TY - JOUR
T1 - Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
T2 - The PARAMEDIC2 RCT
AU - Perkins, Gavin D.
AU - Ji, Chen
AU - Achana, Felix
AU - Black, John J.M.
AU - Charlton, Karl
AU - Crawford, James
AU - de Paeztron, Adam
AU - Deakin, Charles
AU - Docherty, Mark
AU - Finn, Judith
AU - Fothergill, Rachael T.
AU - Gates, Simon
AU - Gunson, Imogen
AU - Han, Kyee
AU - Hennings, Susie
AU - Horton, Jessica
AU - Khan, Kamran
AU - Lamb, Sarah
AU - Long, John
AU - Miller, Joshua
AU - Moore, Fionna
AU - Nolan, Jerry
AU - O’shea, Lyndsey
AU - Petrou, Stavros
AU - Pocock, Helen
AU - Quinn, Tom
AU - Rees, Nigel
AU - Regan, Scott
AU - Rosser, Andy
AU - Scomparin, Charlotte
AU - Slowther, Anne
AU - Lall, Ranjit
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Funding Information:
The trial was approved by the South Central Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (reference number 14/SC/0157) and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (EudraCT number 2014-000792-11). The trial was sponsored by the University of Warwick and was conducted in accordance with the Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 [European Commission. Clinical Trials – Directive 2001/20/EC. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/clinical-trials/directive_en (accessed 23 September 2020)], The Medicines for Human Use Act (Clinical Trial) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1031 and Amendment (No.2) Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2984 [Great Britain. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. London: The Stationery Office; 2004 (and amendment in 2006)].
Funding Information:
The trial was approved by the South Central Oxford C REC (reference number 14/SC/0157) and the MHRA (EudraCT number 2014-000792-11). The trial was sponsored by the University of Warwick and was conducted in accordance with the Directive 2001/20/EC122 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 and The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations act,123 statutory instrument 2004 No. 1031 and amendment (No. 2) statutory instrument 2006 No. 2984.
Funding Information:
Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Funding Information:
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 12/127/126. The contractual start date was in March 2014. The draft report began editorial review in August 2019 and was accepted for publication in July 2020. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Perkins et al.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - Background: Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. Design: This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. Setting: This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. Participants: Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given. Interventions: Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1: 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. Results: From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. Limitations: The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. Conclusions: Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. Future work: Further research is required to better understand patients’ preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11.
AB - Background: Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. Design: This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. Setting: This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. Participants: Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given. Interventions: Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1: 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. Results: From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. Limitations: The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. Conclusions: Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. Future work: Further research is required to better understand patients’ preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85105688705
U2 - 10.3310/HTA25250
DO - 10.3310/HTA25250
M3 - Article
C2 - 33861194
AN - SCOPUS:85105688705
SN - 1366-5278
VL - 25
SP - 1
EP - 165
JO - Health Technology Assessment
JF - Health Technology Assessment
IS - 25
ER -