Medication Deprescribing in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Prospective Controlled Quality Improvement Study

Rationale & Objective

Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), including some potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs are associated with an increased risk of medication harm (eg, falls, fractures, hospitalization). Deprescribing is a solution that proposes to stop, reduce, or switch medications to a safer alternative. Although deprescribing pairs well with routine medication reviews, it can be complex and time-consuming. Whether clinical decision support improves the process and increases deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis is unknown. This study aimed to test the efficacy of the clinical decision support software MedSafer at increasing deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis.

Study Design

Prospective controlled quality improvement study with a contemporaneous control.

Setting & Participants

Patients prescribed ≥5 medications in 2 outpatient dialysis units in Montréal, Canada.

Exposures

Patient health data from the electronic medical record were input into the MedSafer web-based portal to generate reports listing candidate PIMs for deprescribing. At the time of a planned biannual medication review (usual care), treating nephrologists in the intervention unit additionally received deprescribing reports, and patients received EMPOWER brochures containing safety information on PIMs they were prescribed. In the control unit, patients received usual care alone.

Analytical Approach

The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed was compared between the intervention and control units following a planned medication review to determine the effect of using MedSafer. The absolute risk difference with 95% CI and number needed to treat were calculated.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed. Secondary outcomes include the reduction in the mean number of prescribed drugs and PIMs from baseline.

Results

In total, 195 patients were included (127, control unit; 68, intervention unit); the mean age was 64.8 ± 15.9 (SD), and 36.9% were women. The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed in the control unit was 3.1% (4/127) vs 39.7% (27/68) in the intervention unit (absolute risk difference, 36.6%; 95% CI, 24.5%-48.6%; P < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 3).

Limitations

This was a single-center nonrandomized study with a type 1 error risk. Deprescribing durability was not assessed, and the study was not powered to reduce adverse drug events.

Conclusions

Deprescribing clinical decision support and patient EMPOWER brochures provided during medication reviews could be an effective and scalable intervention to address PIMs in the dialysis population. A confirmatory randomized controlled trial is needed.

Low Versus High Blood Pressure Targets in Critically Ill and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Hypotension is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill and perioperative patients. However, these assumptions are supported by observational studies. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aims to compare the impact of lower versus higher blood pressure targets on mortality.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scholar from inception to February 10, 2024.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials comparing lower versus higher blood pressure targets in the management of critically ill and perioperative settings.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. This review was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42023452928.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 2940 studies identified by the search string, 28 (12 in critically ill and 16 in perioperative settings) were included totaling 15,672 patients. Patients in the low blood pressure target group had lower mortality (23 studies included: 1019/7679 [13.3%] vs. 1103/7649 [14.4%]; relative risk 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). This corresponded to a 97.4% probability of any increase in mortality with a Bayesian approach. These findings were mainly driven by studies performed in the ICU setting and with treatment lasting more than 24 hours; however, the magnitude and direction of the results were similar in the majority of sensitivity analyses including the analysis restricted to low risk of bias studies. We also observed a lower rate of atrial fibrillation and fewer patients requiring transfusion in low-pressure target groups. No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on pooled randomized trial evidence, a lower compared with a higher blood pressure target results in a reduction of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements. Lower blood pressure targets may be beneficial but there is ongoing uncertainty. However, the present meta-analysis does not confirm previous findings and recommendations. These results might inform future guidelines and promote the study of the concept of protective hemodynamics.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia Prophylaxis Regimens for People with HIV: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is a common opportunistic infection among people living with HIV (PLWH), particularly among new and untreated cases. Several regimens are available for the prophylaxis of PCP including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), dapsone-based regimens (DBRs), aerosolized pentamidine (AP), and atovaquone.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of PCP prophylaxis regimens in PLWH by network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MedLine, and CENTRAL from inception to June 21, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

PARTICIPANTS

PLWH.

INTERVENTIONS

Regimens for PCP prophylaxis either compared head-to-head or versus no treatment/placebo.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs 2.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Title/abstract and full-text screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Data on PCP incidence, all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to toxicity were pooled and ranked via a network meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses of primary vs. secondary prophylaxis, by year, and by dosage were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 26 RCTs, comprising 55 treatment arms involving 7516 PLWH were included. For the prevention of PCP, TMP-SMX was ranked the most favorable agent and was superior to DBRs (Risk Ratio [RR]=0.54, 95%Confidence Interval [95%CI]=0.36-0.83) and AP (RR=0.53, 95%CI=0.36-0.77). TMP-SMX was also the only agent with a mortality benefit compared to no treatment/placebo (RR=0.79, 95%CI=0.64-0.98). However, TMP-SMX was also ranked as the most toxic agent with a greater risk of discontinuation than DBRs (RR=1.25, 95%CI=1.01-1.54) and AP (7.20, 95%CI=5.37-9.66). No significant differences in PCP prevention or mortality were detected amongst the other regimens. Findings remained consistent within subgroups.

