A pilot randomised controlled trial in intensive care patients comparing 7 days' treatment with empirical antibiotics with 2 days' treatment for hospital-acquired infection of unknown origin

The Use of Biomarkers in Pharmacovigilance: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

The use of biomarkers varies from disease etiognosis and diagnosis to signal detection, risk prediction, and management. Biomarker use has expanded in recent years, however, there are limited reviews on the use of biomarkers in pharmacovigilance and specifically in the monitoring and management of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

Objective

The objective of this manuscript is to identify the multiple uses of biomarkers in pharmacovigilance irrespective of the therapeutic area.

Design

This is a systematic review of the literature.

Data Sources and Methods

Embase and MEDLINE database searches were conducted for literature published between 2010-March 19, 2021. Scientific articles that described the potential use of biomarkers in pharmacovigilance in sufficient detail were reviewed. Papers that did not fulfill the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) definition of a biomarker were excluded, which is based on the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)-E16 guidance.

Results

Twenty-seven articles were identified for evaluation. Most articles involved predictive biomarkers (41%), followed by safety biomarkers (38%), pharmacodynamic/response biomarkers (14%), and diagnostic biomarkers (7%). Some articles described biomarkers that applied to multiple categories.

Conclusion

Various categories of biomarkers including safety, predictive, pharmacodynamic/response, and diagnostic biomarkers are being investigated for potential use in pharmacovigilance. The most frequent potential uses of biomarkers in pharmacovigilance in the literature were the prediction of the severity of an ADR, mortality, response, safety, and toxicity. The safety biomarkers identified were used to evaluate patient safety during dose escalation, identify patients who may benefit from further biomarker testing during treatment, and monitor ADRs.

Short- versus long-course antibiotic therapy for sepsis: a post hoc analysis of the nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The appropriate duration of antibiotic treatment in patients with bacterial sepsis remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of a shorter course of antibiotics on 28-day mortality in comparison with a longer course using a national database in Japan.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis from the retrospective observational study of patients with sepsis using a Japanese claims database from 2010 to 2017. The patient dataset was divided into short-course (≤ 7 days) and long-course (≥ 8 days) groups according to the duration of initial antibiotic administration. Subsequently, propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline imbalance between the two groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were re-initiated antibiotics at 3 and 7 days, during hospitalization, administration period, antibiotic-free days, and medical cost.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 448,146 pairs were analyzed. The 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the short-course group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95; P < 0.001), while the occurrence of re-initiated antibiotics at 3 and 7 days and during hospitalization were significantly higher in the short-course group (P < 0.001). Antibiotic-free days (median [IQR]) were significantly shorter in the long-course group (21 days [17 days, 23 days] vs. 17 days [14 days, 19 days], P < 0.001), and short-course administration contributed to a decrease in medical costs (coefficient $-212, 95% CI; - 223 to - 201, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed a significant decrease in the 28-day mortality of the patients in the short-course group in patients of male sex (hazard ratio: 0.91, 95% CI; 0.89-0.93), community-onset sepsis (hazard ratio; 0.95, 95% CI; 0.93-0.98), abdominal infection (hazard ratio; 0.92, 95% CI; 0.88-0.97) and heart infection (hazard ratio; 0.74, 95% CI; 0.61-0.90), while a significant increase was observed in patients with non-community-onset sepsis (hazard ratio; 1.09, 95% CI; 1.06-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

The 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the short-course group, even though there was a higher rate of re-initiated antibiotics in the short course.

Scoping review on diagnostic criteria and investigative approach in sepsis of unknown origin in critically ill patients

Background

Up to 11% of critically ill patients with sepsis have an unknown source, where the pathogen and site of infection are unclear. The aim of this scoping review is to document currently reported diagnostic criteria of sepsis of unknown origin (SUO) and identify the types and breadth of existing evidence supporting diagnostic processes to identify the infection source in critically ill patients with suspected SUO.

