Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for preventing neonatal bloodstream infection: the PREVAIL 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:
11 2020
Historique:
entrez: 11 11 2020
pubmed: 12 11 2020
medline: 21 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Clinical trials show that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is insufficient evidence for use in newborn babies. The objectives were (1) to determine clinical effectiveness by conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters for reducing bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid infections (referred to as bloodstream infections); (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of the costs, cost-effectiveness and value of conducting additional research; and (3) to conduct a generalisability analysis of trial findings to neonatal care in the NHS. Three separate studies were undertaken, each addressing one of the three objectives. (1) This was a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial; (2) an analysis was undertaken of hospital care costs, lifetime cost-effectiveness and value of information from an NHS perspective; and (3) this was a retrospective cohort study of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England. The randomised controlled trial was conducted in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. Participants were babies who required a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (of 1 French gauge in size). The interventions were an antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter (coated with rifampicin-miconazole) or a standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, allocated randomly (1 : 1) using web randomisation. Study 1 - time to first bloodstream infection, sampled between 24 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal. Study 2 - cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter compared with the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Study 3 - risk-adjusted bloodstream rates in the trial compared with those in neonatal units in England. For study 3, the data used were as follows: (1) case report forms and linked death registrations; (2) case report forms and linked death registrations linked to administrative health records with 6-month follow-up; and (3) neonatal health records linked to infection surveillance data. Study 1, clinical effectiveness - 861 babies were randomised (antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter, The trial was open label as antimicrobial-impregnated and standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters are different colours. There was insufficient power to determine differences in rifampicin resistance. No evidence of benefit or harm was found of peripherally inserted central venous catheters impregnated with rifampicin-miconazole during neonatal care. Interventions with small effects on bloodstream infections could be cost-effective over a child's life course. Findings were generalisable to neonatal units in England. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and alternative approaches for preventing bloodstream infections in neonatal care. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81931394. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Babies who are born too early or who are very sick require intensive care after birth and during early life. Most will have a long, narrow, plastic tube, called a catheter, inserted into a vein. The catheter is used to give babies fluids containing medicines and nutrition to keep them well and help them grow. The catheter can remain in place for several days or weeks. But the presence of plastic tubing in the vein increases the risk of infection. This study aimed to find out whether or not catheters coated with antimicrobial medicines, called rifampicin and miconazole, could reduce the risk of infection. These medicines act by stopping germs from growing on the catheter, but do not harm the baby or interfere with other treatments. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 18 neonatal units in England. Whenever a baby needed a catheter, their parents were asked for consent to participate in the trial. The baby was then randomised, similar to tossing a coin, to receive either the antimicrobial catheter or a standard one. A total of 861 babies participated. We followed up all babies in the same way until after the catheter was removed to compare how often babies in each group had an infection. It was found that antimicrobial catheters were no better or worse at preventing infection than standard catheters. Antimicrobial catheters cost more and we found no evidence of benefit; these results suggest that their use in neonatal intensive care is not justified. It was calculated that further research on ways to reduce infection may be good value for money, depending on the costs of this research. The babies who took part in this study were typical of babies in England receiving catheters, meaning that the results can be applied across the NHS. Future research should focus on catheters that contain other types of antimicrobials and alternative ways of preventing infection.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Clinical trials show that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is insufficient evidence for use in newborn babies.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were (1) to determine clinical effectiveness by conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters for reducing bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid infections (referred to as bloodstream infections); (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of the costs, cost-effectiveness and value of conducting additional research; and (3) to conduct a generalisability analysis of trial findings to neonatal care in the NHS.
DESIGN
Three separate studies were undertaken, each addressing one of the three objectives. (1) This was a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial; (2) an analysis was undertaken of hospital care costs, lifetime cost-effectiveness and value of information from an NHS perspective; and (3) this was a retrospective cohort study of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England.