CONCLUSION

TMP-SMX is the most effective agent for PCP prophylaxis in PLWH and the only agent to confer a mortality benefit; consequently, it should continue to be recommended as the first-line agent. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal dosing of TMP-SMX to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity.

COVID-19 Immunologic Antiviral Therapy With Omalizumab (CIAO)-a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background

Omalizumab is an anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody used to treat moderate to severe chronic idiopathic urticaria, asthma, and nasal polyps. Recent research suggested that omalizumab may enhance the innate antiviral response and have anti-inflammatory properties.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in adults hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

Methods

This was a phase II randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing omalizumab with placebo (in addition to standard of care) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the composite of mechanical ventilation and/or death at day 14. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality at day 28, time to clinical improvement, and duration of hospitalization.

Results

Of 41 patients recruited, 40 were randomized (20 received the study drug and 20 placebo). The median age of the patients was 74 years and 55.0% were male. Omalizumab was associated with a 92.6% posterior probability of a reduction in mechanical ventilation and death on day 14 with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.11 (95% credible interval 0.002-2.05). Omalizumab was also associated with a 75.9% posterior probability of reduced all-cause mortality on day 28 with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.49 (95% credible interval, 0.06-3.90). No statistically significant differences were found for the time to clinical improvement and duration of hospitalization. Numerically fewer adverse events were reported in the omalizumab group and there were no drug-related serious adverse events.

Conclusions

These results suggest that omalizumab could prove protective against death and mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This study could also support the development of a phase III trial program investigating the antiviral and anti-inflammatory effect of omalizumab for severe respiratory viral illnesses requiring hospital admission. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04720612.

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in people living with HIV: a review

Pneumocystis jirovecii is a ubiquitous opportunistic fungus that can cause life-threatening pneumonia. People with HIV (PWH) who have low CD4 counts are one of the populations at the greatest risk of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP). While guidelines have approached the diagnosis, prophylaxis, and management of PCP, the numerous studies of PCP in PWH are dominated by the 1980s and 1990s. As such, most studies have included younger male populations, despite PCP affecting both sexes and a broad age range. Many studies have been small and observational in nature, with an overall lack of randomized controlled trials. In many jurisdictions, and especially in low- and middle-income countries, the diagnosis can be challenging due to lack of access to advanced and/or invasive diagnostics. Worldwide, most patients will be treated with 21 days of high-dose trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole, although both the dose and the duration are primarily based on historical practice. Whether treatment with a lower dose is as effective and less toxic is gaining interest based on observational studies. Similarly, a 21-day tapering regimen of prednisone is used for patients with more severe disease, yet other doses, other steroids, or shorter durations of treatment with corticosteroids have not been evaluated. Now with the widespread availability of antiretroviral therapy, improved and less invasive PCP diagnostic techniques, and interest in novel treatment strategies, this review consolidates the scientific body of literature on the diagnosis and management of PCP in PWH, as well as identifies areas in need of more study and thoughtfully designed clinical trials.

Risk of infectious adverse events of venetoclax therapy for hematologic malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

ABSTRACT

Venetoclax is a small molecule inhibitor of BCL-2 used in the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Recent postmarketing studies of ibrutinib, another small molecule inhibitor, suggested that these agents may predispose to opportunistic infections. We sought to systematically review the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence of venetoclax to assess whether it predisposes patients to infectious adverse events (IAEs) and neutropenia. We systematically reviewed RCTs comparing venetoclax therapy with active or placebo controls for patients with hematologic malignancies. Data on IAEs and neutropenia were pooled by Bayesian meta-analysis, and we computed the probability of any increased risk (P[risk ratio (RR) > 1]) of IAEs or neutropenic complications. Seven RCTs were included, comprising 2067 patients. In CLL (n = 1032), there was a low probability of increased risk of high-grade (P[RR > 1] = 71.2%) and fatal IAEs (P[RR > 1] = 64.5%) and high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 63.4%). There were insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of IAEs in AML; however, 1 trial suggested an increased risk of IAEs with venetoclax. Furthermore, in AML (n = 642), venetoclax was associated with a high probability of increased risk of high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 94.6%) and febrile neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 90.6%). Our results suggest that venetoclax has a low probability of increased risk of IAEs or neutropenia in CLL. By contrast, there is likely increased risk of high-grade neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in AML. Importantly, our analyses did not identify any specific IAEs that would benefit from routine antimicrobial prophylaxis or pre-emptive testing.

Using a targeted metabolomics approach to explore differences in ARDS associated with COVID-19 compared to ARDS caused by H1N1 influenza and bacterial pneumonia

RATIONALE

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening critical care syndrome commonly associated with infections such as COVID-19, influenza, and bacterial pneumonia. Ongoing research aims to improve our understanding of ARDS, including its molecular mechanisms, individualized treatment options, and potential interventions to reduce inflammation and promote lung repair.

OBJECTIVE

To map and compare metabolic phenotypes of different infectious causes of ARDS to better understand the metabolic pathways involved in the underlying pathogenesis.

METHODS

We analyzed metabolic phenotypes of 3 ARDS cohorts caused by COVID-19, H1N1 influenza, and bacterial pneumonia compared to non-ARDS COVID-19-infected patients and ICU-ventilated controls. Targeted metabolomics was performed on plasma samples from a total of 150 patients using quantitative LC-MS/MS and DI-MS/MS analytical platforms.

RESULTS

Distinct metabolic phenotypes were detected between different infectious causes of ARDS. There were metabolomics differences between ARDSs associated with COVID-19 and H1N1, which include metabolic pathways involving taurine and hypotaurine, pyruvate, TCA cycle metabolites, lysine, and glycerophospholipids. ARDSs associated with bacterial pneumonia and COVID-19 differed in the metabolism of D-glutamine and D-glutamate, arginine, proline, histidine, and pyruvate. The metabolic profile of COVID-19 ARDS (C19/A) patients admitted to the ICU differed from COVID-19 pneumonia (C19/P) patients who were not admitted to the ICU in metabolisms of phenylalanine, tryptophan, lysine, and tyrosine. Metabolomics analysis revealed significant differences between C19/A, H1N1/A, and PNA/A vs ICU-ventilated controls, reflecting potentially different disease mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

Different metabolic phenotypes characterize ARDS associated with different viral and bacterial infections.

Ketamine versus etomidate as an induction agent for tracheal intubation in critically ill adults: a Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention commonly performed in critically ill patients. Due to its favorable cardiovascular profile, ketamine is considered less likely to compromise clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether ketamine, compared with other agents, reduces mortality in critically ill patients undergoing intubation.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 27, 2023, for randomized controlled trials and matched observational studies comparing ketamine with any control in critically ill patients as an induction agent. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available, and the secondary outcomes included Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, ventilator-free days at day 28, vasopressor-free days at day 28, post-induction mean arterial pressure, and successful intubation on the first attempt. For the primary outcome, we used a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio (RR) scale with a weakly informative neutral prior corresponding to a mean estimate of no difference with 95% probability; the estimated effect size will fall between a relative risk of 0.25 and 4. The RR and 95% credible interval (CrI) were used to estimate the probability of mortality reduction (RR < 1). The secondary outcomes were assessed with a frequentist random-effects model. We registered this study in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/2vf79/ ).

RESULTS

We included seven randomized trials and one propensity-matched study totaling 2978 patients. Etomidate was the comparator in all the identified studies. The probability that ketamine reduced mortality was 83.2% (376/1475 [25%] vs. 411/1503 [27%]; RR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.79-1.08), which was confirmed by a subgroup analysis excluding studies with a high risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in any secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the included studies evaluated ketamine versus etomidate among critically ill adults requiring tracheal intubation. This meta-analysis showed a moderate probability that induction with ketamine is associated with a reduced risk of mortality.

Clinical Outcomes and Management of NAAT-Positive/Toxin-Negative Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Standalone nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are frequently used to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), although they may be unable to distinguish colonization from disease. A 2-stage algorithm pairing NAATs with toxin immunoassays (Toxin) may improve specificity. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ versus NAAT+/Toxin- and treated versus untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases through systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception to April 1, 2023 for articles comparing CDI outcomes among symptomatic patients tested by NAAT and Toxin tests. The risk differences (RD) of all-cause mortality and CDI recurrence were computed by random effects meta-analysis between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ and NAAT+/Toxin-, as well as between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- and treated or untreated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies comprising 12 737 patients were included. The 30-day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (8.4%) and NAAT+/Toxin- (6.7%) (RD = 0.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -.67, 1.49). Recurrence at 60 days was significantly higher among patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (19.8%) versus NAAT+/Toxin- (11.0%) (RD = 7.65%, 95% CI = 4.60, 10.71). Among treated compared to untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases, the all-cause 30-day mortalities were 5.0% and 12.7%, respectively (RD = -7.45%, 95% CI = -12.29, -2.60), but 60-day recurrence was not significantly different (11.6% vs 7.0%, respectively; RD = 5.25%, 95% CI -1.71, 12.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- was associated with reduced all-cause mortality but not recurrence. Although subject to the inherent limitations of observational studies, these results suggest that some patients who are NAAT+/Toxin- may benefit from treatment.

