How representative is a point-of-care randomized trial? Clinical outcomes of patients excluded from a point-of-care randomized controlled trial evaluating antibiotic duration for Gram-negative bacteraemia: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study

Are we enrolling the right patients? A scoping review of external validity and generalizability of clinical trials in bloodstream infections

BACKGROUND

Having a representative population in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) improves external validity and generalizability of trial results. There are limited data examining differences between RCT-enrolled and real-world populations in bloodstream infections (BSI).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a scoping review aiming to review studies assessing generalizability of BSI RCT populations, to identify sub-groups that have been systematically under-represented and to explore approaches to improve external validity of future RCTs.

SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for terms related to external validity or generalizability, BSI, and clinical trials in papers published up to 1 August 2023. Studies comparing enrolled versus nonenrolled patients, or papers discussing external validity or generalizability in the context of BSI RCTs were included.

CONTENT

Sixteen papers were included in the final review. Five compared RCT-enrolled and nonenrolled participants from the same source population. There were significant differences between the two groups in all studies, with nonenrolled patients having a greater comorbidity burden and consistently worse outcomes including mortality. We identified several barriers to improving generalizability of RCT populations and outlined potential approaches to reduce these barriers, such as alternative/simplified consent processes, streamlining eligibility criteria and follow-up procedures, quota-based sampling techniques, and ensuring diversity in site and study team selection.

IMPLICATIONS

Study cohorts in BSI RCTs are not representative of the general BSI patient population. As we increasingly adopt large pragmatic trials in infectious diseases, it is important to recognize the importance of maximizing generalizability to ensure that our research findings are of direct relevance to our patients.

REPRESENT: REPresentativeness of RESearch data obtained through the 'General Informed ConsENT'

BACKGROUND

We assessed potential consent bias in a cohort of > 40,000 adult patients asked by mail after hospitalization to consent to the use of past, present and future clinical and biological data in an ongoing 'general consent' program at a large tertiary hospital in Switzerland.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all adult patients hospitalized between April 2019 and March 2020 were invited to participate to the general consent program. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from patients' electronic health records (EHR). Data of those who provided written consent (signatories) and non-responders were compared and analyzed with R studio.

RESULTS

Of 44,819 patients approached, 10,299 (23%) signed the form. Signatories were older (median age 54 [IQR 38-72] vs. 44 years [IQR 32-60], p < .0001), more comorbid (2614/10,299 [25.4%] vs. 4912/28,676 [17.1%] with Charlson comorbidity index ≤ 4, p < .0001), and more often of Swiss nationality (6592/10,299 [64%] vs. 13,813/28,676 [48.2%], p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that actively seeking consent creates a bias and compromises the external validity of data obtained via 'general consent' programs. Other options, such as opt-out consent procedures, should be further assessed.

Is shorter always better? The pros and cons of treating Gram-negative bloodstream infections with 7 days of antibiotics

Accumulating evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) supports 7 days treatment for uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia. However, some patient populations were not well represented in these RCTs, including critically ill patients, immunocompromised patients and those with MDR bacteria. In this debate document, we discuss the pros and cons for treating patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia with a 7 day antibiotic course. We surmise that the patients who were not well represented in the RCTs are probably those who have most to lose from the drawbacks of prolonged antibiotic courses, including adverse events, superinfections and resistance development. Treatment durations among these patients can be managed individually, with C-reactive protein or procalcitonin guidance or by clinical measures, and with care to discontinue antibiotics as soon as the patient recovers clinically from the infection.