Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Discussion The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.Peer reviewe

Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes

publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes journaltitle: Cell articlelink: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.046 content_type: article copyright: © 2018 Elsevier Inc

Empirical metronidazole for patients with severe bacterial infection:A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background: Metronidazole is the preferred empirical anti-anaerobic agent for patients with suspected anaerobic infection. The balance between benefits and harms of empirical metronidazole is unclear. We aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of empirical metronidazole vs placebo/no treatment in adult patients with severe bacterial infection of any origin. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing empirical metronidazole vs placebo/no treatment in adult hospitalized patients with severe bacterial infection. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A protocol and statistical analysis plan was published prior to conducting the review. Results: We included a total of nine trials (n = 1753 patients), all of which were adjudicated as having high risk of bias. We found no difference in the primary outcome mortality within 90 days (relative risk 1.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39-6.25). Fewer patients receiving metronidazole had secondary infections (relative risk 0.43, 95% CI: 0.27-0.68). Trial sequential analysis indicated high risk of random errors due to lack of data, and the quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: There is low quantity and quality of evidence supporting the use of empirical metronidazole in adult patients with severe bacterial infections of any origin, and no firm evidence for benefit or harm

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with bacterial infection:Protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Early empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy is recommended for patients with severe infections, including sepsis. β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations or carbapenems are often used to ensure coverage of likely pathogens. Piperacillin/tazobactam is proposed as a carbapenem-sparing agent to reduce the incidence of multidrug-resistant bacteria and superinfections. In the recently published MERINO trial, increased mortality from piperacillin/tazobactam was suggested in patients with bacteraemia with resistant Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species. Whether these findings also apply to empirical piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with other severe infections, including sepsis, is unknown. We aim to assess the benefits and harms of empirical and definitive piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with severe bacterial infections.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections of any origin. The primary outcome will be all-cause short-term mortality ≤ 90 days. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause long-term mortality > 90 days, adverse events, quality of life, use of life support, secondary infections, antibiotic resistance, and length of stay. We will conduct meta-analyses, including pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses for all assessed outcomes. The risk of random errors in the meta-analyses will be assessed by trial sequential analysis