Outcomes in participants with failure of initial antibacterial therapy for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia prior to enrollment in the randomized, controlled phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a combination antibacterial agent comprising an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin and β-lactamase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in adults. Participants in the ASPECT-NP trial received ceftolozane/tazobactam (3 g [2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam] every 8 h) or meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Participants failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) rates with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem treatment. Here, we report a post hoc analysis examining this result. METHODS: The phase 3, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter, noninferiority trial compared ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of adults with ventilated HABP/VABP; eligibility included those failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry. The primary and key secondary endpoints were 28-day ACM and clinical response at test of cure (TOC), respectively. Participants who were failing prior therapy were a prospectively defined subgroup; however, subgroup analyses were not designed for noninferiority testing. The 95% CIs for treatment differences were calculated as unstratified Newcombe CIs. Post hoc analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the impact of baseline characteristics and treatment on clinical outcomes in the subgroup who were failing prior antibacterial therapy. RESULTS: In the ASPECT-NP trial, 12.8% of participants (93/726; ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 53; meropenem, n = 40) were failing prior antibacterial therapy at study entry. In this subgroup, 28-day ACM was higher in participants who received meropenem versus ceftolozane/tazobactam (18/40 [45.0%] vs 12/53 [22.6%]; percentage difference [95% CI]: 22.4% [3.1 to 40.1]). Rates of clinical response at TOC were 26/53 [49.1%] for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 15/40 [37.5%] for meropenem (percentage difference [95% CI]: 11.6% [- 8.6 to 30.2]). Multivariable regression analysis determined concomitant vasopressor use and treatment with meropenem were significant factors associated with risk of 28-day ACM. Adjusting for vasopressor use, the risk of dying after treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam was approximately one-fourth the risk of dying after treatment with meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis further supports the previously demonstrated lower ACM rate for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem among participants who were failing prior therapy, despite the lack of significant differences in clinical cure rates. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT02070757 . Registered February 25, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Respiratory infections and tuberculosisInfecciones respiratorias y tuberculosisInfeccions respiratòries i tuberculosiDue to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55–78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5–19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6–23) days versus 8 (4–15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65–0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135), Canadian Institutes of Health Research Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359, grants from Rapid European COVID-19 Emergency Response Research (Horizon 2020 project 101003589), the European Clinical Research Alliance on Infectious Diseases (965313), The Imperial National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, and The Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; and endorsed by the Irish Critical Care Clinical Trials Group, co-ordinated in Ireland by the Irish Critical Care Clinical Trials Network at University College Dublin and funded by the Health Research Board of Ireland (CTN-2014-12). Data and Material provision was supported by grants from: the NIHR (award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (grant MC_PC_19059), the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), Wellcome Trust (Turtle, Lance-fellowship 205228/Z/16/Z), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. This work was by Research Council of Norway grant number 312780, and a philanthropic donation from Vivaldi Invest A/S owned by Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner

Outcomes in participants with ventilated nosocomial pneumonia and organ failure treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem: A subset analysis of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ASPECT-NP trial

BACKGROUND: The pivotal ASPECT-NP trial showed ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we evaluated treatment outcomes by degree of respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction. METHODS: This was a subset analysis of data from ASPECT-NP, a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). Adults with vHABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam or 1 g meropenem every 8 h for 8-14 days. Outcomes in participants with a baseline respiratory component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (R-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of severe respiratory failure), cardiovascular component of the SOFA score (CV-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of shock), or R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 were compared by treatment arm. The efficacy endpoint of primary interest was 28-day all-cause mortality. Clinical response, time to death, and microbiologic response were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 726 participants in the intention-to-treat population; 633 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 (312 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 321 meropenem), 183 with CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (84 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 99 meropenem), and 160 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (69 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 91 meropenem). Baseline characteristics, including causative pathogens, were generally similar in participants with R-SOFA ≥ 2 or CV-SOFA ≥ 2 across treatment arms. The 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.7% and 24.0% [difference: 0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 6.4, 6.9] for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 33.3% and 30.3% (difference: - 3.0%, 95% CI - 16.4, 10.3) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 34.8% and 30.8% (difference: - 4.0%, 95% CI - 18.6, 10.3), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Clinical cure rates were as follows: 55.8% and 54.2% (difference: 1.6%, 95% CI - 6.2, 9.3) for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 53.6% and 55.6% (difference: - 2.0%, 95% CI - 16.1, 12.2) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 53.6% and 56.0% (difference: - 2.4%, 95% CI - 17.6, 12.8), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Time to death was comparable in all SOFA groups across both treatment arms. A higher rate of microbiologic eradication/presumed eradication was observed for CV-SOFA ≥ 2 and R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 with ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of severe respiratory failure or shock did not affect the relative efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem; either agent may be used to treat critically ill patients with vHABP/VABP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757. Registered 25 February 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757

