicians involved in the pilot RCT.
INTERVENTIONS
The FEVER qualitative study and the FEVER observational study had no interventions. In the FEVER pilot RCT, children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) using research without prior consent (RWPC) to permissive (39.5 °C) or restrictive (37.5 °C) temperature thresholds for antipyretics during their PICU stay while mechanically ventilated.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
(1) The acceptability of FEVER, RWPC and potential outcomes (in the FEVER qualitative study), (2) the size of the potentially eligible population and the temperature thresholds used (in the FEVER observational study) and (3) recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between groups and distribution of potential outcomes (in the FEVER pilot RCT).
RESULTS
In the FEVER qualitative study, 25 parents were interviewed and 56 clinicians took part in focus groups. Both the parents and the clinicians found the study acceptable. Clinicians raised concerns regarding temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain/discomfort. In the FEVER observational study, 1853 children with unplanned admissions and infection were admitted to 22 PICUs between March and August 2017. The recruitment rate was 10.9 per site per month. The majority of critically ill children with a maximum temperature of > 37.5 °C received antipyretics. In the FEVER pilot RCT, 100 eligible patients were randomised between September and December 2017 at a recruitment rate of 11.1 per site per month. Consent was provided for 49 out of 51 participants in the restrictive temperature group, but only for 38 out of 49 participants in the permissive temperature group. A separation of 0.5 °C (95% confidence interval 0.2 °C to 0.8 °C) between groups was achieved. A high completeness of outcome measures was achieved. Sixty parents of 57 children took part in interviews and/or completed questionnaires and 98 clinicians took part in focus groups or completed a survey. Parents and clinicians found the pilot RCT and RWPC acceptable. Concerns about children being in pain/discomfort were cited as reasons for withdrawal and non-consent by parents and non-adherence to the protocol by clinicians.
LIMITATIONS
Different recruitment periods for observational and pilot studies may not fully reflect the population that is eligible for a definitive RCT.
CONCLUSIONS
The results identified barriers to delivering the definitive FEVER RCT, including acceptability of the permissive temperature threshold. The findings also provided insight into how these barriers may be overcome, such as by limiting the patient inclusion criteria to invasive ventilation only and by improved site training. A definitive FEVER RCT using a modified protocol should be conducted, but further work is required to agree important outcome measures for clinical trials among critically ill children.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The FEVER observational study is registered as NCT03028818 and the FEVER pilot RCT is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16022198.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Identifiants

pubmed: 30793698
doi: 10.3310/hta23050
pmc: PMC6409492
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antipyretics 0

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN16022198']
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03028818']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-148

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HTA/15/44/01
Pays : United Kingdom

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Mark J Peters is a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment General Board. Kathryn M Rowan is a member of the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research Board.

Auteurs

Mark J Peters (MJ)

Respiratory, Critical Care and Anaesthesia Unit, University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.

Imran Khan (I)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Kerry Woolfall (K)

Department of Psychological Sciences, North West Hub for Trials Methodology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Elizabeth Deja (E)

Department of Psychological Sciences, North West Hub for Trials Methodology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Paul R Mouncey (PR)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Jerome Wulff (J)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Alexina Mason (A)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Rachel Agbeko (R)

Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Great North Children's Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Elizabeth S Draper (ES)

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Blaise Fenn (B)

Patient/Parent Representative, London, UK.

Doug W Gould (DW)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Abby Koelewyn (A)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Nigel Klein (N)

Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.

Christine Mackerness (C)

Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Great North Children's Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Sian Martin (S)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Lauran O'Neill (L)

Respiratory, Critical Care and Anaesthesia Unit, University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.

Padmanabhan Ramnarayan (P)

Children's Acute Transport Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.

Shane Tibby (S)

Evelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Lyvonne Tume (L)

Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.

Jason Watkins (J)

Patient/Parent Representative, London, UK.

Kent Thorburn (K)

Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.

Paul Wellman (P)

Evelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

David A Harrison (DA)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Kathryn M Rowan (KM)

Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH