Forgotten antibiotics : a follow-up inventory study in Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia

The objective of this study was to update a 2011 survey, conducted on behalf of the ESCMID Study Group for Antibiotic Policies (ESGAP), studying the availability of old but clinically useful antibiotics in North America, Europe and Australia. This follow-up survey was performed in 2015 in 40 countries among specialists from the pharmaceutical, infectious diseases and microbiology sectors in North America, Europe and Australia in order to assess the availability through usual marketing processes of 36 systemic antibiotics (addition of 3 antibiotics compared with the 2011 survey) selected for their ability to treat infections caused by resistant bacteria and their unique value for specific criteria. The questionnaire was sent by e-mail to national contacts belonging to ESGAP and ReAct networks. In all, 39 of the 40 countries participated in this survey. The number of available antibiotics differed considerably from one drug to another as well as from one country to another (e.g. 7 antibiotics available in Estonia, 24 in France). Overall, 25/36 selected antibiotics were marketed in 20/39 countries or less. From 2011 to 2015 (data available for both periods in 37 countries for 33 antibiotics), the number of available selected antibiotics increased in 13 countries and decreased in 17. In conclusion, despite the ongoing bacterial resistance crisis, the situation regarding the availability of ‘forgotten antibiotics’ has worsened since 2011. Urgent measures are needed to ensure better availability of these antibiotics on a global scale as a conservation measure to ensure sustainable and responsible use of antibiotics.peer-reviewe

Twenty articles that critical care clinicians should read about COVID-19

Infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus- 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 and has since become a worldwide pandemic, challenging and sometimes overwhelming healthcare systems as well as causing more than a million deaths thus far. In just 10 months, over 80,000 indexed publications have appeared that reference SARS-CoV-2 and the associated Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this article, we highlight 20 papers that are of particular relevance to the critical care clinician. The papers are divided into four broad topics: manifestations of severe COVID- 19 disease, pharmacological therapy for COVID-19, ventilatory support for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and healthcare system and worker stress. This list is not designed to be comprehensive but rather to give the reader an overview of important early papers and their findings.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19A Meta-analysis

[Importance] Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm.[Objective] To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.[Data Sources] Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.[Study Selection] Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria.[Data Extraction and Synthesis] In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality.[Main Outcomes and Measures] The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.[Results] A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16).[Conclusions and Relevance] In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.[Trial Registration] PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.Funding for administrative and communications support was provided by the World Health Organization.Peer reviewe

Immediate total-body CT scanning versus conventional imaging and selective CT scanning in patients with severe trauma (REACT-2): a randomised controlled trial

Background Published work suggests a survival benefit for patients with trauma who undergo total-body CT scanning during the initial trauma assessment; however, level 1 evidence is absent. We aimed to assess the effect of total-body CT scanning compared with the standard work-up on in-hospital mortality in patients with trauma. Methods We undertook an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial at four hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Switzerland. Patients aged 18 years or older with trauma with compromised vital parameters, clinical suspicion of life-threatening injuries, or severe injury were randomly assigned (1:1) by ALEA randomisation to immediate total-body CT scanning or to a standard work-up with conventional imaging supplemented with selective CT scanning. Neither doctors nor patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, analysed in the intention-to-treat population and in subgroups of patients with polytrauma and those with traumatic brain injury. The. chi(2) test was used to assess differences in mortality. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01523626. Findings Between April 22, 2011, and Jan 1, 2014, 5475 patients were assessed for eligibility, 1403 of whom were randomly assigned:702 to immediate total-body CT scanning and 701 to the standard work-up. 541 patients in the immediate total-body CT scanning group and 542 in the standard work-up group were included in the primary analysis. In-hospital mortality did not differ between groups (total-body CT 86 [16%] of 541 vs standard work-up 85 [16%] of 542; p=0.92). In-hospital mortality also did not differ between groups in subgroup analyses in patients with polytrauma (total-body CT 81 [22%] of 362 vs standard work-up 82 [25%] of 331; p=0.46) and traumatic brain injury (68 [38%] of 178 vs 66 [44%] of 151; p=0.31). Three serious adverse events were reported in patients in the total-body CT group (1%), one in the standard work-up group (<1%), and one in a patient who was excluded after random allocation. All five patients died. Interpretation Diagnosing patients with an immediate total-body CT scan does not reduce in-hospital mortality compared with the standard radiological work-up. Because of the increased radiation dose, future research should focus on the selection of patients who will benefit from immediate total-body CT

Effectiveness of adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with a history of TNF-antagonist therapy in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who previously discontinued tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists for any reason in clinical practice. METHODS: ReAct (Research in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis) was a large, open-label trial that enrolled adults with active RA who had previously been treated with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or biological response modifiers. Patients self-administered adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week for 12 weeks and were allowed to enter an optional long-term extension phase. Measures of adalimumab effectiveness included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ DI). RESULTS: Of 6610 patients, 899 had a history of etanercept and/or infliximab therapy; these patients experienced substantial clinical benefit from adalimumab treatment. At week 12, 60% of patients had an ACR20 and 33% had an ACR50 response; 76% had a moderate and 23% had a good EULAR response. In addition, 12% achieved a DAS28 < 2.6, indicating clinical remission, and 13% achieved a HAQ DI score <0.5. The allergic adverse event rate, regardless of relationship to adalimumab, was 6.5/100-patient-years (PYs) in previously TNF-antagonist-exposed patients and 4.3/100-PYs in TNF-antagonist-naive patients. A multiple regression analysis indicated no statistically significantly increased risk of serious infections in patients who received prior TNF antagonists compared with TNF-antagonist-naive patients. CONCLUSION: In typical clinical practice, adalimumab was effective and well-tolerated in patients with RA previously treated with etanercept and/or infliximab