Methods

A literature search of Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed for published studies from 1910 to August 19, 2021 addressing the topic of SUO was performed. Study type, country of origin according to World Bank classification, diagnostic criteria of sepsis of unknown origin, and investigative approaches were extracted from the studies.

Results

From an initial 722 studies, 89 unique publications fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included for full text review. The most common publication type was case report/series 45/89 (51%). Only 10/89 (11%) of studies provided a diagnostic criteria of SUO, but a universally accepted diagnostic criterion was not identified. The included studies discussed 30/89 (34%) history, 23/89 (26%) examination, 57/89 (64%) imaging, microbiology 39/89 (44%), and special tests 32/89 (36%) as part of the diagnostic processes in patients with SUO.

Conclusions

Universally accepted diagnostic criteria for SUO was not found. Prospective studies on investigative processes in critically ill patients managed as SUO across different healthcare settings are needed to understand the epidemiology and inform the diagnostic criteria required to diagnose SUO.

Effect of Antibiotic Discontinuation Strategies on Mortality and Infectious Complications in Critically Ill Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate methods of antibiotic duration minimization and their effect on mortality and infectious complications in critically ill patients.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase (via Ovid), clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley) (CENTRAL, Issue 2, 2015).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials comparing strategies to minimize antibiotic duration (days) for patients with infections or sepsis in intensive care.

DATA EXTRACTION

A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized clinical trials. Dichotomous data are presented as relative risk (95% CIs) and p value, and continuous data are presented as mean difference (CI) and p value.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 22 randomized clinical trials (6,046 patients). Strategies to minimize antibiotic use included procalcitonin (14 randomized clinical trials), clinical algorithms (two randomized clinical trials), and fixed-antibiotic duration (six randomized clinical trials). Procalcitonin (-1.23 [-1.61 to -0.85]; p < 0.001), but not clinical algorithm-guided antibiotic therapy (-7.41 [-18.18 to 3.37]; p = 0.18), was associated with shorter duration of antibiotic therapy. The intended reduction in antibiotic duration ranged from 3 to 7 days in fixed-duration antibiotic therapy randomized clinical trials. Neither procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment (0.91 [0.82-1.01]; p = 0.09), clinical algorithm-guided antibiotic treatment (0.67 [0.30-1.54]; p = 0.35), nor fixed-duration antibiotics (1.21 [0.90-1.63]; p = 0.20) were associated with reduction in mortality. Z-curve for trial sequential analyses of mortality associated with procalcitonin-guided therapy did not reach the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility (adjusted CI, 0.72-1.10). Trial sequential analyses for mortality associated with clinical algorithm and fixed-duration treatment accumulated less than 5% of the required information size. Despite shorter antibiotic duration, neither procalcitonin-guided therapy (0.93 [0.84-1.03]; p = 0.15) nor fixed-duration antibiotic therapy (1.06 [0.74-1.53]; p = 0.75) was associated with treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the duration of antibiotic therapy is reduced with procalcitonin-guided therapy or prespecified limited duration, meta-analysis and trial sequential analyses are inconclusive for mortality benefit. Data on clinical algorithms to guide antibiotic cessation are limited.

Antimicrobial-associated harm in critical care: a narrative review

The belief that, for the individual patient, the benefit of prompt and continued use of antimicrobials outweighs any potential harm is a significant barrier to improved stewardship of these vital agents. Antimicrobial stewardship may be perceived as utilitarian rationing, seeking to preserve the availability of effective antimicrobials by limiting the development of resistance in a manner which could conflict with the immediate treatment of the patient in need. This view does not account for the growing evidence of antimicrobial-associated harm to individual patients. This review sets out the evidence for antimicrobial-associated harm and how this should be balanced with the need for prompt and appropriate therapy in infection. It describes the mechanisms by which antimicrobials may harm patients including: mitochondrial toxicity; immune cell toxicity; adverse drug reactions; selection of resistant organisms within a given patient; and disruption of the microbiome. Finally, the article indicates how the harms of antimicrobials may be mitigated and identifies areas for research and development in this field.

