Duration of antibiotic treatment for Gram-negative bacteremia - Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis

Background: We aim to compare the effect of short versus long treatment duration in Gram-negative bacteremia on all-cause mortality in pre-specified sub-groups. Methods: Individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short (≤7) versus longer (>7 days) antibiotic treatment for Gram-negative bacteremia. Participants were adults (≥18 years), with Gram-negative bacteremia during hospital stay. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science to identify trials conducted up to May 2022. Primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, relapse of bacteremia, length of hospital stay, readmission, local or distant infection complications, adverse events, and resistance emergence.Outcomes were assessed in pre-specified subgroups: women vs men; non-urinary vs urinary source; presence vs absence of hypotension on initial presentation; immunocompromised patients versus non-immunocompromised patients, and age (above/below 65). Fixed-effect meta-analysis model was used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All three trials had low risk of bias for allocation generation and concealment. Findings: Three RCTs (1186 patients) were included; 1121 with enterobacterales bacteremia. No significant difference in mortality was demonstrated between 7- and 14-days treatment (90-day mortality: OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73-1.58; 30-day mortality: 1.08, 0.62-1.91). Relapse (1.00, 0.50-1.97); length of hospital stay (P = 0.78); readmission (0.96, 0.80-1.22); and infection complications (local: 1.62 0.76-3.47; distant: 2.00, 0.18-22.08), were without significant difference, and so were adverse events or resistance emergence.No significant difference in clinical outcomes between 7 and 14 days of antibiotics was demonstrated in the subgroups of gender, age, hemodynamic status, immune status, and source of infection. Interpretation: For patients hemodynamically stable and afebrile at 48 h prior to discontinuation, seven days of antibiotic therapy for enterobacterales bacteremia result in similar outcomes as 14 days, in terms of mortality, relapse, length of hospital stay, complications of infection, resistance emergence, and adverse events. These results apply for any adult age group, gender, source of infection, immune status, and hemodynamic status on presentation. Funding: There was no funding source for this study

Duration of antibiotic treatment for Gram-negative bacteremia – Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis

Background We aim to compare the effect of short versus long treatment duration in Gram-negative bacteremia on all-cause mortality in pre-specified sub-groups. Methods Individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short (≤7) versus longer (>7 days) antibiotic treatment for Gram-negative bacteremia. Participants were adults (≥18 years), with Gram-negative bacteremia during hospital stay. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science to identify trials conducted up to May 2022. Primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, relapse of bacteremia, length of hospital stay, readmission, local or distant infection complications, adverse events, and resistance emergence. Outcomes were assessed in pre-specified subgroups: women vs men; non-urinary vs urinary source; presence vs absence of hypotension on initial presentation; immunocompromised patients versus non-immunocompromised patients, and age (above/below 65). Fixed-effect meta-analysis model was used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All three trials had low risk of bias for allocation generation and concealment. Findings Three RCTs (1186 patients) were included; 1121 with enterobacterales bacteremia. No significant difference in mortality was demonstrated between 7- and 14-days treatment (90-day mortality: OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73–1.58; 30-day mortality: 1.08, 0.62–1.91). Relapse (1.00, 0.50–1.97); length of hospital stay (P = 0.78); readmission (0.96, 0.80–1.22); and infection complications (local: 1.62 0.76–3.47; distant: 2.00, 0.18–22.08), were without significant difference, and so were adverse events or resistance emergence. No significant difference in clinical outcomes between 7 and 14 days of antibiotics was demonstrated in the subgroups of gender, age, hemodynamic status, immune status, and source of infection. Interpretation For patients hemodynamically stable and afebrile at 48 h prior to discontinuation, seven days of antibiotic therapy for enterobacterales bacteremia result in similar outcomes as 14 days, in terms of mortality, relapse, length of hospital stay, complications of infection, resistance emergence, and adverse events. These results apply for any adult age group, gender, source of infection, immune status, and hemodynamic status on presentation

Duration of antibiotic treatment for Gram-negative bacteremia – Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysisResearch in context

Summary: Background: We aim to compare the effect of short versus long treatment duration in Gram-negative bacteremia on all-cause mortality in pre-specified sub-groups. Methods: Individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short (≤7) versus longer (>7 days) antibiotic treatment for Gram-negative bacteremia. Participants were adults (≥18 years), with Gram-negative bacteremia during hospital stay. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science to identify trials conducted up to May 2022. Primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, relapse of bacteremia, length of hospital stay, readmission, local or distant infection complications, adverse events, and resistance emergence.Outcomes were assessed in pre-specified subgroups: women vs men; non-urinary vs urinary source; presence vs absence of hypotension on initial presentation; immunocompromised patients versus non-immunocompromised patients, and age (above/below 65). Fixed-effect meta-analysis model was used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All three trials had low risk of bias for allocation generation and concealment. Findings: Three RCTs (1186 patients) were included; 1121 with enterobacterales bacteremia. No significant difference in mortality was demonstrated between 7- and 14-days treatment (90-day mortality: OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73–1.58; 30-day mortality: 1.08, 0.62–1.91). Relapse (1.00, 0.50–1.97); length of hospital stay (P = 0.78); readmission (0.96, 0.80–1.22); and infection complications (local: 1.62 0.76–3.47; distant: 2.00, 0.18–22.08), were without significant difference, and so were adverse events or resistance emergence.No significant difference in clinical outcomes between 7 and 14 days of antibiotics was demonstrated in the subgroups of gender, age, hemodynamic status, immune status, and source of infection. Interpretation: For patients hemodynamically stable and afebrile at 48 h prior to discontinuation, seven days of antibiotic therapy for enterobacterales bacteremia result in similar outcomes as 14 days, in terms of mortality, relapse, length of hospital stay, complications of infection, resistance emergence, and adverse events. These results apply for any adult age group, gender, source of infection, immune status, and hemodynamic status on presentation. Funding: There was no funding source for this study

