Impact of antimicrobial de-escalation on mortality: a literature review of study methodology and recommendations for observational studies

No Genetic Causality between Tobacco Smoking and Venous Thromboembolism: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study

BACKGROUND

 Given the current debate in clinical research about the relationship between tobacco smoking and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), a Mendelian randomization (MR) study was conducted aimed at elucidating the causal associations of current and past tobacco smoking with the risk of VTE, from the perspective of genetics.

METHODS

 Two-sample univariate and multivariable MR analyses were designed, using summary-level data from large genome-wide association studies involving European individuals. Causality was primarily assessed using multiplicative fixed-effects or random-effects model and inverse variance weighting, supplemented by MR-Egger regression, MR-PRESSO, Cochran's Q test, and leave-one-out for sensitivity analysis to test the reliability of the results.

RESULTS

 In the univariate MR analysis, no significant causal effects were found between current tobacco smoking and the risk of VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). Similarly, no significant causal effects were found between past smoking and VTE, DVT, and PE. As for the multivariable MR analysis, results were consistent with univariate MR analysis, with no significant causal effect of either current or past tobacco smoking on the risk of VTE, DVT, and PE.

CONCLUSION

 Evidence from both univariate and multivariable MR analyses demonstrated no significant causal relationships between current and past tobacco smoking and VTE, DVT, and PE. This contradicts positive correlations reported in some previous observational studies, which may be explained by other confounding factors. This provided genetic evidence for the conclusion reported in other observational studies that smoking did not affect VTE risk.

Handling time-varying treatments in observational studies: A scoping review and recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Time-varying treatments are common in observational studies. However, when assessing treatment effects, the methodological framework has not been systematically established for handling time-varying treatments. This study aimed to examine the current methods for dealing with time-varying treatments in observational studies and developed practical recommendations.

METHODS

We searched PubMed from 2000 to 2021 for methodological articles about time-varying treatments, and qualitatively summarized the current methods for handling time-varying treatments. Subsequently, we developed practical recommendations through interactive internal group discussions and consensus by a panel of external experts.

RESULTS

Of the 36 eligible reports (22 methodological reviews, 10 original studies, 2 tutorials and 2 commentaries), most examined statistical methods for time-varying treatments, and only a few discussed the overarching methodological process. Generally, there were three methodological components to handle time-varying treatments. These included the specification of treatment which may be categorized as three scenarios (i.e., time-independent treatment, static treatment regime, or dynamic treatment regime); definition of treatment status which could involve three approaches (i.e., intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated approach); and selection of analytic methods. Based on the review results, a methodological workflow and a set of practical recommendations were proposed through two consensus meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no consensus process for assessing treatment effects in observational studies with time-varying treatments. Previous efforts were dedicated to developing statistical methods. Our study proposed a stepwise workflow with practical recommendations to assist the practice.

Effect of antimicrobial de-escalation strategy on 14-day mortality among intensive care unit patients: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study with inverse probability-of-treatment weighting

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) strategy and assess its effect on 14-day mortality among intensive care unit patients.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with infectious diseases between January 2018 and December 2020. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the initial treatment regimen within 5 days of antimicrobial administration: ADE, No Change, and Other Change. Confounders between groups were screened using one-way ANOVA and Chi-square analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for 14-day mortality. Potential confounders were balanced using propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effect of ADE strategy on 14-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 473 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 53 (11.2%) in the ADE group, 173 (36.6%) in the No Change group, and 247 (52.2%) in the Other Change group. The 14-day mortality rates in the three groups were 9.4%, 11.6%, and 21.9%, respectively. After IPTW, the adjusted odds ratio for 14-day mortality comparing No Change with ADE was 1.557 (95% CI 1.078-2.247, P = 0.0181) while comparing Other Change with ADE was 1.282(95% CI 0.884-1.873, P = 0.1874).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of ADE strategy was low among intensive care unit patients. The ADE strategy demonstrated a protective effect or no adverse effect on 14-day mortality compared to the No Change or Other Change strategies, respectively. These findings provide evidence supporting the implementation of the ADE strategy in ICU patients.

Antibiotic De-escalation Experience in the Setting of Emergency Department: A Retrospective, Observational Study

Background: Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a part of antimicrobial stewardship strategies aiming to minimize unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic exposure to decrease the rate of antimicrobial resistance. Information regarding the effectiveness and safety of ADE in the setting of emergency medicine wards (EMW) is lacking. Methods: Adult patients admitted to EMW and receiving empiric antimicrobial treatment were retrospectively studied. The primary outcome was the rate and timing of ADE. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with early ADE, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 336 patients were studied. An initial regimen combining two agents was prescribed in 54.8%. Ureidopenicillins and carbapenems were the most frequently empiric treatment prescribed (25.1% and 13.6%). The rate of the appropriateness of prescribing was 58.3%. De-escalation was performed in 111 (33%) patients. Patients received a successful de-escalation on day 2 (21%), 3 (23%), and 5 (56%). The overall in-hospital mortality was 21%, and it was significantly lower among the de-escalation group than the continuation group (16% vs 25% p = 0.003). In multivariate analysis, de-escalation strategies as well as appropriate empiric and targeted therapy were associated with reduced mortality. Conclusions: ADE appears safe and effective in the setting of EMWs despite that further research is warranted to confirm these findings.