Health economic evaluations of sepsis interventions in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review

Background

Sepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

We identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

There is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42018095980

Shorter Versus Longer Courses of Antibiotics for Infection in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Infection is a leading cause of hospitalization with high morbidity and mortality, but there are limited data to guide the duration of antibiotic therapy.

PURPOSE

Systematic review to compare outcomes of shorter versus longer antibiotic courses among hospitalized adults and adolescents.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Embase databases, 1990-2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English comparing a prespecified short course of antibiotics to a longer course for treatment of infection in hospitalized adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods of statistical analysis, outcomes, and risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 5187 unique citations identified, 19 RCTs comprising 2867 patients met our inclusion criteria, including the following: 9 noninferiority trials, 1 superiority design trial, and 9 pilot studies. Across 13 studies evaluating 1727 patients, no significant difference in clinical efficacy was observed (d = 1.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.0%-4.2%]). No significant difference was detected in microbiologic cure (8 studies, d = 1.2% [95% CI, -4.1%-6.4%]), short-term mortality (8 studies, d = 0.3% [95% CI, -1.2%-1.8%]), longer-term mortality (3 studies, d = -0.4% [95% CI, -6.3%-5.5%]), or recurrence (10 studies, d = 2.1% [95% CI, -1.2%-5.3%]). Heterogeneity across studies was not significant for any of the primary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available literature, shorter courses of antibiotics can be safely utilized in hospitalized patients with common infections, including pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and intra-abdominal infection, to achieve clinical and microbiologic resolution without adverse effects on mortality or recurrence.

Shortening the course of antibiotic treatment in the intensive care unit

Effective antimicrobial stewardship is an increasingly important concern for healthcare providers globally. Antibiotics are frequently prescribed for patients who develop sepsis in the intensive care unit and traditionally courses are prolonged, with uncertain benefit and probable harm. There is little evidence to support many guidelines recommending between 10 and 14 days, and a number of studies suggest substantially shorter courses of less than 7 days may suffice. Safely reducing course length is likely to depend on a number of preconditions, including thorough eradication of any septic foci; optimization of serum antibiotic concentrations, particularly when there is physiological derangement; and use of novel biomarkers such as procalcitonin. The critical care environment is well suited to this aim as patients are closely monitored. With these measures in place, it is reasonable to believe short antibiotic courses can safely be used for the majority of intensive care infections.

The role of antimicrobials in the treatment of sepsis and critical illness-related bacterial infections: examination of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the evidence behind the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on antimicrobial therapy in sepsis and evaluate relevant literature in small animal veterinary critical care.

DATA SOURCE

Electronic searches using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.

HUMAN DATA SYNTHESIS

Current recommendations are to administer appropriate antimicrobials within 1 hour of a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. Evidence is supportive of this recommendation in septic shock but the evidence is less compelling in milder forms of critical illness-related infections. It is unclear when the administration of appropriate antimicrobials is most beneficial and when it should be considered essential. Evidence supports shorter courses of antimicrobial therapy for many infections seen in the critical care unit with the biomarkers procalcitonin and C-reactive protein helpful in guiding the duration of therapy.

VETERINARY DATA SYNTHESIS

Current evidence is lacking to support the use of early and aggressive use of antimicrobials in all patients with critical illness-related bacterial infections. Two studies failed to demonstrate improved survival in patients with pulmonary or abdominal infections administered appropriate vs inappropriate empirical antimicrobials. One study failed to show an improved survival when dogs with abdominal infections were administered antimicrobials within 1 hour vs 6 hours of diagnosis of infection. Information regarding ideal duration of antimicrobial therapy and use of biomarkers to guide therapy is currently lacking.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should aim to administer early and appropriate antimicrobials; however, the impact this will have on patient outcome remains uncertain. The ability to administer early and appropriate antimicrobials may be considered a measure of the quality of medical practice rather than a prognostic indicator.