Evaluating the impact of a SIMPlified LaYered consent process on recruitment of potential participants to the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial: study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic nested randomised clinical trial (SIMPLY-SNAP trial)

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent forms (ICFs) for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) can be onerous and lengthy. The process has the potential to overwhelm patients with information, leading them to miss elements of the study that are critical for an informed decision. Specifically, overly long and complicated ICFs have the potential to increase barriers to trial participation for patients with mild cognitive impairment, those who do not speak English as a first language or among those with lower medical literacy. In turn, this can influence trial recruitment, completion and external validity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SIMPLY-SNAP is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel-group superiority RCT, nested within a larger trial, the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial. We will randomise potentially eligible participants of the SNAP trial 1:1 to a full-length ICF or a SIMPlified LaYered (SIMPLY) consent process where basic information is summarised with embedded hyperlinks to supplemental information and videos. The primary outcome is recruitment into the SNAP trial. Secondary outcomes include patient understanding of the clinical trial, patient and research staff satisfaction with the consent process, and time taken for consent. As an exploratory outcome, we will also compare measures of diversity (eg, gender, ethnicity), according to the consent process randomised to. The planned sample size will be 346 participants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics review board (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Research Ethics Board) at sites in Ontario. We will disseminate study results via the SNAP trial group and other collaborating clinical trial networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT06168474; www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov).

Proteomic Evolution from Acute to Post-COVID-19 Conditions

Many COVID-19 survivors have post-COVID-19 conditions, and females are at a higher risk. We sought to determine (1) how protein levels change from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, (2) whether females have a plasma protein signature different from that of males, and (3) which biological pathways are associated with COVID-19 when compared to restrictive lung disease. We measured protein levels in 74 patients on the day of admission and at 3 and 6 months after diagnosis. We determined protein concentrations by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) using a panel of 269 heavy-labeled peptides. The predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were measured by routine pulmonary function testing. Proteins associated with six key lipid-related pathways increased from admission to 3 and 6 months; conversely, proteins related to innate immune responses and vasoconstriction-related proteins decreased. Multiple biological functions were regulated differentially between females and males. Concentrations of eight proteins were associated with FVC, %, and they together had c-statistics of 0.751 (CI:0.732-0.779); similarly, concentrations of five proteins had c-statistics of 0.707 (CI:0.676-0.737) for DLCO, %. Lipid biology may drive evolution from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, while activation of innate immunity and vascular regulation pathways decreased over that period. (ProteomeXchange identifiers: PXD041762, PXD029437).

Evaluation of Oseltamivir Used to Prevent Hospitalization in Outpatients With Influenza: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients.

Data Sources

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022.

Study Selection

Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs.

Results

Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.

A blueprint for a multi-disease, multi-domain Bayesian adaptive platform trial incorporating adult and paediatric subgroups: the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial

The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial is a multifactorial Bayesian adaptive platform trial that aims to improve the way that S. aureus bloodstream infection, a globally common and severe infectious disease, is treated. In a world first, the SNAP trial will simultaneously investigate the effects of multiple intervention modalities within multiple groups of participants with different forms of S. aureus bloodstream infection. Here, we formalise the trial structure, modelling approach, and decision rules that will be used for the SNAP trial. By summarising the statistical principles governing the design, our hope is that the SNAP trial will serve as an adaptable template that can be used to improve comparative effectiveness research efficiency in other disease areas.Trial registration NCT05137119 . Registered on 30 November 2021.

Rapid phenotypic testing for detection of carbapenemase- or extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales directly from blood cultures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early identification of extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CP-CRE) is critical for timely therapy. Rapid phenotypic tests identifying these resistance mechanisms from pure bacterial colonies have been developed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the operating characteristics of available rapid phenotypic tests when applied directly to positive blood cultures.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Bivariate random effects models were used unless convergence was not achieved where we used separate univariate models for sensitivity and specificity.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, BIOSIS, and Scopus from inception to 16 March 2021.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies using any rapid phenotypic assay for detection of ESBL or CP-CRE directly from blood cultures positive for Enterobacterales, including those utilizing spiked blood cultures. Case reports/series, posters, abstracts, review articles, those with ≤5 resistant isolates, and studies lacking data or without full text were excluded.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patient samples (main analysis) or spiked blood cultures (sensitivity analysis).

TESTS

Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry assays (MALDI-TOF) and commercially available chromogenic or immunogenic assays.

REFERENCE STANDARD

Conventional laboratory methods and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 (QUADAS-2).

RESULTS

For detection of the ESBL phenotype the respective pooled sensitivities and specificities for consecutive clinical samples were as follows: 94% (95% CI 93-99%) and 97% (95% CI 95-100%) for MALDI-TOF/mass spectrometry (n = 1); and 98% (95% CI 92-100%) and 100% (95% CI 96-100%) for chromogenic assays (n = 7). For the CP-CRE phenotype the respective pooled sensitivity and specificities for consecutive clinical samples were as follows: 100% (95% CI 99-100%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for MALDI-TOF (n = 2); 96% (95% CI 77-99%) and 100% (95% CI 81-100%) for chromogenic assays (n = 4); and 98% (95% CI 96-100%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for immunogenic testing (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid phenotypic assays that can be directly applied to positive blood cultures to detect ESBL and carbapenemase production from Enterobacterales exist and, although clinical studies are limited, they appear to have high sensitivity and specificity. Their potential to facilitate patient care through timely identification of bacterial resistance should be further explored.

Microbiological characterization of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia using quantitative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens: a retrospective study in a Canadian province from 2019 to 2023

Bronchoalveolar lavage is usually employed for molecular diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii but requires a specialized procedure. By contrast, nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens are easily obtained. In this retrospective study of 35 patients with paired NP and bronchoscopy specimens, NP specimens had a 100% negative percent agreement (95% CI 80.5-100) but only 72.2% positive percent agreement (95% CI 46.5-90.3).

Early oral antibiotic switch in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Trial Early Oral Switch Protocol

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (bacteraemia) is traditionally treated with at least two weeks of IV antibiotics in adults, 3-7 days in children, and often longer for those with complicated disease. The current practice of treating S. aureus bacteraemia (SAB) with prolonged IV antibiotics (rather than oral antibiotics) is based on historical observational research and expert opinion. Prolonged IV antibiotic therapy has significant disadvantages for patients and healthcare systems, and there is growing interest in whether a switch to oral antibiotics following an initial period of IV therapy is a safe alternative for clinically stable patients.

PROTOCOL

The early oral switch (EOS) domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial will assess early switch to oral antibiotics compared with continued IV treatment in clinically stable patients with SAB. The primary endpoint is 90-day all-cause mortality. Hospitalised SAB patients are assessed at platform day 7 +/- 2 (uncomplicated SAB) and day 14 +/-2 (complicated SAB) to determine their eligibility for randomisation to EOS (intervention) or continued IV treatment (current standard of care).

DISCUSSION

Recruitment is occurring to the EOS domain of the SNAP trial. As of August 2023, 21% of all SNAP participants had been randomised to the EOS domain, a total of 264 participants across 77 centres, with an aim to recruit at least 1000 participants. We describe challenges and facilitators to enrolment in this domain to aid those planning similar trials.

Etomidate as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if etomidate impacted mortality in critically ill adults when compared with other induction agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials which compared etomidate with any other induction agent in critically ill adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was mortality at the main timepoint defined by the study. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio. Using that risk ratio and 95% confidence interval, we then estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) and the number needed to harm ≤100 (RR ≥ 1.05).

RESULTS

We included 11 randomized trials comprising 2704 patients. We found that etomidate increased mortality (319/1359 [23%] vs. 267/1345 [20%]; risk ratio (RR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.33; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = 31). The probabilities of any increase and a 1% increase (NNH ≤100) in mortality were 98.1% and 92.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found a high probability that etomidate increases mortality when used as an induction agent in critically ill patients with a number needed to harm of 31.

Multidisciplinary Teams for the Management of Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

The management of infective endocarditis (IE) is complex owing to a high burden of morbidity and mortality. Recent guidelines recommend dedicated multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) for the management of IE. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and summarize the effect of MDT management on patient outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review was performed and, where feasible, results were meta-analyzed; otherwise, results were summarized narratively. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects models were used to calculate unadjusted risk ratios and 95% CIs.

Results

Screening of 2343 studies based on title and abstract yielded 60 full-text reviews; 18 studies were summarized narratively, of which 15 were included in a meta-analysis of short-term mortality. Meta-analysis resulted in a risk ratio of 0.61 (95% CI, .47-.78; I2 = 62%) for mortality in favor of a dedicated MDT as compared with usual care. Length of stay was variable, with 55% (10/18) of studies reporting an increased length of stay. Most studies (16/18, 88.9%) reported a decreased time to surgery and an increased rate of surgery (13/18, 73%). No studies reported on patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of MDT management on IE. The sum of evidence demonstrated a significant association between MDTs and improved short-term mortality. Further research is needed to evaluate benefits of virtual MDT care, cost-effectiveness, and the impact on patient-reported outcomes and long-term mortality.

The STOP COVID 2 Study: Fluvoxamine vs Placebo for Outpatients With Symptomatic COVID-19, a Fully Remote Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Prior randomized clinical trials have reported benefit of fluvoxamine ≥200 mg/d vs placebo for patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully remote multisite clinical trial evaluated whether fluvoxamine prevents clinical deterioration in higher-risk outpatients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Between December 2020 and May 2021, nonhospitalized US and Canadian participants with confirmed symptomatic infection received fluvoxamine (50 mg on day 1, 100 mg twice daily thereafter) or placebo for 15 days. The primary modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population included participants who started the intervention within 7 days of symptom onset with a baseline oxygen saturation ≥92%. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization, defined as having both (1) shortness of breath (severity ≥4 on a 0-10 scale or requiring hospitalization) and (2) oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen.

