Standardised surveillance of Clostridium difficile infection in European acute care hospitals: a pilot study, 2013

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) remains poorly controlled in many European countries, of which several have not yet implemented national CDI surveillance. In 2013, experts from the European CDI Surveillance Network project and from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control developed a protocol with three options of CDI surveillance for acute care hospitals: a 'minimal' option (aggregated hospital data), a 'light' option (including patient data for CDI cases) and an 'enhanced' option (including microbiological data on the first 10 CDI episodes per hospital). A total of 37 hospitals in 14 European countries tested these options for a three-month period (between 13 May and 1 November 2013). All 37 hospitals successfully completed the minimal surveillance option (for 1,152 patients). Clinical data were submitted for 94% (1,078/1,152) of the patients in the light option; information on CDI origin and outcome was complete for 94% (1,016/1,078) and 98% (294/300) of the patients in the light and enhanced options, respectively. The workload of the options was 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 person-days per 10,000 hospital discharges, respectively. Enhanced surveillance was tested and was successful in 32 of the hospitals, showing that C. difficile PCR ribotype 027 was predominant (30% (79/267)). This study showed that standardised multicountry surveillance, with the option of integrating clinical and molecular data, is a feasible strategy for monitoring CDI in Europe

Underdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile across Europe: the European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID)

Background: Variations in testing for Clostridium difficile infection can hinder patients' care, increase the risk of transmission, and skew epidemiological data. We aimed to measure the underdiagnosis of C difficile infection across Europe. Methods: We did a questionnaire-based study at 482 participating hospitals across 20 European countries. Hospitals were questioned about their methods and testing policy for C difficile infection during the periods September, 2011, to August, 2012, and September, 2012, to August, 2013. On one day in winter, 2012–13 (December, 2012, or January, 2013), and summer, 2013 (July or August), every hospital sent all diarrhoeal samples submitted to their microbiology laboratory to a national coordinating laboratory for standardised testing of C difficile infection. Our primary outcome measures were the rates of testing for and cases of C difficile infection per 10 000 patient bed-days. Results of local and national C difficile infection testing were compared with each other. If the result was positive at the national laboratory but negative at the local hospital, the result was classified as undiagnosed C difficile infection. We compared differences in proportions with the Mann-Whitney test, or McNemar's test if data were matched. Findings: During the study period, participating hospitals reported a mean of 65·8 tests (country range 4·6–223·3) for C difficile infection per 10 000 patient-bed days and a mean of 7·0 cases (country range 0·7–28·7) of C difficile infection per 10 000 patient-bed days. Only two-fifths of hospitals reported using optimum methods for testing of C difficile infection (defined by European guidelines), although the number of participating hospitals using optimum methods increased during the study period, from 152 (32%) of 468 in 2011–12 to 205 (48%) of 428 in 2012–13. Across all 482 European hospitals on the two sampling days, 148 (23%) of 641 samples positive for C difficile infection (as determined by the national laboratory) were not diagnosed by participating hospitals because of an absence of clinical suspicion, equating to about 74 missed diagnoses per day. Interpretation: A wide variety of testing strategies for C difficile infection are used across Europe. Absence of clinical suspicion and suboptimum laboratory diagnostic methods mean that an estimated 40 000 inpatients with C difficile infection are potentially undiagnosed every year in 482 European hospitals

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis : Results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study

Background Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between −2·5 and −4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between −1·5 and −4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than −4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). Findings Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43–40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45–60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40–0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39–0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68–0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42–0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40–0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66–0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95–1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90–1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02–1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58–1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98–1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02–1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10–1·71; p=0·0051). Interpretation Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis