Dataset Information

A Desirability of Outcome Ranking Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Seven Versus Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although a short course (7 days) of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be noninferior to a conventional course (14 days) in terms of mortality and infectious complications for patients with a Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection (GNB), it is unknown whether a shorter treatment duration can provide a better overall clinical outcome.

Methods

We applied a bloodstream infection-specific desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis to the results of a previously completed, randomized controlled trial comparing short versus conventional course antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with uncomplicated GNB. We determined the probability that a randomly selected participant in the short course group would have a more desirable overall outcome than a participant in the conventional duration group. We performed (1) partial credit analyses allowing for calculated and variable weighting of DOOR ranks and (2) subgroup analyses to elucidate which patients may benefit the most from short durations of therapy.

Results

For the 604 patients included in the original study (306 short course, 298 conventional course), the probability of having a more desirable outcome with a short course of antibiotics compared with a conventional course was 51.1% (95% confidence interval, 46.7% to 55.4%), indicating no significant difference. Partial credit analyses indicated that the DOOR results were similar across different patient preferences. Prespecified subgroup analyses using DOOR did not reveal significant differences between short and conventional courses of therapy.

Conclusions

Both short and conventional durations of antibiotic therapy provide comparable clinical outcomes when using DOOR to consider benefits and risks of treatment options for GNB.

SUBMITTER: Howard-Anderson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9125302 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Desirability of Outcome Ranking Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Seven Versus Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection.

Howard-Anderson Jessica J Dai Weixiao W Yahav Dafna D Hamasaki Toshimitsu T Turjeman Adi A Koppel Fidi F Franceschini Erica E Hill Carol C Sund Zoë Z Chambers Henry F HF Fowler Vance G VG Boucher Helen W HW Evans Scott R SR Paul Mical M Holland Thomas L TL Doernberg Sarah B SB

Open forum infectious diseases 20220409 6

<h4>Background</h4>Although a short course (7 days) of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be noninferior to a conventional course (14 days) in terms of mortality and infectious complications for patients with a Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection (GNB), it is unknown whether a shorter treatment duration can provide a better overall clinical outcome.<h4>Methods</h4>We applied a bloodstream infection-specific desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis to the results of a previousl ...[more]

PMID: 35615299

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is frequently encountered in the hospital setting, and current guidelines recommend at least 14 days of antibiotic treatment for SAB in order to minimize risks of secondary deep infections and relapse. However, evidence to support these treatment recommendations remains scarce. Patients with uncomplicated SAB are known to have a low of risk of recurrence and death. Reducing treatment length in uncomplicated SAB would reduce the total consumption of antibiotics, duration of hospital admission, and potentially the risk of adverse events. With SAB7 we seek to determine if 7 days of antibiotic treatment in patients with uncomplicated SAB is non-inferior to 14 days of treatment.Methods/designThe study is designed as a randomized, non-blinded, non-inferiority, multicenter interventional study. Primary measure of outcome will be 90-day survival without clinical or microbiological failure to treatment or relapse. Secondary outcomes include the prevalence of severe adverse effects, in particular secondary infection with Clostridium difficile, all-cause mortality, as well as public health related costs. Patients identified with uncomplicated SAB who have received 7 days of protocol-approved antibiotics will be eligible for inclusion and randomized 1:1 in two parallel arms to either (i) discontinue antibiotic treatment at day 7 or (ii) to continue antibiotic treatment for a total of 14 days. Main exclusion criteria include signs of complicated SAB, such as the presence of secondary deep infections, persistent bacteremia, and implantable devices. Patients are followed for 6 months with clinical examinations, consecutive blood tests, and registration of adverse events. A total of 284 patients are to be included at ten centers across Denmark. The primary endpoint will be tested with a statistical non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage points.DiscussionSAB 7 will determine if 7 days of antibiotic treatment in patients with uncomplicated SAB is sufficient and safe. Results of the study will provide important knowledge on optimized SAB management and could potentially modify the current treatment recommendations.Trial registrationClinicalTrails.gov, H-17027414 . Registered on May 2, 2018. The Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT), 2017-003529-13. Registered on October 30, 2017.

Project description:ImportanceGram-negative bacteremia is a global health concern, and optimizing the transition from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics is a critical step in improving patient treatment and resource utilization.ObjectiveTo assess the association of switching to oral antibiotics within 4 days after initial blood culture with 90-day all-cause mortality compared with prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study conducted using the target trial emulation framework included observational data from adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia in 4 hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark, from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2021. The duration of follow-up was 90 days. Eligibility criteria included a blood culture positive for growth of gram-negative bacteria, clinical stability within 4 days of initial blood culture, an available susceptibility report on day 4, and initiation of appropriate empirical IV antibiotic treatment within 24 hours of blood culture.ExposureSwitching to oral antibiotics within 4 days after initial blood culture compared with continuing IV antibiotic treatment for at least 5 days after initial blood culture.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to adjust for confounding. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed using pooled logistic regression to estimate absolute risk, risk difference (RD), and risk ratio (RR); 95% CIs were computed using bootstrapping.ResultsA total of 914 individuals were included in the target trial emulation analysis (512 [56.0%] male; median age, 74.5 years [IQR, 63.3-83.2 years]); 433 (47.4%) transitioned early to oral antibiotic treatment, and 481 (52.6%) received prolonged IV treatment. Ninety-nine individuals (10.8%) died during follow-up. The proportion of individuals who died was higher in the group receiving prolonged IV treatment (69 [14.3%] vs 30 [6.9%]). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 90-day all-cause mortality risk was 9.1% (95% CI, 6.7%-11.6%) for the early-switch group and 11.7% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.8%) for the group receiving prolonged IV treatment; the RD was -2.5% (95% CI, -5.7% to 0.7%) and RR was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.60-1.10). In the per-protocol analysis, the RD was -0.1% (95% CI, -3.4% to 3.1%) and RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.70-1.40).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia, early transition to oral antibiotics within 4 days of initial blood culture was associated with 90-day all-cause mortality risk comparable to that of continuing IV antibiotic treatment and may be an effective alternative to prolonged IV treatment.