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: 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

Risk factors for functional decline among survivors of Gram-negative bloodstream infection: A prospective cohort study

To identify risk factors for functional decline after hospitalization for Gram-negative bacteremia

Seven versus fourteen Days of Antibiotic Therapy for uncomplicated Gram-negative Bacteremia: a Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

Gram-negative bacteremia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Data to guide the duration of antibiotic therapy are limited

External Validity of a Randomized Controlled Trial on Duration of Antibiotics for the Treatment of Gram-Negative Bacteremia

Introduction: Reports regarding the external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are scarce. We aimed to assess the population external validity of an investigator-initiated RCT on the duration of antibiotics for the treatment of Gram-negative bacteremia by comparing patients included in the RCT to patients that were not included in the trial. Methods: Hospitalized patients with Gram-negative bacteremia were recruited into an RCT and randomized to receive 7 or 14 days of covering antibiotic therapy in Israel and Italy from 2013 to 2017. In a concomitant observational study, RCT participants were compared with patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria but were not included in the trial due to participation in other trials, discharge before approached by researchers, refusal to participate, or unwillingness of the treating physician to allow participants' recruitment. Results: Six hundred and four RCT patients were compared with 613 nonincluded patients. Almost 50% of nonincluded patients (288/613) were dependent on others for activities of daily living at baseline compared to 37.7% of RCT participants (228/604). Dementia was nearly 2-fold more frequent in nonincluded patients than those included (5.9% [36/613] versus 3.6% [22/604], p = 0.07). Patients who were not included in the RCT were more likely to acquire their infection in the hospital (53.3% [327/613] versus 29.1% [176/604], p < 0.001). The primary composite outcome of mortality, clinical failure, readmissions, or extended hospitalization at 90 days occurred in 353 of 613 nonincluded patients (57.6%) compared to 299 of 604 RCT participants (49.6%), p = 0.005. However, on multivariate analysis noninclusion in the RCT was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure and mortality. Conclusions: RCTs, even with broad eligibility criteria, do not represent the whole spectrum of patients and leave out a population with more severe illness for whom the evidence is lacking

Colistin alone versus colistin plus meropenem for treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: An open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background: Colistin-carbapenem combinations are synergistic in vitro against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. We aimed to test whether combination therapy improves clinical outcomes for adults with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant or carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. Methods: A randomised controlled superiority trial was done in six hospitals in Israel, Greece, and Italy. We included adults with bacteraemia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, hospital-acquired pneumonia, or urosepsis caused by carbapenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, by computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by centre, to intravenous colistin (9-million unit loading dose, followed by 4·5 million units twice per day) or colistin with meropenem (2-g prolonged infusion three times per day). The trial was open-label, with blinded outcome assessment. Treatment success was defined as survival, haemodynamic stability, improved or stable Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, stable or improved ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of expired oxygen for patients with pneumonia, and microbiological cure for patients with bacteraemia. The primary outcome was clinical failure, defined as not meeting all success criteria by intention-to-treat analysis, at 14 days after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250, and is closed to accrual. Findings: Between Oct 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, we randomly assigned 406 patients to the two treatment groups. Most patients had pneumonia or bacteraemia (355/406, 87%), and most infections were caused by Acinetobacter baumannii (312/406, 77%). No significant difference between colistin monotherapy (156/198, 79%) and combination therapy (152/208, 73%) was observed for clinical failure at 14 days after randomisation (risk difference -5·7%, 95% CI -13·9 to 2·4; risk ratio [RR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·83-1·03). Results were similar among patients with A baumannii infections (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·09). Combination therapy increased the incidence of diarrhoea (56 [27%] vs 32 [16%] patients) and decreased the incidence of mild renal failure (37 [30%] of 124 vs 25 [20%] of 125 patients at risk of or with kidney injury). Interpretation: Combination therapy was not superior to monotherapy. The addition of meropenem to colistin did not improve clinical failure in severe A baumannii infections. The trial was unpowered to specifically address other bacteria. Funding: EU AIDA grant Health-F3-2011-278348

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria : relevance to external validity

Background: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study's population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10-16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0-15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity

Background: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study’s population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10–16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0–15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. Trial registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012