Paradoxical Acinetobacter-associated ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence rates within prevention studies using respiratory tract applications of topical polymyxin: benchmarking the evidence base

Establishing the safety of selective digestive decontamination within the ICU population: a bridge too far?

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention interventions within the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, whether studied within quality improvement projects or cluster randomized trials (CRT), are seen as low risk and grounded in an ethical imperative. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) appears highly effective at preventing ICU infections within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCTs) prompting mega-CRTs with mortality as the primary endpoint.

FINDINGS

Surprisingly, the summary results of RCCTs versus CRTs differ strikingly, being respectively, a 15-percentage-point versus a zero-percentage-point ICU mortality difference between control versus SDD intervention groups. Multiple other discrepancies are equally puzzling and contrary to both prior expectations and the experience within population-based studies of infection prevention interventions using vaccines. Could spillover effects from SDD conflate the RCCT control group event rate differences and represent population harm? Evidence that SDD is fundamentally safe to concurrent non-recipients in ICU populations is absent. A postulated CRT to realize this, the SDD Herd Effects Estimation Trial (SHEET), would require > 100 ICUs to achieve sufficient statistical power to find a two-percentage-point mortality spillover effect. Moreover, as a potentially harmful population-based intervention, SHEET would pose novel and insurmountable ethical issues including who is the research subject; whether informed consent is required and from whom; whether there is equipoise; the benefit versus the risk; considerations of vulnerable groups; and who should be the gatekeeper?

CONCLUSION

The basis for the mortality difference between control and intervention groups of SDD studies remains unclear. Several paradoxical results are consistent with a spillover effect that would conflate the inference of benefit originating from RCCTs. Moreover, this spillover effect would constitute to herd peril.

Structural equation modelling the impact of antimicrobials on the human microbiome. Colonization resistance versus colonization susceptibility as case studies

The impact of antimicrobials on the human microbiome and its relationship to human health are of great interest. How antimicrobial exposure might drive change within specific constituents of the microbiome to effect clinically relevant endpoints is difficult to study. Clinical investigation of each step within a network of causation would be challenging if done 'step-by-step'. An analytic tool of great potential to clinical microbiome research is structural equation modelling (SEM), which has a long history of applications to research questions arising within subject areas as diverse as psychology and econometrics. SEM enables postulated models based on a network of causation to be tested en bloc by confrontation with data derived from the literature. Case studies for the potential application of SEM techniques are colonization resistance (CR) and its counterpart, colonization susceptibility (CS), wherein specific microbes within the microbiome are postulated to either impede (CR) or facilitate (CS) invasive infection with pathogenic bacteria. These postulated networks have three causation steps: exposure to specific antimicrobials are key drivers, clinically relevant infection endpoints are the measurable observables and the activity of key microbiome constituents mediating CR or CS, which may be unobservable, appear as latent variables in the model. SEM methods have potential application towards evaluating the activity of specific antimicrobial agents within postulated networks of causation using clinically derived data.

Structural equation modelling the relationship between anti-fungal prophylaxis and Pseudomonas bacteremia in ICU patients

Purpose

Animal models implicate candida colonization facilitating invasive bacterial infections. The clinical relevance of this microbial interaction remains undefined and difficult to study directly. Observations from studies of anti-septic, antibiotic, anti-fungal, and non-decontamination-based interventions to prevent ICU acquired infection collectively serve as a natural experiment.

Methods

Three candidate generalized structural equation models (GSEM), with Candida and Pseudomonas colonization as latent variables, were confronted with blood culture and respiratory tract isolate data derived from 464 groups from 279 studies including studies of combined antibiotic and antifungal exposures within selective digestive decontamination (SDD) interventions.

Results

Introducing an interaction term between Candida colonization and Pseudomonas colonization substantially improved GSEM model fit. Model derived coefficients for singular exposure to anti-septic agents (− 1.23; − 2.1 to − 0.32), amphotericin (− 1.78; − 2.79 to − 0.78) and topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP; + 1.02; + 0.11 to + 1.93) versus Candida colonization were similar in magnitude but contrary in direction. By contrast, the model-derived coefficients for singular exposure to TAP, as with anti-septic agents, versus Pseudomonas colonization were weaker or non-significant. Singular exposure to amphotericin would be predicted to more than halve candidemia and Pseudomonas bacteremia incidences versus literature benchmarks for absolute differences of approximately one percentage point or less.

Conclusion

GSEM modelling of published data supports the postulated interaction between Candida and Pseudomonas colonization towards promoting bacteremia among ICU patients. This would be difficult to detect without GSEM modelling. The model indicates that anti-fungal agents have greater impact in preventing Pseudomonas bacteremia than TAP, which has no impact.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40635-022-00429-8.

Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) regimens, variously constituted with topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) and protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP), appear highly effective for preventing ICU-acquired infections but only within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCT's). Confusingly, SDD is also a concept which, if true, implies population benefit. The SDD concept can finally be reified  in humans using the broad accumulated evidence base, including studies of TAP and PPAP that used non-concurrent controls (NCC), as a natural experiment. However, this test implicates overall population harm with higher event rates associated with SDD use within the ICU context.

Is selective decontamination (SDD/SOD) safe in the ICU context?

Multiple individual studies of selective digestive decontamination/selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SDD/SOD) among ICU patients appear to show potent infection prevention effects. Surprisingly, the event rates for multiple endpoints including ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacteraemia and candidaemia among concurrent control groups within SDD/SOD studies appear unusually high versus other rates in the literature. These paradoxical observations raise concern that the contextual effects of SDD/SOD, as postulated in the original SDD/SOD study, not only exist but also are strong. Until these effects are addressed within an optimally designed study, the safety of SDD/SOD within the 'whole of ICU' remains questionable.

How the Cluster-randomized Trial "Works"

Cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) are able to address research questions that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of individual patients cannot answer. Of great interest for infectious disease physicians and infection control practitioners are research questions relating to the impact of interventions on infectious disease dynamics at the whole-of-population level. However, there are important conceptual differences between CRTs and RCTs relating to design, analysis, and inference. These differences can be illustrated by the adage "peas in a pod." Does the question of interest relate to the "peas" (the individual patients) or the "pods" (the clusters)? Several examples of recent CRTs of community and intensive care unit infection prevention interventions are used to illustrate these key concepts. Examples of differences between the results of RCTs and CRTs on the same topic are given.

Candida-Acinetobacter-Pseudomonas Interaction Modelled within 286 ICU Infection Prevention Studies

BACKGROUND

Whether Candida interacts to enhance the invasive potential of Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas bacteria cannot be resolved within individual studies. There are several anti-septic, antibiotic, anti-fungal, and non-decontamination-based interventions to prevent ICU acquired infection. These effective prevention interventions would be expected to variably impact Candida colonization. The collective observations within control and intervention groups from numerous ICU infection prevention studies simulates a multi-centre natural experiment with which to evaluate Candida, Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas interaction (CAPI).

METHODS

Eight Candidate-generalized structural equation models (GSEM), with Candida, Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter colonization as latent variables, were confronted with blood culture and respiratory tract isolate data derived from >400 groups derived from 286 infection prevention studies.

RESULTS

Introducing an interaction term between Candida colonization and each of Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter colonization improved model fit in each case. The size of the coefficients (and 95% confidence intervals) for these interaction terms in the optimal Pseudomonas (+0.33; 0.22 to 0.45) and Acinetobacter models (+0.32; 0.01 to 0.5) were similar to each other and similar in magnitude, but contrary in direction, to the coefficient for exposure to topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) on Pseudomonas colonization (-0.45; -0.71 to -0.2). The coefficient for exposure to topical antibiotic prophylaxis on Acinetobacter colonization was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

GSEM modelling of published ICU infection prevention data supports the CAPI concept. The CAPI model could account for some paradoxically high Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas infection incidences, most apparent among the concurrent control groups of TAP studies.

Structural equation modeling the "control of gut overgrowth" in the prevention of ICU-acquired Gram-negative infection

BACKGROUND

Conceptually, the "control of gut overgrowth" (COGO) is key in mediating prevention against infection with Gram-negative bacilli by topical antibiotic prophylaxis, a common constituent of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) regimens. However, the relative importance of the other SDD components, enteral and protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis, versus other methods of infection prevention and versus other contextual exposures cannot be resolved within individual studies.

METHODS

Seven candidate generalized structural equation models founded on COGO concepts were confronted with Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter bacteremia as well as ventilator-associated pneumonia data derived from > 200 infection prevention studies. The following group-level exposures were included in the models: use and mode of antibiotic prophylaxis, anti-septic and non-decontamination methods of infection prevention; proportion receiving mechanical ventilation; trauma ICU; mean length of ICU stay; and concurrency versus non-concurrency of topical antibiotic prophylaxis study control groups.

