Participation of elderly adults in randomized controlled trials addressing antibiotic treatment of pneumonia

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

OBJECTIVES

Patients included in randomized controlled trials (RCT) are poorly representative of the general population. We compared outcomes of patients excluded from the PIRATE trial, a point-of-care RCT evaluating antibiotic durations for Gram-negative bacteraemia, with those of enrolled patients.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study, 'EPCO' (Excluded Patients' Clinical Outcomes) included patients excluded from the PIRATE trial. As in PIRATE, whose patients were randomized to 7-day, 14-day, or C-reactive-protein (CRP)-guided antibiotic durations, EPCO's primary outcome was occurrence of clinical success at 30 days. We also compared baseline characteristics, outcome rates and treatment-effect estimates.

RESULTS

In all, 405 patients were included in EPCO and compared with the 503 PIRATE patients. Reasons for exclusion were mainly medical (317/405; 78%), the most frequent being complicated infection. Excluded patients had more co-morbidities (Charlson median 3 versus 1, p < 0.001). Bacteraemia was more often health-care-associated (26% versus 9%, p < 0.001). The 30-day success rate was significantly lower among EPCO patients (299/396; 76% versus 469/493; 95%, p < 0.001), but the success rate was not significantly different for those excluded for non-medical reasons (68/75; 91%, p 0.09). There was no significant difference in failure rates of EPCO patients according to their treatment duration (difference 7 days versus 14 days: p 0.75; 7 days versus CRP-correspondent: p 1.00; 14 days versus CRP-correspondent: p 1.00).

CONCLUSION

Although point-of-care-randomized trials are more inclusive and representative than traditional RCTs, they are still likely to select patients with lower failure risk. Shorter antibiotic durations were not associated with failure in either included or excluded patients, supporting the generalizability of the PIRATE trial's findings.

Investigator-initiated Randomized Controlled Trials in Infectious Diseases: Better Value for Money for Registration Trials of New Antimicrobials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by the industry are expensive, especially trials conducted for registration of new drugs for multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. Lower-cost investigator-initiated trials have recently been successful in recruiting patients with severe infections caused by MDR bacteria. In this viewpoint, we contrast the aims, methods, and resulting costs of industry-led and investigator-initiated trials and ask whether contemporary registration trial costs are justified. Contract research organizations, delivering and monitoring industry-sponsored trials at a significant cost, have little incentive to make trials more efficient or less expensive. The value of universal monitoring of all trial data is questionable. We propose that clinical trial networks play a more influential role in RCT design and planning, lead adaptive risk-based trial monitoring, and work with the industry to maximize efficient recruitment and lower costs in registration trials for the approval of new antimicrobials.

Using external data to assess the external validity of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Few studies have addressed external validity of randomized controlled trials in infectious diseases. We aimed to assess the external validity of an investigator-initiated trial on treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infection.

METHODS

In the original study, women (n = 513) with urinary tract infection were randomized to nitrofurantoin or fosfomycin treatment in three countries between 2013 and 2017. In the present study we compared women who were screened for enrolment but excluded to women who participated in the trial, both groups in Israel. The primary outcome was the rate of emergency department index visits resulting in hospitalization within 28 days.

RESULTS

We compared 127 included to 110 excluded patients. The most common reasons for exclusion were logistic difficulties in recruitment and antibiotic use in the preceding month. Included patients tended to be older [39 (IQR 29-59) vs. 35.5 (IQR 24-56.25 years)], more likely to have history of recurrent infection and had more urinary symptoms. Among excluded patients, 13.6% (15/110) had initial visits resulting in hospitalization compared to 3.1% (4/127) of included participants (p = .003). The rate of emergency department visits within 28 days was similar in both groups. Clinical and microbiological failures were significantly more common in included patients [26% (33/127) vs. 1.8% (2/110), p < .001; 7.9% (10/127) vs. 0% (0/110), p = .003; respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

While differences were observed between included and excluded patients, the excluded group did not represent a more 'complicated' population. The present study shows the importance of collecting data on patients excluded from randomized controlled trials.

A systematic review assessing the under-representation of elderly adults in COVID-19 trials

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused a pandemic threatening millions of people worldwide. Yet studies specifically assessing the geriatric population are scarce. We aimed to examine the participation of elderly patients in therapeutic or prophylactic trials on COVID-19.