SETTING
The randomised controlled trial was conducted in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were babies who required a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (of 1 French gauge in size).
INTERVENTIONS
The interventions were an antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter (coated with rifampicin-miconazole) or a standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, allocated randomly (1 : 1) using web randomisation.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Study 1 - time to first bloodstream infection, sampled between 24 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal. Study 2 - cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter compared with the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Study 3 - risk-adjusted bloodstream rates in the trial compared with those in neonatal units in England. For study 3, the data used were as follows: (1) case report forms and linked death registrations; (2) case report forms and linked death registrations linked to administrative health records with 6-month follow-up; and (3) neonatal health records linked to infection surveillance data.
RESULTS
Study 1, clinical effectiveness - 861 babies were randomised (antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter,
LIMITATIONS
The trial was open label as antimicrobial-impregnated and standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters are different colours. There was insufficient power to determine differences in rifampicin resistance.
CONCLUSIONS
No evidence of benefit or harm was found of peripherally inserted central venous catheters impregnated with rifampicin-miconazole during neonatal care. Interventions with small effects on bloodstream infections could be cost-effective over a child's life course. Findings were generalisable to neonatal units in England. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and alternative approaches for preventing bloodstream infections in neonatal care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81931394.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Babies who are born too early or who are very sick require intensive care after birth and during early life. Most will have a long, narrow, plastic tube, called a catheter, inserted into a vein. The catheter is used to give babies fluids containing medicines and nutrition to keep them well and help them grow. The catheter can remain in place for several days or weeks. But the presence of plastic tubing in the vein increases the risk of infection. This study aimed to find out whether or not catheters coated with antimicrobial medicines, called rifampicin and miconazole, could reduce the risk of infection. These medicines act by stopping germs from growing on the catheter, but do not harm the baby or interfere with other treatments. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 18 neonatal units in England. Whenever a baby needed a catheter, their parents were asked for consent to participate in the trial. The baby was then randomised, similar to tossing a coin, to receive either the antimicrobial catheter or a standard one. A total of 861 babies participated. We followed up all babies in the same way until after the catheter was removed to compare how often babies in each group had an infection. It was found that antimicrobial catheters were no better or worse at preventing infection than standard catheters. Antimicrobial catheters cost more and we found no evidence of benefit; these results suggest that their use in neonatal intensive care is not justified. It was calculated that further research on ways to reduce infection may be good value for money, depending on the costs of this research. The babies who took part in this study were typical of babies in England receiving catheters, meaning that the results can be applied across the NHS. Future research should focus on catheters that contain other types of antimicrobials and alternative ways of preventing infection.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
Babies who are born too early or who are very sick require intensive care after birth and during early life. Most will have a long, narrow, plastic tube, called a catheter, inserted into a vein. The catheter is used to give babies fluids containing medicines and nutrition to keep them well and help them grow. The catheter can remain in place for several days or weeks. But the presence of plastic tubing in the vein increases the risk of infection. This study aimed to find out whether or not catheters coated with antimicrobial medicines, called rifampicin and miconazole, could reduce the risk of infection. These medicines act by stopping germs from growing on the catheter, but do not harm the baby or interfere with other treatments. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 18 neonatal units in England. Whenever a baby needed a catheter, their parents were asked for consent to participate in the trial. The baby was then randomised, similar to tossing a coin, to receive either the antimicrobial catheter or a standard one. A total of 861 babies participated. We followed up all babies in the same way until after the catheter was removed to compare how often babies in each group had an infection. It was found that antimicrobial catheters were no better or worse at preventing infection than standard catheters. Antimicrobial catheters cost more and we found no evidence of benefit; these results suggest that their use in neonatal intensive care is not justified. It was calculated that further research on ways to reduce infection may be good value for money, depending on the costs of this research. The babies who took part in this study were typical of babies in England receiving catheters, meaning that the results can be applied across the NHS. Future research should focus on catheters that contain other types of antimicrobials and alternative ways of preventing infection.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33174528
doi: 10.3310/hta24570
pmc: PMC7681353
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anti-Infective Agents 0
Miconazole 7NNO0D7S5M
Rifampin VJT6J7R4TR

