Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children

Background Guidelines and clinical practice for the prevention of complications associated with central venous catheters (CVC) around the world vary greatly. Most institutions recommend the use of heparin to prevent occlusion, however there is debate regarding the need for heparin and evidence to suggest 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline) may be as effective. The use of heparin is not without risk, may be unnecessary and is also associated with increased cost. Objectives To assess the clinical effects (benefits and harms) of intermittent flushing of heparin versus normal saline to prevent occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children. Search Methods The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (Issue 3, 2015). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials that compared the efficacy of normal saline with heparin to prevent occlusion of long term CVCs in infants and children aged up to 18 years of age were included. We excluded temporary CVCs and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). Data Collection and Analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial inclusion criteria, trial quality and extracted data. Rate ratios were calculated for two outcome measures - occlusion of the CVC and central line-associated blood stream infection. Other outcome measures included duration of catheter placement, inability to withdraw blood from the catheter, use of urokinase or recombinant tissue plasminogen, incidence of removal or re-insertion of the catheter, or both, and other CVC-related complications such as dislocation of CVCs, other CVC site infections and thrombosis. Main Results Three trials with a total of 245 participants were included in this review. The three trials directly compared the use of normal saline and heparin, however, between studies, all used different protocols for the standard and experimental arms with different concentrations of heparin and different frequency of flushes reported. In addition, not all studies reported on all outcomes. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low because there was no blinding, heterogeneity and inconsistency between studies was high and the confidence intervals were wide. CVC occlusion was assessed in all three trials (243 participants). We were able to pool the results of two trials for the outcomes of CVC occlusion and CVC-associated blood stream infection. The estimated rate ratio for CVC occlusion per 1000 catheter days between the normal saline and heparin group was 0.75 (95% CI 0.10 to 5.51, two studies, 229 participants, very low quality evidence). The estimated rate ratio for CVC-associated blood stream infection was 1.48 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.37, two studies, 231 participants; low quality evidence). The duration of catheter placement was reported to be similar between the two study arms, in one study (203 participants). Authors' Conclusions The review found that there was not enough evidence to determine the effects of intermittent flushing of heparin versus normal saline to prevent occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children. Ultimately, if this evidence were available, the development of evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines and consistency of practice would be facilitated.

Complete cytogenetic response and major molecular response as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in first-line treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia: A case study for technology appraisal on the basis of surrogate outcomes evidence

Objectives In 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessed dasatinib, nilotinib, and standard-dose imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Licensing of these alternative treatments was based on randomized controlled trials assessing complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) at 12 months as primary end points. We use this case study to illustrate the validation of CCyR and MMR as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in CML and how this evidence was used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s recommendation on the public funding of these first-line treatments for CML. Methods We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the association between CCyR and MMR at 12 months and overall survival in patients with chronic phase CML. We estimated life expectancy by extrapolating long-term survival from the weighted overall survival stratified according to the achievement of CCyR and MMR. Results Five studies provided data on the observational association between CCyR or MMR and overall survival. Based on the pooled association between CCyR and MMR and overall survival, our modeling showed comparable predicted mean duration of survival (21–23 years) following first-line treatment with imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib. Conclusions This case study illustrates the consideration of surrogate outcome evidence in health technology assessment. Although it is often recommended that the acceptance of surrogate outcomes be based on randomized controlled trial data demonstrating an association between the treatment effect on both the surrogate outcome and the final outcome, this case study shows that policymakers may be willing to accept a lower level of evidence (i.e., observational association).

First-Line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases

Introduction Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. Methods For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). Results In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation–positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.

Visual performance at passive level crossings with long sighting distances

The third edition of the Australian Standard AS1742 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 7 provides a method of calculating the sighting distance required to safely proceed at passive level crossings based on the physics of moving vehicles. This required distance becomes greater with higher line speeds and slower, heavier vehicles so that it may return quite a long sighting distance. However, at such distances, there are also concerns around whether drivers would be able to reliably identify a train in order to make an informed decision regarding whether it would be safe to proceed across the level crossing. In order to determine whether drivers are able to make reliable judgements to proceed in these circumstances, this study assessed the distance at which a train first becomes identifiable to a driver as well as their, ability to detect the movement of the train. A site was selected in Victoria, and 36 participants with good visual acuity observed 4 trains in the 100-140 km/h range. While most participants could detect the train from a very long distance (2.2 km on average), they could only detect that the train was moving at much shorter distances (1.3 km on average). Large variability was observed between participants, with 4 participants consistently detecting trains later than other participants. Participants tended to improve in their capacity to detect the presence of the train with practice, but a similar trend was not observed for detection of the movement of the train. Participants were consistently poor at accurately judging the approach speed of trains, with large underestimations at all investigated distances.