METHODS

In this review, randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 12) comparing therapeutic or prophylactic interventions registered on preprint repositories and/or published since December 2019 were analyzed. We searched in PubMed, leading journals websites, and preprint repositories for RCTs and large observational studies. We aimed to describe the age of included patients, the presence of an upper age limit and of adjusted analyses on age, any exclusion criteria that could limit participation of elderly adults such as comorbidities, cognitive impairment, limitation of life expectancy; and the assessment of long-term outcomes such as the need of rehabilitation or institutionalization. Mean participant ages were reported and compared with observational studies.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs assessing drug therapy for COVID-19 were included. Mean age of patients included in RCTs was 56.3 years. An upper age limit was applied in three published trials (25%) and in 200/650 (31%) trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov . One trial reported a subgroup analysis in patients ≥65. Patients were excluded for liver-function abnormalities in eight trials, renal disease in six, cardiac disease or risk of torsade de pointes in five, and four for cognitive or mental criteria, which are frequent comorbidities in the oldest patients. Only three trials allowed a family member to provide consent. Patients enrolled in RCTs were on average 20 years younger than those included in large (n ≥ 1000) observational studies. Seven studies had as their primary outcome a clinical endpoint, but none reported cognitive, functional or quality of life outcomes or need for rehabilitation or long-term care facility placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients are clearly underrepresented in RCTs, although they comprise the population hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Long-term outcomes such as the need of rehabilitation or institutionalization were not reported. Future investigations should target specifically this vulnerable population.

Are older adults insufficiently included in clinical trials?-An umbrella review

Treatment guidelines are primarily based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs tend to some extent to exclude older adults despite the fact that physicians need guidance when treating this patient group. By summarizing existing literature, we aimed to (a) quantify the proportion of RCTs and other clinical studies (CTs) that did not adequately include older adults; (b) identify the main barriers for this non-inclusion; and (c) identify suggested solution for inclusion of older adults in RCTs and other CTs. In this umbrella review, Embase and PubMed were searched for relevant papers, and 2701 papers were identified. The subsequent screening resulted in 22 papers. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program was used as quality assessment tool to evaluate these 22 papers. We found that: (a) The most frequent outcome designating missing inclusion of older adults was the use of age limit as exclusion criterion in studies-the proportion of this was 10%-60%; (b) barriers for inclusion were mainly exclusion criteria, logistic challenges and financial constraints; and (c) more extensive inclusion would require more explicit inclusion criteria, merely application of exclusion criteria when absolutely needed, change of researchers' attitude, further inclusion of supporting relatives to overcome the logistical challenges and more financial funding.

Accuracy of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, serum amyloid A and neopterin for low-dose CT-scan confirmed pneumonia in elderly patients: A prospective cohort study

Objective

The diagnosis of pneumonia based on semiology and chest X-rays is frequently inaccurate, particularly in elderly patients. Older (C-reactive protein (CRP); procalcitonin (PCT)) or newer (Serum amyloid A (SAA); neopterin (NP)) biomarkers may increase the accuracy of pneumonia diagnosis, but data are scarce and conflicting. We assessed the accuracy of CRP, PCT, SAA, NP and the ratios CRP/NP and SAA/NP in a prospective observational cohort of elderly patients with suspected pneumonia.

Methods

We included consecutive patients more than 65 years old, with at least one respiratory symptom and one symptom or laboratory finding suggestive of infection, and a working diagnosis of pneumonia. Low-dose CT scan and comprehensive microbiological testing were done in all patients. The index tests, CRP, PCT, SAA and NP, were obtained within 24 hours. The reference diagnosis was assessed a posteriori by a panel of experts considering all available data, including patients’ outcome. We used area under the curve (AUROC) and Youden index to assess the accuracy and obtain optimal cut-off of the index tests.

Results

200 patients (median age 84 years) were included; 133 (67%) had pneumonia. AUROCs for the diagnosis of pneumonia was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.56–0.72) for CRP; 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51–0.68) for PCT; 0.60 (95% CI: 0.52–0.69) for SAA; 0.41 (95% CI: 0.32–0.49) for NP; 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55–0.71) for CRP/NP; and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.53–0.70) for SAA/NP. No cut-off resulted in satisfactory sensitivity or specificity.

