Fresh Red Cells for Transfusion in Critically Ill Adults: An Economic Evaluation of the Standard Issue Transfusion Versus Fresher Red-Cell Use in Intensive Care (TRANSFUSE) Clinical Trial

The safety and efficacy of transfusing red blood cells stored for different durations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to resolve the uncertainty of whether transfusion of fresher red blood cells (RBCs) is better or not with regard to the safety and efficacy.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with our protocol registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022379183).

RESULTS

After a literature search, 13,247 records were identified, and 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 53,859 participants were eligible and included in this review. The results in our review suggested that there was no significant effect of fresher vs older RBCs on mortality (relative risk [RR] = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.99-1.09; P = .39; I2 = 0%), transfusion reactions (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.33; P = .64; I2 = 0%). However, the transfusion of fresher RBCs might increase the risk of nosocomial infection (RR = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20; P = .02; I2 = 0%), whereas there was no significant difference in the fresh vs old subgroup (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.12; P = .28; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Our study updated and reinforced the evidence of previously published systematic reviews that support the safety and efficiency of current practice of issuing the oldest available RBCs in the blood bank inventory.

Uptake of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in Australia: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Australia's clinical trials sector is highly productive with continued sector investment needed to enhance research impact. Generating economic evidence alongside trials has the potential to facilitate the implementation of trial results into practice. Ascertaining the use of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials can assist in determining whether clinical trials fully realize and operationalize their potential to change policy and practice. The aims of this study were to ascertain the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials and explore associations between uptake and trial characteristics.

METHODS

This observational study comprised a descriptive analysis of clinical trials registries, a cross-sectional survey of Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) networks, and a subgroup analysis of completed acute care trials. Descriptive analyses of trial registrations were conducted, with logistic regressions used to identify predictors of proposing and subsequently publishing a health economic evaluation alongside acute care trials.

RESULTS

Few randomized Australian-led clinical trials (11% of 9251) and ACTA network trials (43% of 227) proposed a health economic evaluation. In the subgroup analysis, 22% of the 324 acute care trials and 53% of the 38 ACTA network acute care trials proposed a health economic evaluation. Acute care trials funded by government bodies were significantly more likely to propose and publish a health economic evaluation than those funded by hospitals, universities, and other funders, after adjusting for phase, registration year, primary sponsor type, and comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Current uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials is low, with uptake higher among the subset of ACTA network trials. This is despite economic evidence playing an increasingly prominent role in health system management, as well as rising health expenditure, limited budgets, and competing demands. There is significant opportunity to embed health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, to increase research outputs and optimize research translation. Investing in clinical trial networks that support funding for a health economist or a health economic evaluation may be an effective strategy to increase the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside trials.

Potential Predictors for Deterioration of Renal Function After Transfusion

BACKGROUND

Transfusion of packed red blood cells (pRBCs) is still associated with risks. This study aims to determine whether renal function deterioration in the context of individual transfusions in individual patients can be predicted using machine learning. Recipient and donor characteristics linked to increased risk are identified.

METHODS

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05466370) and was conducted after local ethics committee approval. We evaluated 3366 transfusion episodes from a university hospital between October 31, 2016, and August 31, 2020. Random forest models were tuned and trained via Python auto-sklearn package to predict acute kidney injury (AKI). The models included recipients' and donors' demographic parameters and laboratory values, donor questionnaire results, and the age of the pRBCs. Bootstrapping on the test dataset was used to calculate the means and standard deviations of various performance metrics.

RESULTS

AKI as defined by a modified Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criterion developed after 17.4% transfusion episodes (base rate). AKI could be predicted with an area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) of 0.73 ± 0.02. The negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values were 0.90 ± 0.02 and 0.32 ± 0.03, respectively. Feature importance and relative risk analyses revealed that donor features were far less important than recipient features for predicting posttransfusion AKI.

CONCLUSIONS

Surprisingly, only the recipients' characteristics played a decisive role in AKI prediction. Based on this result, we speculate that the selection of a specific pRBC may have less influence than recipient characteristics.

Economic evaluations for intensive care unit randomised clinical trials in Australia and New Zealand: Practical recommendations for researchers

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations of intensive care unit (ICU) interventions have specific considerations, including how to cost ICU stays and accurately measure quality of life in survivors. The aim of this article was to develop best practice recommendations for economic evaluations alongside future ICU randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

REVIEW METHODS

We collated our experience based on expert consensus across several recent economic evaluations to provide best-practice, practical recommendations for researchers conducting economic evaluations alongside RCTs in the ICU. Recommendations were structured according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Task Force Report.

RESULTS

We discuss recommendations across the components of economic evaluations, including: types of economic evaluation, the population and sample size, study perspective, comparators, time horizon, choice of health outcomes, measurement of effectiveness, measurement and valuation of quality of life, estimating resources and costs, analytical methods, and the increment cost-effectiveness ratio. We also provide future directions for research with regard to developing more robust economic evaluations for the ICU.

CONCLUSION

Economic evaluations should be built alongside ICU RCTs and should be designed a priori using appropriate follow-up and data collection to capture patient-relevant outcomes. Further work is needed to improve the quality of data available for linkage in Australia as well as developing costing methods for the ICU and appropriate quality of life measurements.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020.

SETTING

Adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult critically ill patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Effect of platelet storage duration on clinical outcomes and incremental platelet change in critically ill children

The safety of platelet (PLT) concentrates with longer storage duration has been questioned due to biochemical and functional changes that occur during blood collection and storage. Some studies have suggested that transfusion efficacy is decreased and immune system dysfunction is worsened with increased storage age. We sought to describe the effect of PLT storage age on laboratory and clinical outcomes in critically ill children receiving PLT transfusions.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational point-prevalence study. Children (3 days to 16 years of age) from 82 pediatric intensive care units in 16 countries were enrolled if they received a PLT transfusion during one of the predefined screening weeks. Outcomes (including PLT count increments, organ dysfunction, and transfusion reactions) were evaluated by PLT storage age.

RESULTS

Data from 497 patients were analyzed. The age of the PLT transfusions ranged from 1 to 7 days but the majority were 4 (24%) or 5 (36%) days of age. Nearly two-thirds of PLT concentrates were transfused to prevent bleeding. The indication for transfusion did not differ between storage age groups (P = .610). After patient and product variables were adjusted for, there was no association between storage age and incremental change in total PLT count or organ dysfunction scoring. A significant association between fresher storage age and febrile transfusion reactions (P = .002) was observed.

CONCLUSION

The results in a large, diverse cohort of critically ill children raise questions about the impact of storage age on transfusion and clinical outcomes which require further prospective evaluation.