Results

A total of 547 participants were randomized and met mITT criteria (n = 272 fluvoxamine, n = 275 placebo). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping early for futility related to lower-than-predicted event rates and declining accrual concurrent with vaccine availability in the United States and Canada. Clinical deterioration occurred in 13 (4.8%) participants in the fluvoxamine group and 15 (5.5%) participants in the placebo group (absolute difference at day 15, 0.68%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 4.4%; log-rank P = .91).

Conclusions

This trial did not find fluvoxamine efficacious in preventing clinical deterioration in unvaccinated outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. It was stopped early and underpowered due to low primary outcome rates.

Clinical Trials Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04668950.

What Should I Know About Medication Deprescribing?

This JAMA Internal Medicine Patient Page describes the process of slowly and carefully cutting down on unnecessary medications with the guidance of a health care professional.

Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement

Importance

Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence.

Objective

To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength.

Evidence Review

This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches.

Findings

A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed.

Outcomes and characteristics of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec during the Omicron wave

BACKGROUND

Omicron is the current predominant variant of concern of SARS-CoV-2. We hypothesized that vaccination alters outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave and that these patients have different characteristics and outcomes than in previous waves.

METHODS

This is a substudy of the Host Response Mediators in Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection (ARBs CORONA I) trial, which included adults admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19 up to July 2022 from 9 hospitals in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. We excluded emergency department visits without hospital admission, readmissions and admissions for another reason. Using adjusted regression analysis, we compared mortality and organ dysfunction between vaccinated (≥ 2 doses) and unvaccinated patients during the Omicron wave, as well as between all patients in the Omicron and first 3 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

During the Omicron wave, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in vaccinated (n = 19/237) than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (n = 12/127) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.89); vaccinated patients had lower risk of admission to the intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and acute respiratory distress syndrome and shorter hospital length of stay. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more comorbidities than in previous waves, and lower 28-day mortality than in waves 1 and 2 (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.59; and 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.65) but not wave 3 (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43-1.51) and had less organ dysfunction than in the first 2 waves.

INTERPRETATION

Patients who were at least double vaccinated had lower mortality than unvaccinated patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more chronic disease and lower mortality than in the first 2 waves, but not wave 3. Changes in vaccination, treatments and predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant may have decreased mortality in patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave.

Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Patients on Hemodialysis: Clinical Research Protocol for a Prospective, Controlled, Quality Improvement Study

Background

Patients on dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), many of which are potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Potentially inappropriate medications are associated with an increased risk of falls, fractures, and hospitalization. MedSafer is an electronic tool that generates individualized, prioritized reports with deprescribing opportunities by cross-referencing patient health data and medications with guidelines for deprescribing.

Objectives

Our primary aim was to increase deprescribing, as compared with usual care (medication reconciliation or MedRec), for outpatients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, through the provision of MedSafer deprescribing opportunity reports to the treating team and patient empowerment deprescribing brochures provided directly to the patients themselves.

Design

This controlled, prospective, quality improvement study with a contemporary control builds on existing policy at the outpatient hemodialysis centers where biannual MedRecs are performed by the treating nephrologist and nursing team.

Setting

The study takes place on 2 of the 3 outpatient hemodialysis units of the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The intervention unit is the Lachine Hospital, and the control unit is the Montreal General Hospital.

Patients

A closed cohort of outpatient hemodialysis patients visit one of the hemodialysis centers multiple times per week for their hemodialysis treatment. The initial cohort of the intervention unit includes 85 patients, whereas the control unit has 153 patients. Patients who are transplanted, hospitalized during their scheduled MedRec, or die before or during the MedRec will be excluded from the study.

Measurements

We will compare rates of deprescribing between the control and intervention units following a single MedRec. On the intervention unit, MedRecs will be paired with MedSafer reports (the intervention), and on the control unit, MedRecs will take place without MedSafer reports (usual care). On the intervention unit, patients will also receive deprescribing patient empowerment brochures for select medication classes (gabapentinoids, proton-pump inhibitors, sedative hypnotics and opioids for chronic non-cancer pain). Physicians on the intervention unit will be interviewed post-MedRec to determine implementation barriers and facilitators.

Methods

The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed on the intervention unit, as compared with the control unit, following a biannual MedRec. This study will build on existing policies aimed at optimizing medication therapy in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. The electronic deprescribing decision support tool, MedSafer, will be tested in a dialysis setting, where nephrologists are regularly in contact with patients. MedRecs are an interdisciplinary clinical activity performed biannually on the hemodialysis units (in the Spring and Fall), and within 1 week following discharge from any hospitalization. This study will take place in the Fall of 2022. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted among physicians on the intervention unit to determine barriers and facilitators to implementation of the MedSafer-supplemented MedRec process and analyzed according to grounded theory in qualitative research.

