Neonatal Neurology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2019 Feb;23(4):1-116. doi: 10.3310/hta23040.
The drainage, irrigation and fibrinolytic therapy (DRIFT) trial, conducted in 2003-6, showed a reduced rate of death or severe disability at 2 years in the DRIFT compared with the standard treatment group, among preterm infants with intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation.
To compare cognitive function, visual and sensorimotor ability, emotional well-being, use of specialist health/rehabilitative and educational services, neuroimaging, and economic costs and benefits at school age.
Ten-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.
Neonatal intensive care units (Bristol, Katowice, Glasgow and Bergen).
Fifty-two of the original 77 infants randomised.
DRIFT or standard therapy (cerebrospinal fluid tapping).
Primary - cognitive disability. Secondary - vision; sensorimotor disability; emotional/behavioural function; education; neurosurgical sequelae on magnetic resonance imaging; preference-based measures of health-related quality of life; costs of neonatal treatment and of subsequent health care in childhood; health and social care costs and impact on family at age 10 years; and a decision analysis model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DRIFT compared with standard treatment up to the age of 18 years.
By 10 years of age, 12 children had died and 13 were either lost to follow-up or had declined to participate. A total of 52 children were assessed at 10 years of age (DRIFT, = 28; standard treatment, = 24). Imbalances in gender and birthweight favoured the standard treatment group. The unadjusted mean cognitive quotient (CQ) score was 69.3 points [standard deviation (SD) 30.1 points] in the DRIFT group compared with 53.7 points (SD 35.7 points) in the standard treatment group, a difference of 15.7 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.9 to 34.2 points; = 0.096. After adjusting for the prespecified covariates (gender, birthweight and grade of IVH), this evidence strengthened: children who received DRIFT had a CQ advantage of 23.5 points ( = 0.009). The binary outcome, alive without severe cognitive disability, gave strong evidence that DRIFT improved cognition [unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 11.0; = 0.026) and adjusted OR 10.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 46.7; = 0.004)]; the number needed to treat was three. No significant differences were found in any secondary outcomes. There was weak evidence that DRIFT reduced special school attendance (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.05; = 0.059). The neonatal stay (unadjusted mean difference £6556, 95% CI -£11,161 to £24,273) and subsequent hospital care (£3413, 95% CI -£12,408 to £19,234) costs were higher in the DRIFT arm, but the wide CIs included zero. The decision analysis model indicated that DRIFT has the potential to be cost-effective at 18 years of age. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (£15,621 per quality-adjusted life-year) was below the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to adjustment for birthweight and gender.
The main limitations are the sample size of the trial and that important characteristics were unbalanced at baseline and at the 10-year follow-up. Although the analyses conducted here were prespecified in the analysis plan, they had not been prespecified in the original trial registration.
DRIFT improves cognitive function when taking into account birthweight, grade of IVH and gender. DRIFT is probably effective and, given the reduction in the need for special education, has the potential to be cost-effective as well. A future UK multicentre trial is required to assess efficacy and safety of DRIFT when delivered across multiple sites.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80286058.
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 23, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The DRIFT trial and 2-year follow-up was funded by Cerebra and the James and Grace Anderson Trust.
2003 年至 2006 年进行的引流、灌洗和纤维蛋白溶解疗法(DRIFT)试验表明,与标准治疗组相比,DRIFT 组早产儿脑室出血(IVH)和出血后脑室扩大的患者在 2 年内的死亡率或严重残疾率降低。
比较认知功能、视觉和感觉运动能力、情绪健康、使用专科卫生/康复和教育服务、神经影像学以及学龄期的经济成本和效益。
一项随机对照试验的 10 年随访。
新生儿重症监护病房(英国布里斯托尔、波兰卡托维兹、苏格兰格拉斯哥和挪威卑尔根)。
77 名随机分配的婴儿中有 52 名。
DRIFT 或标准治疗(脑脊液引流)。
主要结局-认知障碍。次要结局-视力;感觉运动障碍;情绪/行为功能;教育;磁共振成像上的神经外科后遗症;健康相关生活质量的偏好测量;新生儿治疗和儿童期后续保健的成本;10 岁时的医疗保健费用和对家庭的影响;以及成本效益分析模型,以估计 DRIFT 与标准治疗相比在 18 岁之前的成本效益。
截至 10 岁时,12 名儿童死亡,13 名儿童失访或拒绝参与。共有 52 名儿童在 10 岁时接受了评估(DRIFT 组=28;标准治疗组=24)。性别和出生体重的不平衡有利于标准治疗组。DRIFT 组的未调整平均认知商数(CQ)评分为 69.3 分(标准差 30.1 分),而标准治疗组为 53.7 分(标准差 35.7 分),差异为 15.7 分,95%置信区间(CI)为-2.9 至 34.2 分;P=0.096。在调整了预先指定的协变量(性别、出生体重和 IVH 分级)后,这一证据得到了加强:接受 DRIFT 的儿童 CQ 优势为 23.5 分(P=0.009)。生存而无严重认知障碍的二项结局为 DRIFT 改善认知功能提供了有力证据[未调整的优势比(OR)3.6(95%CI 1.2 至 11.0;P=0.026)和调整后的 OR 10.0(95%CI 2.1 至 46.7;P=0.004)];需要治疗的人数为 3 人。在任何次要结局中均未发现显著差异。有微弱的证据表明,DRIFT 降低了特殊学校的入学率(调整后的 OR 0.27,95%CI 0.07 至 1.05;P=0.059)。DRIFT 组新生儿住院(未调整平均差异 £6556,95%CI -£11161 至 £24273)和随后的住院治疗(£3413,95%CI -£12408 至 £19234)费用较高,但置信区间较宽,包括零。决策分析模型表明,DRIFT 在 18 岁时具有潜在的成本效益。增量成本效益比(每质量调整生命年 £15621)低于国家卫生与保健卓越研究所的阈值。成本效益结果对出生体重和性别调整敏感。
该试验的主要局限性是样本量小,并且重要特征在基线和 10 年随访时存在不平衡。尽管这里进行的分析是根据分析计划进行的,但在原始试验注册时并未预先确定。
考虑到出生体重、IVH 分级和性别,DRIFT 可改善认知功能。DRIFT 可能有效,并且鉴于对特殊教育的需求减少,它也具有潜在的成本效益。需要一项未来的英国多中心试验来评估 DRIFT 在多个地点实施时的疗效和安全性。
当前对照试验 ISRCTN80286058。
本项目由英国国家卫生与保健卓越研究所卫生技术评估计划资助,全文将在;第 23 卷,第 4 期。请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站,了解更多项目信息。DRIFT 试验和 2 年随访由 Cerebra 和 James and Grace Anderson 信托基金资助。