Pulmonary infections complicating ARDS.

Pulmonary infection is one of the main complications occurring in patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Besides traditional risk factors, dysregulation of lung immune defenses and microbiota may play an important role in ARDS patients. Prone positioning does not seem to be associated with a higher risk of pulmonary infection. Although bacteria associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in ARDS patients are similar to those in patients without ARDS, atypical pathogens (Aspergillus, herpes simplex virus and cytomegalovirus) may also be responsible for infection in ARDS patients. Diagnosing pulmonary infection in ARDS patients is challenging, and requires a combination of clinical, biological and microbiological criteria. The role of modern tools (e.g., molecular methods, metagenomic sequencing, etc.) remains to be evaluated in this setting. One of the challenges of antimicrobial treatment is antibiotics diffusion into the lungs. Although targeted delivery of antibiotics using nebulization may be interesting, their place in ARDS patients remains to be explored. The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the most severe patients is associated with a high rate of infection and raises several challenges, diagnostic issues and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics changes being at the top. Prevention of pulmonary infection is a key issue in ARDS patients, but there is no specific measure for these high-risk patients. Reinforcing preventive measures using bundles seems to be the best option

Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: Subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757

Current gaps in sepsis immunology: new opportunities for translational research

Increasing evidence supports a central role of the immune system in sepsis, but the current view of how sepsis affects immunity, and vice versa, is still rudimentary. The European Group on Immunology of Sepsis has identified major gaps that should be addressed with high priority, such as understanding how immunological alterations predispose to sepsis, key aspects of the immunopathological events during sepsis, and the long-term consequences of sepsis on patient's immunity. We discuss major unmet topics in those three categories, including the role of key immune cells, the cause of lymphopenia, organ-specific immunology, the dynamics of sepsis-associated immunological alterations, the role of the microbiome, the standardisation of immunological tests, the development of better animal models, and the opportunities offered by immunotherapy. Addressing these gaps should help us to better understand sepsis physiopathology, offering translational opportunities to improve its prevention, diagnosis, and care

Efficacy and safety of trimodulin, a novel polyclonal antibody preparation, in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter, phase II trial (CIGMA study)

Purpose The CIGMA study investigated a novel human polyclonal antibody preparation (trimodulin) containing ~ 23% immunoglobulin (Ig) M, ~ 21% IgA, and ~ 56% IgG as add-on therapy for patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP). Methods In this double-blind, phase II study (NCT01420744), 160 patients with sCAP requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized (1:1) to trimodulin (42 mg IgM/kg/day) or placebo for five consecutive days. Primary endpoint was ventilator-free days (VFDs). Secondary endpoints included 28-day all-cause and pneumonia-related mortality. Safety and tolerability were monitored. Exploratory post hoc analyses were performed in subsets stratified by baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; ≥ 70 mg/L) and/or IgM (≤ 0.8 g/L). Results Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in VFDs between trimodulin (mean 11.0, median 11 [n = 81]) and placebo (mean 9.6; median 8 [n = 79]; p = 0.173). Twenty-eight-day all-cause mortality was 22.2% vs. 27.8%, respectively (p = 0.465). Time to discharge from intensive care unit and mean duration of hospitalization were comparable between groups. Adverse-event incidences were comparable. Post hoc subset analyses, which included the majority of patients (58–78%), showed significant reductions in all-cause mortality (trimodulin vs. placebo) in patients with high CRP, low IgM, and high CRP/low IgM at baseline. Conclusions No significant differences were found in VFDs and mortality between trimodulin and placebo groups. Post hoc analyses supported improved outcome regarding mortality with trimodulin in subsets of patients with elevated CRP, reduced IgM, or both. These findings warrant further investigation