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN81931394']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-190

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 12/167/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 103975
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K006584/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 04/51/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 08/13/47
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 03/37/06
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016 Jul 01;6(7):
pubmed: 27270559
Crit Care Med. 1999 Jun;27(6):1128-31
pubmed: 10397217
Am J Infect Control. 2017 Feb 1;45(2):108-114
pubmed: 28341283
Pediatrics. 2009 Jan;123(1):313-8
pubmed: 19117897
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 6;352(1):9-19
pubmed: 15635108
Rev Infect Dis. 1990 May-Jun;12 Suppl 4:S410-20
pubmed: 2114034
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016 Apr;35(4):401-6
pubmed: 26629870
Med Decis Making. 2017 Feb;37(2):148-161
pubmed: 27105651
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2009 Jun;22(3):224-8
pubmed: 19369867
Acta Paediatr. 2014 Dec;103(12):1233-8
pubmed: 25164200
J Hosp Infect. 2003 Feb;53(2):129-35
pubmed: 12586573
Lancet. 2001 Jul 14;358(9276):135-8
pubmed: 11463434
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 22;12(6):e0180134
pubmed: 28640920
Pediatrics. 2005 Mar;115(3):696-703
pubmed: 15741374
Health Econ. 2006 Jul;15(7):677-87
pubmed: 16491461
Anticancer Res. 2010 Apr;30(4):1353-8
pubmed: 20530452
Early Hum Dev. 2012 May;88 Suppl 2:S69-74
pubmed: 22633519
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Oct;30(10):1891-9
pubmed: 15278273
Big Data Soc. 2017 Dec 5;4(2):2053951717745678
pubmed: 30381794
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 12;14(12):e0226040
pubmed: 31830076
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
pubmed: 9566468
Crit Care. 2009;13(2):R35
pubmed: 19284570
Br J Cancer. 1976 Dec;34(6):585-612
pubmed: 795448
Med Decis Making. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(4):662-74
pubmed: 21602487
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 1;46(1):348-355
pubmed: 27283160
Health Econ. 1999 May;8(3):269-74
pubmed: 10348422
BMJ. 2012 Dec 04;345:e7976
pubmed: 23212881
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Dec;33(12):2058-68
pubmed: 17940746
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jan;33(1):5-11
pubmed: 25145803
J Pediatr. 2011 Nov;159(5):720-5
pubmed: 21784435
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 May 15;64(suppl_2):S131-S140
pubmed: 28475779
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009 Jul-Aug;33(4):397-403
pubmed: 19401480
J Hosp Infect. 2014 Jan;86 Suppl 1:S1-70
pubmed: 24330862
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Aug 1;22(15):3163-71
pubmed: 15284269
Acta Paediatr. 2009 Aug;98(8):1294-9
pubmed: 19438843
Arch Dis Child. 2020 May;105(5):452-457
pubmed: 31836635
Child Care Health Dev. 2013 May;39(3):345-57
pubmed: 22372844
Pediatrics. 2002 Aug;110(2 Pt 1):285-91
pubmed: 12165580
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Feb 20;296(6621):583-5
pubmed: 3126913
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2013 Apr 04;2(1):11
pubmed: 23557510
Lancet. 2008 Jan 19;371(9608):261-9
pubmed: 18207020
Crit Care Med. 2009 Feb;37(2):702-12
pubmed: 19114884
J Health Econ. 1999 Jun;18(3):341-64
pubmed: 10537899
JAMA. 1999 Aug 11;282(6):554-60
pubmed: 10450717
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018 Nov;103(6):F547-F553
pubmed: 29208666
PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 24;7(3):e1000251
pubmed: 20352064
Crit Care Med. 2006 Mar;34(3):668-75
pubmed: 16505651
Pediatrics. 2013 Aug;132(2):e372-80
pubmed: 23878051
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018 Sep;103(5):F422-F429
pubmed: 29175985
N Engl J Med. 2000 Aug 10;343(6):378-84
pubmed: 10933736
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2019 Jun;3(6):381-390
pubmed: 31040096
Value Health. 2010 Aug;13(5):509-18
pubmed: 20230546
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Apr;34(4):349-61
pubmed: 26660529
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Aug;47(4):316-9
pubmed: 8228770
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Dec;32(12):1157-70
pubmed: 25069632
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jul;35(5):570-83
pubmed: 25810269
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Jul;167(7):662-8
pubmed: 23689313
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 20;4:CD008436
pubmed: 27095103
Front Pediatr. 2017 Jun 20;5:142
pubmed: 28676849
N Engl J Med. 1999 Jan 7;340(1):1-8
pubmed: 9878638
N Engl J Med. 2001 Jun 28;344(26):1966-72
pubmed: 11430325
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Aug 15;127(4):267-74