Conclusions

Accuracy of traditional (CRP, PCT) and newly proposed biomarkers (SAA, NP) and ratios of CRP/NP and SAA/NP was too low to help diagnosing pneumonia in the elderly. CRP had the highest AUROC.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT 02467092

Considerations for the optimal management of antibiotic therapy in elderly patients

OBJECTIVES

To maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity, special considerations are required for antibiotic prescription in elderly patients. This review aims to provide practical suggestions for the optimal management of antibiotic therapy in elderly patients.

METHODS

This was a narrative review. A literature search of published articles in the last 15 years on antibiotics and elderly patients was performed using the Cochrane Library and PubMed electronic databases. The three priority areas were identified: (i) pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) for optimising dosage regimens and route of administration; (ii) antibiotic dosages in some special subpopulations; and (iii) treatment considerations relating to different antibiotic classes and their adverse events.

RESULTS

Clinicians should understand the altered PK/PD of drugs in this population owing to co-morbid conditions and normal physiological changes associated with ageing. The body of evidence justifies the need for individualised dose selection, especially in patients with impaired renal and liver function. Clinicians should be aware of the major drug-drug interactions commonly observed in the elderly as well as potential side effects.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic therapy in the elderly requires a comprehensive approach, including strategies to improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing, limit their use for uncomplicated infections and ensure the attainment of an optimal PK/PD target. To this purpose, further studies involving the elderly are needed to better understand the PK of antibiotics. Moreover, it is necessary to assess the role therapeutic drug monitoring in guiding antibiotic therapy in elderly patients in order to evaluate its impact on clinical outcome.

Corticosteroids for pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a common and potentially serious illness. Corticosteroids have been suggested for the treatment of different types of infection, however their role in the treatment of pneumonia remains unclear. This is an update of a review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in the treatment of pneumonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS on 3 March 2017, together with relevant conference proceedings and references of identified trials. We also searched three trials registers for ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed systemic corticosteroid therapy, given as adjunct to antibiotic treatment, versus placebo or no corticosteroids for adults and children with pneumonia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We estimated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled data using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs comprising a total of 2264 participants; 13 RCTs included 1954 adult participants, and four RCTs included 310 children. This update included 12 new studies, excluded one previously included study, and excluded five new trials. One trial awaits classification.All trials limited inclusion to inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), with or without healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP). We assessed the risk of selection bias and attrition bias as low or unclear overall. We assessed performance bias risk as low for nine trials, unclear for one trial, and high for seven trials. We assessed reporting bias risk as low for three trials and high for the remaining 14 trials.Corticosteroids significantly reduced mortality in adults with severe pneumonia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.84; moderate-quality evidence), but not in adults with non-severe pneumonia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.00). Early clinical failure rates (defined as death from any cause, radiographic progression, or clinical instability at day 5 to 8) were significantly reduced with corticosteroids in people with severe and non-severe pneumonia (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.7; and RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83, respectively; high-quality evidence). Corstocosteroids reduced time to clinical cure, length of hospital and intensive care unit stays, development of respiratory failure or shock not present at pneumonia onset, and rates of pneumonia complications.Among children with bacterial pneumonia, corticosteroids reduced early clinical failure rates (defined as for adults, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.70; high-quality evidence) based on two small, clinically heterogeneous trials, and reduced time to clinical cure.Hyperglycaemia was significantly more common in adults treated with corticosteroids (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.14). There were no significant differences between corticosteroid-treated people and controls for other adverse events or secondary infections (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.93).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid therapy reduced mortality and morbidity in adults with severe CAP; the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 18 patients (95% CI 12 to 49) to prevent one death. Corticosteroid therapy reduced morbidity, but not mortality, for adults and children with non-severe CAP. Corticosteroid therapy was associated with more adverse events, especially hyperglycaemia, but the harms did not seem to outweigh the benefits.

Association between serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and community-acquired pneumonia: a case-control study

Background

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common disease with significant morbidity and mortality. There is evidence that vitamin D deficiency can be associated with infectious diseases. The aim of this study was to compare the levels of vitamin D between patients with CAP and healthy controls.

Methods

In a case-control study on 73 patients with CAP and 76 healthy controls, the serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) was measured. Severity and outcomes of disease and also duration of hospital stay were compared in patients with different levels of 25(OH)D. The severity of CAP was assessed using the CURB-65 score (confusion, uremia, respiratory rate, low blood pressure, age ≥65 years) and was also reflected by the length of hospital stay, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and 30-day mortality.