RESULTS

In modeling Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter gut overgrowth as latent variables, anti-septic interventions had the strongest negative effect against Pseudomonas gut overgrowth but no intervention was significantly negative against Acinetobacter gut overgrowth. Strikingly, protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis and concurrency each have positive effects in the model, enteral antibiotic prophylaxis is neutral, and Acinetobacter bacteremia incidences are high within topical antibiotic prophylaxis studies, moreso with protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis exposure. Paradoxically, topical antibiotic prophylaxis (moreso with protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis) appears to provide the strongest summary prevention effects against overall bacteremia and overall VAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural equation modeling of published Gram-negative bacillus infection data enables a test of the COGO concept. Paradoxically, Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas bacteremia incidences are unusually high among studies of topical antibiotic prophylaxis.

Discrepancies in Control Group Mortality Rates Within Studies Assessing Topical Antibiotic Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: An Umbrella Review

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

To test the postulate that concurrent control patients within ICUs studying topical oropharyngeal antibiotics to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality would experience spillover effects from the intervention.

Data Sources:

Studies cited in 15 systematic reviews of various topical antibiotic and other infection prevention interventions among ICU patients.

Study Selection:

Studies of topical antibiotics, stratified into concurrent control versus nonconcurrent control designs. Studies of nondecontamination-based infection prevention interventions provide additional points of reference. Studies with no infection prevention intervention provide the mortality benchmark. Data from additional studies and data reported as intention to treat were used within sensitivity tests.

Data Extraction:

Mortality incidence proportion data, mortality census, study characteristics, group mean age, ICU type, and study publication year.

Data Synthesis:

Two-hundred six studies were included. The summary effect sizes for ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality prevention derived in the 15 systematic reviews were replicated. The mean ICU mortality incidence for concurrent control groups of topical antibiotic studies (28.5%; 95% CI, 25.0–32.3; n = 41) is higher versus the benchmark (23.7%; 19.2–28.5%; n = 34), versus nonconcurrent control groups (23.5%; 19.3–28.3; n = 14), and versus intervention groups (24.4%; 22.1–26.9; n = 62) of topical antibiotic studies. In meta-regression models adjusted for group-level characteristics such as group mean age and publication year, concurrent control group membership within a topical antibiotic study remains associated with higher mortality (p = 0.027), whereas other group memberships, including membership within an antiseptic study, are each neutral (p = not significant).

Conclusions:

Within topical antibiotic studies, the concurrent control group mortality incidence proportions are inexplicably high, whereas the intervention group mortality proportions are paradoxically similar to a literature-derived benchmark. The unexplained ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality excess in the concurrent control groups implicates spillover effects within studies of topical antibiotics. The apparent ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality prevention effects require cautious interpretation.

Unusually High Incidences of Pseudomonas Bacteremias Within Topical Polymyxin-Based Decolonization Studies of Mechanically Ventilated Patients: Benchmarking the Literature

Background

Topical polymyxin (PM)–based regimens to decolonize patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV) have been widely studied. However, paradoxical bacteremia incidences remain unexplained.

Methods

The literature was searched for studies of topical PM–based regimens used to decontaminate MV patients reporting incidences of overall and Pseudomonas bacteremia data. In addition, observational groups without any intervention and trials of various interventions other than topical PM (non-PM studies) served to provide external benchmarks and additional points of reference, respectively. The bacteremia incidences were extracted from the control and intervention (component) groups of these studies and compared with metaregression using generalized estimating equation methods.

Results

The summary odds ratio derived from studies of topical PM–based interventions against overall bacteremia was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.69). Benchmark incidences per 100 MV patients for overall (mean, 8.9%; 95% CI, 6.9% to 10.9%) and Pseudomonas (mean, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.5% to 1.1%) bacteremia were derived from 16 observational studies. By contrast, among 17 studies of topical PM, the mean incidences among control groups for overall (mean, 15.3%; 95% CI, 11.5% to 20.3%) and Pseudomonas (mean, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 3.1%) bacteremia were both higher, whereas these incidences in the intervention groups for both topical PM and non-PM studies were in each case more similar to the respective benchmarks. These paradoxical incidences cannot readily be explained in metaregression models.

Conclusions

Paradoxically, despite an apparent prevention effect of topical PM–based methods against bacteremia overall, the incidences of Pseudomonas bacteremia within the component groups of these studies are unusually high vs literature-derived benchmarks.