pubmed: 9265425
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):423-433
pubmed: 30635141
Pediatrics. 2010 Sep;126(3):443-56
pubmed: 20732945
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 16;3:CD007878
pubmed: 26982376
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1732-42
pubmed: 26946925
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):81-93
pubmed: 25057048
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Aug;43(8):1159-1161
pubmed: 28349180
J Perinatol. 2013 Jul;33(7):558-64
pubmed: 23328927
J Pediatr. 1996 Jul;129(1):63-71
pubmed: 8757564
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(14):1-503, v-vi
pubmed: 25692211
J Invest Dermatol. 1998 Aug;111(2):320-6
pubmed: 9699737
Crit Care Med. 2000 Sep;28(9):3332-8
pubmed: 11008998
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017 Sep;102(5):F466
pubmed: 28676562
Pediatrics. 2011 Aug;128(2):e348-57
pubmed: 21768312
Pediatr Res. 2013 Dec;74 Suppl 1:17-34
pubmed: 24366461
Euro Surveill. 2016;21(8):30143
pubmed: 26940884
J Pediatr. 2010 Nov;157(5):751-6.e1
pubmed: 20598317
Early Hum Dev. 2004 Nov;80(2):103-13
pubmed: 15500991
J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2013 Mar;2(1):67-70
pubmed: 26619445
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004 Dec;54(6):1109-15
pubmed: 15537696
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Jun;45(3):954-64
pubmed: 26686842
JAMA. 2004 Nov 17;292(19):2357-65
pubmed: 15547163
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 27;(9):CD011078
pubmed: 26409791
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1124-34
pubmed: 19659702
Public Health. 2014 May;128(5):399-403
pubmed: 24794180
Am J Infect Control. 2011 May;39(4 Suppl 1):S1-34
pubmed: 21511081
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989 May-Jun;12(3):253-5
pubmed: 2791487
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Dec 1;49(11):1749-55
pubmed: 19857164
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012 Apr;54(4):353-60
pubmed: 22329739
Pediatrics. 2003 Dec;112(6 Pt 1):1290-7
pubmed: 14654599
J Pediatr. 1991 Jun;118(6):938-43
pubmed: 1828267
J Hosp Infect. 2010 Sep;76(1):1-11
pubmed: 20638155
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000 Jul;46(1):45-50
pubmed: 10882687
Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2016 Aug;101(4):216-8
pubmed: 26968617
Ann Surg. 2005 Aug;242(2):193-200
pubmed: 16041209
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018 May;103(3):F208-F215
pubmed: 28883097
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Mar;20(18):vii-xxviii, 1-219
pubmed: 26935961
Acta Paediatr. 2014 Dec;103(12):1211-8
pubmed: 25073543
Clin Perinatol. 2010 Jun;37(2):307-37
pubmed: 20569810
J Pediatr. 2011 Sep;159(3):392-7
pubmed: 21489560
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Apr;37(4):513-530
pubmed: 30294758
Pediatrics. 2009 Feb;123(2):e312-27
pubmed: 19171583
Early Hum Dev. 2006 Feb;82(2):77-84
pubmed: 16466865
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000 Jul;154(7):725-31
pubmed: 10891026
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005 Nov;90(6):F484-8
pubmed: 15899930
J Pediatr. 2008 Aug;153(2):170-5, 175.e1
pubmed: 18534228
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;27(3):236-43
pubmed: 24751892
BMC Med. 2013 Mar 25;11:80
pubmed: 23531108

Auteurs

Ruth Gilbert (R)

UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Health Data Research UK, London, UK.

Michaela Brown (M)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Rita Faria (R)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Caroline Fraser (C)

UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Chloe Donohue (C)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Naomi Rainford (N)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Alessandro Grosso (A)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Ajay K Sinha (AK)

Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Jon Dorling (J)

Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Dalhousie University IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Jim Gray (J)

Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.

Berit Muller-Pebody (B)

National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.

Katie Harron (K)

UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Tracy Moitt (T)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

William McGuire (W)

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Laura Bojke (L)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Carrol Gamble (C)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Sam J Oddie (SJ)

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Bradford Neonatology, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, 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