Results

In total, 81.2% of the study population had vitamin D levels <30 ng/dL. The risk of pneumonia among subjects with deficient vitamin D levels was 3.69 (95% CI: 1.46, 9.31) times of those with sufficient vitamin D level (P=0.006). Prevalence of severe deficiency of vitamin D in scores three and four of CURB-65 (59.38%), was far more than scores one and two (31.71%). Also, results indicated patients with severe deficiency had a higher risk for ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and longer hospitalization stay, but these were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

According to findings, a low level of 25(OH)D is associated with a higher incidence of CAP and more severe disease. It is recommended to pay more attention to vitamin D deficiency in infectious diseases, particularly in CAP patients.

Pharmacotherapy for community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is an increasing problem in the elderly that is associated with elevated morbidity and mortality. Given the expected increased life expectancy, this problem is only likely to worsen, so it has been considered that treatment effects must be examined separately in elderly adults with CAP. Areas covered: In this narrative review, we give an update of the available data of antibiotics for elderly patients with CAP. Clinical features, drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, adverse effects, and outcomes differ in CAP depending on patient age. Older age, for example, can affect the effect of specific antibiotic regimens on important CAP clinical outcomes. Current guidelines do not offer specific recommendations for the management of CAP in elderly patients. Expert opinion: Most of our knowledge about the treatment of CAP in elderly patients has been gained from studies in young populations. However, elderly patients with CAP deserve special attention because there are several factors in this population that could influence their response to antibiotic regimens in CAP.

Bloodstream infections in older patients

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are both common and fatal in older patients. We describe data from studies evaluating older patients hospitalized with BSIs. Most older patients with BSIs present "typically" with either fever or leukocytosis. The most common source of BSI in older patients is the urinary tract, and accordingly, Gram-negative organisms predominate. A significant part of these BSIs may thus be preventable by removal of unnecessary urinary catheters. Increased long term mortality is reported following BSIs in older patients, however, data on other long-term outcomes, including functional capacity, cognitive decline and others are lacking. Management of BSIs may include less invasive procedures due to the fragility of older patients. This approach may delay the diagnosis and treatment in some cases. Older patients are probably under-represented in clinical trials assessing treatment of bacteremia. Physicians treating older patients should consider the relevance of these studies' outcomes.

External validity of a randomised controlled trial on the treatment of severe infections caused by MRSA

OBJECTIVES

To assess the external validity of a pragmatic, investigator-initiated RCT on treatment of severe infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), we compared patient characteristics and treatment effect estimates for patients included in the RCT versus those excluded.

PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOMES

The RCT included hospitalised patients with documented or highly-probable invasive MRSA infections who were randomised to vancomycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) treatment, between 2007 and 2014. A concomitant observational study prospectively included all consecutive patients, between 2008 and 2011, who were excluded from the RCT due to no consent, meningitis, left-sided endocarditis, severe neutropaenia, chronic renal dialysis or treatment with study medications for longer than 48 h. The primary outcomes were clinical failure at day 7 and 30-day mortality for both studies. We compared baseline and infection characteristics, outcome rates and treatment effect estimates for included versus excluded patients.

RESULTS

The RCT included 252 patients who were compared with 220 excluded patients who were observed. Inability to provide informed consent was the main reason for patient exclusion. Excluded patients' functional and cognitive performance was significantly poorer than that of included patients. Sepsis was more severe among excluded patients (higher rates of mechanical ventilation, indwelling catheters, septic shock and organ failure). Clinical failure occurred in 83/252 (32.9%) versus 175/220 (79.5%) and deaths in 32 (12.7%) versus 64 (29.1%) for included versus excluded patients, p<0.001 for both comparisons. Comparing vancomycin to TMP-SMX, in the RCT mortality, was non-significantly lower with vancomycin (OR 0.76, 95% CIs 0.36 to 1.62), while in the observational analysis of excluded patients, mortality was significantly higher with vancomycin (OR 2.63, 1.04 to 6.65), p=0.04 for the difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics, outcome event rates and treatment effects differed significantly in the setting of a RCT, despite its pragmatic design, compared to patients treated outside the trial settings.