Search

Background: High flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) are two widely used modes of non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care units. The FIRST-ABC randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP in two distinct critical care populations: acutely ill children ('step-up' RCT) and extubated children ('step-down' RCT). Clinical effectiveness findings (time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support) showed that HFNC was non-inferior to CPAP in the step-up RCT, but failed to meet non-inferiority criteria in the step-down RCT. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP., Methods: All-cause mortality, health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL), and costs up to six months were reported using FIRST-ABC RCTs data. HrQoL was measured with the age-appropriate Paediatric Quality of Life Generic Core Scales questionnaire and mapped onto the Child Health Utility 9D index score at six months. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were estimated by combining HrQoL with mortality. Costs at six months were calculated by measuring and valuing healthcare resources used in paediatric critical care units, general medical wards and wider health service. The cost-effectiveness analysis used regression methods to report the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP at six months and summarised the uncertainties around the incremental cost-effectiveness results., Results: In both RCTs, the incremental QALYs at six months were similar between the randomised groups. The estimated incremental cost at six months was - £4565 (95% CI - £11,499 to £2368) and - £5702 (95% CI - £11,328 to - £75) for step-down and step-up RCT, respectively. The incremental net benefits of HFNC versus CPAP in step-down RCT and step-up RCT were £4388 (95% CI - £2551 to £11,327) and £5628 (95% CI - £8 to £11,264) respectively. The cost-effectiveness results were surrounded by considerable uncertainties. The results were similar across most pre-specified subgroups, and the base case results were robust to alternative assumptions., Conclusions: HFNC compared to CPAP as non-invasive respiratory support for critically-ill children in paediatric critical care units reduces mean costs and is relatively cost-effective overall and for key subgroups, although there is considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding this result., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethical approval and consent to participate: The FIRST-ABC master protocol was approved by the East of England–Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (19/EE/0185) and the UK Health Research Authority (IRAS 260536). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (ISRCTN60048867). Written informed consent was obtained from parents/legal guardians of each trial participant. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors report funding from the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme to their institutions for the work presented in the manuscript. KR is Director of the NIHR Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care., Methods: In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT., Results: Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2)., Conclusions: Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415 . Registered on 23 November 2015.

Abstract Background Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care. Methods In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT. Results Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2). Conclusions Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415. Registered on 23 November 2015.