Limitations

Deprescribing can be limited due to nephrologists' time constraints, cognitive impairment of the hemodialyzed patient stemming from their illness and complex medication regimens, and lack of sufficient patient resources to learn about the medications they are taking and their potential harms.

Conclusions

Electronic decision support can facilitate deprescribing for the clinical team by providing a nudge reminder, decreasing the time it takes to review and effectuate guideline recommendations, and by lowering the barrier of when and how to taper. Guidelines for deprescribing in the dialysis population have recently been published and incorporated into the MedSafer software. To our knowledge, this will be the first study to examine the efficacy of pairing these guidelines with MedRecs by leveraging electronic decision support in the outpatient dialysis population.

Trial registration

This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05585268) on October 2, 2022, prior to the enrolment of the first participant on October 3, 2022. The registration number is pending at the time of protocol submission.

A multi-site, international laboratory study to assess the performance of penicillin susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus

OBJECTIVES

There is clinical uncertainty over the optimal treatment for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) infections. Furthermore, there is concern that phenotypic penicillin susceptibility testing methods are not reliably able to detect some blaZ-positive S. aureus.

METHODS

Nine S. aureus isolates, including six genetically diverse strains harbouring blaZ, were sent in triplicate to 34 participating laboratories from Australia (n = 14), New Zealand (n = 6), Canada (n = 12), Singapore (n = 1) and Israel (n = 1). We used blaZ PCR as the gold standard to assess susceptibility testing performance of CLSI (P10 disc) and EUCAST (P1 disc) methods. Very major errors (VMEs), major error (MEs) and categorical agreement were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two laboratories reported 593 results according to CLSI methodology (P10 disc). Nineteen laboratories reported 513 results according to the EUCAST (P1 disc) method. For CLSI laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 85% (508/593), 21% (84/396) and 1.5% (3/198), respectively. For EUCAST laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 93% (475/513), 11% (84/396) and 1% (3/198), respectively. Seven laboratories reported results for both methods, with VME rates of 24% for CLSI and 12% for EUCAST.

CONCLUSIONS

The EUCAST method with a P1 disc resulted in a lower VME rate compared with the CLSI methods with a P10 disc. These results should be considered in the context that among collections of PSSA isolates, as determined by automated MIC testing, less than 10% harbour blaZ. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of phenotypically susceptible, but blaZ-positive S. aureus, remains unclear.

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population.

DESIGN

Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424).

SETTING

12 clinical sites in Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions.

RESULTS

Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected.

LIMITATION

Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Propofol is one of the most widely used hypnotic agents in the world. Nonetheless, propofol might have detrimental effects on clinically relevant outcomes, possibly due to inhibition of other interventions' organ protective properties. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if propofol reduced survival compared to any other hypnotic agent in any clinical setting.

METHODS

We searched eligible studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials. The following inclusion criteria were used: random treatment allocation and comparison between propofol and any comparator in any clinical setting. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio (RR). Using this RR and 95% confidence interval, we estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) through Bayesian statistics. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022323143).

RESULTS

We identified 252 randomized trials comprising 30,757 patients. Mortality was higher in the propofol group than in the comparator group (760/14,754 [5.2%] vs. 682/16,003 [4.3%]; RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.20; p = 0.03; I² = 0%; number needed to harm = 235), corresponding to a 98.4% probability of any increase in mortality. A statistically significant mortality increase in the propofol group was confirmed in subgroups of cardiac surgery, adult patients, volatile agent as comparator, large studies, and studies with low mortality in the comparator arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol may reduce survival in perioperative and critically ill patients. This needs careful assessment of the risk versus benefit of propofol compared to other agents while planning for large, pragmatic multicentric randomized controlled trials to provide a definitive answer.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (p_interaction=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated.

FUNDING

EU-RESPONSE.

Revisiting the Evidence Base for Modern-Day Practice of the Treatment of Toxoplasmic Encephalitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) is an opportunistic infection of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other causes of immunosuppression. Guideline-recommended treatments for TE are pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine (P-S) or pyrimethamine and clindamycin (P-C); however, a substantial price increase has limited access to pyrimethamine. Consequently, some centers have transitioned to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), an inexpensive alternative treatment. We aimed to review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of pyrimethamine-containing therapies vs TMP-SMX.

METHODS

We searched for and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of TE treatments, regardless of HIV status. Data for each therapy were pooled by meta-analysis to assess the proportions of patients who experienced clinical and radiologic responses to treatment, all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to toxicity. Sensitivity analyses limited to RCTs directly compared therapies.

RESULTS

We identified 6 RCTs/dose-escalation studies and 26 single-arm/observational studies. Identified studies included only persons with HIV, and most predated modern antiretroviral treatment. Pooled proportions of clinical and radiologic response and mortality were not significantly different between TMP-SMX and pyrimethamine-containing regimens (P > .05). Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was significantly lower in TMP-SMX (7.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-11.4; I2 = 0.0%) vs P-S (30.5%; 95% CI, 27.1-34.2; I2 = 0.0%; P < .01) or P-C (13.7%; 95% CI, 9.8-18.8; I2 = 32.0%; P = .031). These results were consistent in analyses restricted to RCT data.