Project description:BackgroundIn randomized trials, 1 primary outcome is typically chosen to evaluate the consequences of an intervention, whereas other important outcomes are relegated to secondary outcomes. This issue is amplified for many obstetrical trials in which an intervention may have consequences for both the pregnant person and the child. In contrast, desirability of outcome ranking, a paradigm shift for the design and analysis of clinical trials based on patient-centric evaluation, allows multiple outcomes-including from >1 individual-to be considered concurrently.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe desirability of outcome ranking methodology tailored to obstetrical trials and to apply the methodology to maternal-perinatal paired (dyadic) outcomes in which both individuals may be affected by an intervention but may experience discordant outcomes (eg, an obstetrical intervention may improve perinatal but worsen maternal outcomes).Study designThis secondary analysis applies the desirability of outcome ranking methodology to data from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network ARRIVE trial. The original analysis found no substantial difference in the primary (perinatal composite) outcome, but a decreased risk of the secondary outcome of cesarean delivery with elective induction at 39 weeks. In the present desirability-of-outcome-ranking analysis, dyadic outcomes ranging from spontaneous vaginal delivery without severe neonatal complication (most desirable) to cesarean delivery with perinatal death (least desirable) were classified into 8 categories ranked by overall desirability by experienced investigators. Distributions of the desirability of outcome ranking were compared by estimating the probability of having a more desirable dyadic outcome with elective induction at 39 weeks of gestation than with expectant management. To account for various perspectives on these outcomes, a complementary analysis, called the partial credit strategy, was used to grade outcomes on a 100-point scale and estimate the difference in overall treatment scores between groups using a t test.ResultsAll 6096 participants from the trial were included. The probability of a better dyadic outcome for a randomly selected patient who was randomized to elective induction was 53% (95% confidence interval, 51-54), implying that elective induction led to a better overall outcome for the dyad when taking multiple outcomes into account concurrently. Furthermore, the desirability-of-outcome-ranking probability of averting cesarean delivery with elective induction was 52% (95% confidence interval, 51-53), which was not at the expense of an operative vaginal delivery or a poorer outcome for the perinate (ie, survival with a severe neonatal complication or perinatal death). Randomization to elective induction was also advantageous in most of the partial credit score scenarios.ConclusionDesirability-of-outcome-ranking methodology is a useful tool for obstetrical trials because it provides a concurrent view of the effect of an intervention on multiple dyadic outcomes, potentially allowing for better translation of data for decision-making and person-centered care.

Project description:BackgroundClusters of bloodstream infections caused by Burkholderia cepacia and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia are uncommon, but have been previously identified in hemodialysis centers that reprocessed dialyzers for reuse on patients. We investigated an outbreak of bloodstream infections caused by B cepacia and S maltophilia among hemodialysis patients in clinics of a dialysis organization.Study designOutbreak investigation, including matched case-control study.Setting & participantsHemodialysis patients treated in multiple outpatient clinics owned by a dialysis organization.PredictorsMain predictors were dialyzer reuse, dialyzer model, and dialyzer reprocessing practice.OutcomesCase patients had a bloodstream infection caused by B cepacia or S maltophilia; controls were patients without infection dialyzed at the same clinic on the same day as a case; results of environmental cultures and organism typing.Results17 cases (9 B cepacia and 8 S maltophilia bloodstream infections) occurred in 5 clinics owned by the same dialysis organization. Case patients were more likely to have received hemodialysis with a dialyzer that had been used more than 6 times (matched OR, 7.03; 95% CI, 1.38-69.76) and to have been dialyzed with a specific reusable dialyzer (Model R) with sealed ends (OR, 22.87; 95% CI, 4.49-∞). No major lapses during dialyzer reprocessing were identified that could explain the outbreak. B cepacia was isolated from samples collected from a dialyzer header-cleaning machine from a clinic with cases and was indistinguishable from a patient isolate collected from the same clinic, by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Gram-negative bacteria were isolated from 2 reused Model R dialyzers that had undergone the facility's reprocessing procedure.LimitationsLimited statistical power and overmatching; few patient isolates and dialyzers available for testing.ConclusionsThis outbreak was likely caused by contamination during reprocessing of reused dialyzers. Results of this and previous investigations demonstrate that exposing patients to reused dialyzers increases the risk for bloodstream infections. To reduce infection risk, providers should consider implementing single dialyzer use whenever possible.

Dataset Information

A Desirability of Outcome Ranking Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Seven Versus Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Desirability of Outcome Ranking Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Seven Versus Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets