Executive summary of HTA journal title
Health Technol Assess 2013;17(10):1–79
The CRASH-2 trial: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events and transfusion requirement in bleeding trauma patients
View/Download full text in Adobe Acrobat format (1MB)
View/Download this summary in Adobe Acrobat format (suitable for printing)
I Roberts,1* H Shakur,1 T Coats,2 B Hunt,3 E Balogun,1 L Barnetson,1 L Cook,1 T Kawahara,1 P Perel,1 D Prieto-Merino,1 M Ramos,1 J Cairns4 and C Guerriero4
1Clinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
2Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
3Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College London, London, UK
4Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Each year, worldwide, about 3 million people die as a result of trauma, many after reaching hospital. Among trauma patients who do survive to reach hospital, bleeding is a common cause of death, accounting for about one-third of in-hospital deaths. The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to reduce blood loss in surgical patients without apparently increasing the risk of postoperative complications. Surgery and trauma trigger similar haemostatic responses. If TXA reduces deaths due to bleeding in trauma patients, this would be an important discovery.
We sought to quantify the effects of early administration of TXA on death, vascular occlusive events and the receipt of blood transfusion in trauma patients.
The Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage-2 (CRASH-2) trial was a randomised controlled trial carried out in 274 hospitals in 40 countries. A total of 20,211 adult trauma patients with, or at risk of, significant bleeding were randomly assigned within 8 hours of injury to either TXA (loading dose 1 g over 10 minutes then infusion of 1 g over 8 hours) or matching placebo. Randomisation was balanced by centre, with an allocation sequence based on a block size of eight, generated with a computer random number generator. Both participants and study staff (site investigators and trial co-ordinating centre staff) were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was death in hospital within 4 weeks of injury, and was described with the following categories: bleeding, vascular occlusion (myocardial infarction, stroke and pulmonary embolism), multiorgan failure, head injury and other. All analyses were by intention to treat.
A total of 10,096 patients were allocated to TXA and 10,115 to placebo, of whom 10,060 and 10,067 patients, respectively, were analysed. All-cause mortality was significantly reduced with TXA [1463 patients (14.5%) in the TXA group vs 1613 patients (16.0%) in the placebo group; relative risk (RR) 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.97; p = 0.0035]. The risk of death due to bleeding was significantly reduced [489 patients (4.9%) died in the TXA group vs 574 patients (5.7%) in the placebo group; RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; p = 0.0077]. We recorded strong evidence that the effect of TXA on death due to bleeding varied according to the time from injury to treatment (test for interaction p < 0.0001). Early treatment (≤ 1 hour from injury) significantly reduced the risk of death due to bleeding [198 out of 3747 (5.3%) patients died in the TXA group vs 286 out of 3704 patients (7.7%) in the placebo group; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82; p < 0.0001]. Treatment given between 1 and 3 hours also reduced the risk of death due to bleeding [147 out of 3037 patients (4.8%) died in the TXA group vs 184 out of 2996 patients (6.1%) in the placebo group; RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; p = 0.03]. Treatment given after 3 hours seemed to increase the risk of death due to bleeding [144 out of 3272 patients (4.4%) died in the TXA group vs 103 out of 3362 patients (3.1%) in the placebo group; RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.84; p = 0.004]. We recorded no evidence that the effect of TXA on death due to bleeding varied by systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale score or type of injury.
The cost-effectiveness of the early administration of TXA was evaluated in high-, middle- and low-income settings. Administering TXA to bleeding trauma patients within 3 hours of injury saved an estimated 372, 315 and 755 life-years (LYs) per 1000 trauma patients in Tanzania, India and the UK, respectively. The cost of giving TXA to 1000 patients was (in international dollars) $17,483 in Tanzania, $19,550 in India and $30,830 in the UK. The incremental cost of giving TXA compared with not giving TXA was $18,025 in Tanzania, $20,670 in India and $48,002 in the UK. The estimated incremental cost per LY gained of administering TXA is $48, $66 and $64 in Tanzania, India and the UK, respectively.
Tranexamic acid safely reduced the risk of death in bleeding trauma patients in this study. TXA appears most effective when given early after the trauma and should be given only within approximately 3 hours. Treatment beyond 3 hours of injury is unlikely to be effective. TXA administration is highly cost-effective in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Future work [the Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Head injury-3 (CRASH-3) trial] will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TXA in the treatments of isolated traumatic brain injury (http://crash3.lshtm.ac.uk/).
This trial is registered as ISRCTN86750102, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00375258 and South African Clinical Trial Register DOH-27–0607–1919.
Funding for this study was provided by the Bupa Foundation, the J P Moulton Charitable Foundation and the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.
Roberts I, Shakur H, Coats T, Hunt B, Balogun E, Barnetson L, et al. The CRASH-2 trial: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events and transfusion requirement in bleeding trauma patients. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(10).
NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. ‘Health technologies’ are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.
The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the ‘National Knowledge Service’.
The HTA programme is needs led in that it fills gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. There are three routes to the start of projects.
First is the commissioned route. Suggestions for research are actively sought from people working in the NHS, from the public and consumer groups and from professional bodies such as royal colleges and NHS trusts. These suggestions are carefully prioritised by panels of independent experts (including NHS service users). The HTA programme then commissions the research by competitive tender.
Second, the HTA programme provides grants for clinical trials for researchers who identify research questions. These are assessed for importance to patients and the NHS, and scientific rigour.
Third, through its Technology Assessment Report (TAR) call-off contract, the HTA programme commissions bespoke reports, principally for NICE, but also for other policy-makers. TARs bring together evidence on the value of specific technologies.
Some HTA research projects, including TARs, may take only months, others need several years. They can cost from as little as £40,000 to over £1 million, and may involve synthesising existing evidence, undertaking a trial, or other research collecting new data to answer a research problem.
The final reports from HTA projects are peer reviewed by a number of independent expert referees before publication in the widely read journal series Health Technology Assessment.
Criteria for inclusion in the HTA journal series
Reports are published in the HTA journal series if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.
Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed ‘systematic’ when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 06/303/20. The contractual start date was in April 2007. The draft report began editorial review in January 2012 and was accepted for publication in August 2012. 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.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA programme or the Department of Health.
Editor-in-Chief: Professor Tom Walley CBE
Series Editors: Dr Martin Ashton-Key, Professor Aileen Clarke, Dr Peter Davidson, Ms Tara Lamont, Dr Tom Marshall, Professor William McGuire, Professor Jane Norman, Professor John Powell, Professor James Raftery, Dr Rob Riemsma, Professor Helen Roberts, Professor Helen Snooks and Professor Ken Stein
© 2013 Crown Copyright Top ^