CONCLUSIONS

TMP-SMX appears to be as effective and safer than pyrimethamine-containing regimens for TE. These findings support modern RCTs comparing TMP-SMX to pyrimethamine-based therapies and a revisiting of the guidelines.

The Effect of Heparin Full-Dose Anticoagulation on Survival of Hospitalized, Non-critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-analysis of High Quality Studies

BACKGROUND

International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether full-dose thromboprophylaxis reduces all-cause mortality. The main aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of full-dose heparin-based thromboprophylaxis on survival in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed across Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRxiv.org from inception to November 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin-based anticoagulation to prophylactic or intermediate dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available.

RESULTS

We identified 6 multicenter RCTs involving 3297 patients from 13 countries across 4 continents. The rate of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (103/1662) in the full-dose group vs 7.7% (126/1635) in the prophylactic or intermediate dose group (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.98; P = 0.037). The probabilities of any mortality difference and of NNT ≤ 100 were estimated at 98.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The risk of bias was low for all included RCTs and the strength of the evidence was "moderate."

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of high-quality multicenter RCTs suggests that full-dose anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparin reduces all-cause mortality in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022348993.

Observational versus randomized controlled trials to inform antibiotic treatment durations: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing shorter and longer antibiotic treatment durations are increasingly common. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an ideal methodological approach to study antibiotic treatment durations; however, these trials can be logistically and financially challenging to conduct.

OBJECTIVES

In this narrative review, we sought to compare the strengths and limitations of observational study data with those of RCT data in evaluating antibiotic treatment durations. We used uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia as an illustrative case example because several published RCTs and observational studies have been conducted in similar patient populations.

SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE for articles comparing treatment durations for gram-negative bacteremia from inception to June 9th, 2022. We included studies reporting on all-cause mortality and/or relapse at day 28-30. Data comparing short- versus long-course therapy were pooled by Bayesian random effects meta-analyses to assess the odds ratios (OR) of all-cause mortality and relapse at 30 days, stratified by study design. Parameters were summarized with median and 95% highest-density credible intervals (CrI). Posterior probabilities of OR > 1.0 were estimated. Observational studies were further examined to determine if and how they addressed potential sources of bias.

CONTENT

We identified 1671 unique records and included 10 studies (seven observational and three RCTs). With respect to 30-day mortality, the Bayesian posterior probability that a longer course of therapy was better (i.e. OR >1.0) was 42% in RCTs (OR, 0.94; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.68) and 91% in observational studies (OR, 1.25; 95% CrI, 0.88-1.73). No observational study fully addressed all potential sources of bias.

IMPLICATIONS

On the basis of our findings, we discuss future directions for antibiotic treatment duration trials, including approaches to limit sources of bias in observation data and novel trial designs.

Fidaxomicin to prevent recurrent Clostridioides difficile: what will it cost in the USA and Canada?

Importance

Recent changes in guidelines for managing Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) have placed fidaxomicin as a first-line treatment.

Objective

To estimate the net cost of first-line fidaxomicin compared to vancomycin in the American and Canadian healthcare systems and to estimate the price points at which fidaxomicin would become cost saving for the prevention of recurrence.

Data sources and study selection

We identified randomized, placebo-controlled trials directly comparing fidaxomicin with vancomycin that reported on recurrence. Medication costs were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule (US) and the Quebec drug formulary (Canada). The average cost of a CDI recurrence was established through a systematic review for each country.

Data extraction synthesis and outcome measures

For efficacy, data on CDI recurrence at day 40 were pooled using a restricted maximal likelihood random effects model. For the cost review, the mean cost across identified studies was adjusted to reflect May 2022 dollars. These were used to estimate the net cost per recurrence prevented with fidaxomicin and the price point below which fidaxomicin would be cost saving.

Results

The estimated mean system costs of a CDI recurrence were $15 147USD and $8806CAD, respectively. Preventing one recurrence by using first-line fidaxomicin over vancomycin would cost $38 222USD (95%CI $30 577-$57 332) and $13 760CAD (95%CI $11 008-$20 640), respectively. The probability that fidaxomicin was cost saving exceeded 95% if priced below $1140USD or $860CAD, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

An increased drug expenditure on fidaxomicin may not be offset through recurrence prevention unless the fidaxomicin price is negotiated.

Comparison of Blood Transfusion Rates Before and After Implementation of a Quality Improvement Initiative for Transfusion Safety and Appropriateness

This quality improvement study compares blood transfusion rates among patients at a single tertiary care hospital before and after the implementation of a transfusion training model completed by incoming resident physicians.