Interleukin-6 Is a Potential Biomarker for Severe Pandemic H1N1 Influenza A Infection

Pandemic H1N1 influenza A (H1N1pdm) is currently a dominant circulating influenza strain worldwide. Severe cases of H1N1pdm infection are characterized by prolonged activation of the immune response, yet the specific role of inflammatory mediators in disease is poorly understood. The inflammatory cytokine IL-6 has been implicated in both seasonal and severe pandemic H1N1 influenza A (H1N1pdm) infection. Here, we investigated the role of IL-6 in severe H1N1pdm infection. We found IL-6 to be an important feature of the host response in both humans and mice infected with H1N1pdm. Elevated levels of IL-6 were associated with severe disease in patients hospitalized with H1N1pdm infection. Notably, serum IL-6 levels associated strongly with the requirement of critical care admission and were predictive of fatal outcome. In C57BL/6J, BALB/cJ, and B6129SF2/J mice, infection with A/Mexico/4108/2009 (H1N1pdm) consistently triggered severe disease and increased IL-6 levels in both lung and serum. Furthermore, in our lethal C57BL/6J mouse model of H1N1pdm infection, global gene expression analysis indicated a pronounced IL-6 associated inflammatory response. Subsequently, we examined disease and outcome in IL-6 deficient mice infected with H1N1pdm. No significant differences in survival, weight loss, viral load, or pathology were observed between IL-6 deficient and wild-type mice following infection. Taken together, our findings suggest IL-6 may be a potential disease severity biomarker, but may not be a suitable therapeutic target in cases of severe H1N1pdm infection due to our mouse data

Influenza and associated co-infections in critically ill immunosuppressed patients

Abstract Background It is unclear whether influenza infection and associated co-infection are associated with patient-important outcomes in critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure. Methods Preplanned secondary analysis of EFRAIM, a prospective cohort study of 68 hospitals in 16 countries. We included 1611 patients aged 18 years or older with non-AIDS-related immunocompromise, who were admitted to the ICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The main exposure of interest was influenza infection status. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes ICU length of stay (LOS) and 90-day mortality. Results Influenza infection status was categorized into four groups: patients with influenza alone (n = 95, 5.8%), patients with influenza plus pulmonary co-infection (n = 58, 3.6%), patients with non-influenza pulmonary infection (n = 820, 50.9%), and patients without pulmonary infection (n = 638, 39.6%). Influenza infection status was associated with a requirement for intubation and with LOS in ICU (P < 0.001). Patients with influenza plus co-infection had the highest rates of intubation and longest ICU LOS. On crude analysis, influenza infection status was associated with ICU mortality (P < 0.001) but not hospital mortality (P = 0.09). Patients with influenza plus co-infection and patients with non-influenza infection alone had similar ICU mortality (41% and 37% respectively) that was higher than patients with influenza alone or those without infection (33% and 26% respectively). A propensity score-matched analysis did not show a difference in hospital mortality attributable to influenza infection (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.90–1.13, P = 0.85). Age, severity scores, ARDS, and performance status were all associated with ICU, hospital, and 90-day mortality. Conclusions Category of infectious etiology of respiratory failure (influenza, non-influenza, influenza plus co-infection, and non-infectious) was associated with ICU but not hospital mortality. In a propensity score-matched analysis, influenza infection was not associated with the primary outcome of hospital mortality. Overall, influenza infection alone may not be an independent risk factor for hospital mortality in immunosuppressed patients

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU