Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials

Abstract Background An important limitation of many critical care trial designs is that they hypothesize large, and potentially implausible, reductions in mortality. Interpretation of trial results could be improved by systematic assessment of the plausibility of trial hypotheses; however, such assessment has not been attempted in the field of critical care medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine clinicians’ views about prior probabilities and plausible effect sizes for ongoing critical care trials where the primary endpoint is landmark mortality. Methods We conducted a systematic review of clinical trial registries in September 2015 to identify ongoing critical care medicine trials where landmark mortality was the primary outcome, followed by a clinician survey to obtain opinions about ten large trials. Clinicians were asked to estimate the probability that each trial would demonstrate a mortality effect equal to or larger than that used in its sample size calculations. Results Estimates provided by individual clinicians varied from 0% to 100% for most trials, with a median estimate of 15% (IQR 10–20%). The median largest absolute mortality reduction considered plausible was 4.5% (IQR 3.5–5%), compared with a median absolute mortality reduction used in sample size calculations of 5% (IQR 3.6–10%) (P = 0.27). Conclusions For some of the largest ongoing critical care trials, many clinicians regard prior probabilities as low and consider that plausible effects on absolute mortality are less than 5%. Further work is needed to determine whether pooled estimates obtained by surveying clinicians are replicable and accurate or whether other methods of estimating prior probability are preferred

Additional file 2: of Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials

Online data supplement. (DOCX 473 kb

Additional file 1: of Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials

Survey.pdf (final version of survey). (PDF 113 kb

Validation of a classification system for causes of death in critical care: an assessment of inter-rater reliability

Objective: Trials in critical care have previously used unvalidated systems to classify cause of death. We aimed to provide initial validation of a method to classify cause of death in intensive care unit patients. Design, setting and participants: One hundred case scenarios of patients who died in an ICU were presented online to raters, who were asked to select a proximate and an underlying cause of death for each, using the ICU Deaths Classification and Reason (ICU-DECLARE) system. We evaluated two methods of categorising proximate cause of death (designated Lists A and B) and one method of categorising underlying cause of death. Raters were ICU specialists and research coordinators from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Inter-rater reliability, as measured by the Fleiss multirater kappa, and the median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis (defined as the most popular classification choice in each case). Results: Across all raters and cases, for proximate cause of death List A, kappa was 0.54 (95% Cl, 0.49–0.60), and for proximate cause of death List B, kappa was 0.58 (95% Cl, 0.53–0.63). For the underlying cause of death, kappa was 0.48 (95% Cl, 0.44–0.53). The median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List A, was 77.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 60.0%–93.8%), and the median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List B, was 82.5% (IQR, 60.0%–92.5%). The median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for underlying cause was 65.0% (IQR, 50.0%–81.3%). Kappa and median agreement were similar between countries. ICU specialists showed higher kappa and median agreement than research coordinators. Conclusions: The ICU-DECLARE system allowed ICU doctors to classify the proximate cause of death of patients who died in the ICU with substantial reliability

Bacterial etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent hospitalized patients and appropriateness of empirical treatment recommendations: an international point-prevalence study

An accurate knowledge of the epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is key for selecting appropriate antimicrobial treatments. Very few etiological studies assessed the appropriateness of empiric guideline recommendations at a multinational level. This study aims at the following: (i) describing the bacterial etiologic distribution of CAP and (ii) assessing the appropriateness of the empirical treatment recommendations by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for CAP in light of the bacterial pathogens diagnosed as causative agents of CAP. Secondary analysis of the GLIMP, a point-prevalence international study which enrolled adults hospitalized with CAP in 2015. The analysis was limited to immunocompetent patients tested for bacterial CAP agents within 24 h of admission. The CAP CPGs evaluated included the following: the 2007 and 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA), the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and selected country-specific CPGs. Among 2564 patients enrolled, 35.3% had an identifiable pathogen. Streptococcus pneumoniae (8.2%) was the most frequently identified pathogen, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (3.4%). CPGs appropriately recommend covering more than 90% of all the potential pathogens causing CAP, with the exception of patients enrolled from Germany, Pakistan, and Croatia. The 2019 ATS/IDSA CPGs appropriately recommend covering 93.6% of the cases compared with 90.3% of the ERS CPGs (p < 0.01). S. pneumoniae remains the most common pathogen in patients hospitalized with CAP. Multinational CPG recommendations for patients with CAP seem to appropriately cover the most common pathogens and should be strongly encouraged for the management of CAP patients.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Prevalence and risk factors for Enterobacteriaceae in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

Background and objective Enterobacteriaceae (EB) spp. family is known to include potentially multidrug-resistant (MDR) microorganisms, and remains as an important cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and specific risk factors associated with EB and MDR-EB in a cohort of hospitalized adults with CAP. Methods We performed a multinational, point-prevalence study of adult patients hospitalized with CAP. MDR-EB was defined when >= 3 antimicrobial classes were identified as non-susceptible. Risk factors assessment was also performed for patients with EB and MDR-EB infection. Results Of the 3193 patients enrolled with CAP, 197 (6%) had a positive culture with EB. Fifty-one percent (n = 100) of EB were resistant to at least one antibiotic and 19% (n = 38) had MDR-EB. The most commonly EB identified were Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 111, 56%) and Escherichia coli (n = 56, 28%). The risk factors that were independently associated with EB CAP were male gender, severe CAP, underweight (body mass index (BMI) < 18.5) and prior extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) infection. Additionally, prior ESBL infection, being underweight, cardiovascular diseases and hospitalization in the last 12 months were independently associated with MDR-EB CAP. Conclusion This study of adults hospitalized with CAP found a prevalence of EB of 6% and MDR-EB of 1.2%, respectively. The presence of specific risk factors, such as prior ESBL infection and being underweight, should raise the clinical suspicion for EB and MDR-EB in patients hospitalized with CAP

Microbiological testing of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia: an international study

This study aimed to describe real-life microbiological testing of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and to assess concordance with the 2007 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) and 2011 European Respiratory Society (ERS) CAP guidelines. This was a cohort study based on the Global Initiative for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia (GLIMP) database, which contains point-prevalence data on adults hospitalised with CAP across 54 countries during 2015. In total, 3702 patients were included. Testing was performed in 3217 patients, and included blood culture (71.1%), sputum culture (61.8%), Legionella urinary antigen test (30.1%), pneumococcal urinary antigen test (30.0%), viral testing (14.9%), acute-phase serology (8.8%), bronchoalveolar lavage culture (8.4%) and pleural fluid culture (3.2%). A pathogen was detected in 1173 (36.5%) patients. Testing attitudes varied significantly according to geography and disease severity. Testing was concordant with IDSA/ATS and ERS guidelines in 16.7% and 23.9% of patients, respectively. IDSA/ATS concordance was higher in Europe than in North America (21.5% versus 9.8%; p<0.01), while ERS concordance was higher in North America than in Europe (33.5% versus 19.5%; p<0.01). Testing practices of adults hospitalised with CAP varied significantly by geography and disease severity. There was a wide discordance between real-life testing practices and IDSA/ATS/ERS guideline recommendations

Prevalence and Etiology of Community-acquired Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients

BACKGROUND: The correct management of immunocompromised patients with pneumonia is debated. We evaluated the prevalence, risk factors, and characteristics of immunocompromised patients coming from the community with pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an international, multicenter study enrolling adult patients coming from the community with pneumonia and hospitalized in 222 hospitals in 54 countries worldwide. Risk factors for immunocompromise included AIDS, aplastic anemia, asplenia, hematological cancer, chemotherapy, neutropenia, biological drug use, lung transplantation, chronic steroid use, and solid tumor. RESULTS: At least 1 risk factor for immunocompromise was recorded in 18% of the 3702 patients enrolled. The prevalences of risk factors significantly differed across continents and countries, with chronic steroid use (45%), hematological cancer (25%), and chemotherapy (22%) the most common. Among immunocompromised patients, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens were the most frequently identified, and prevalences did not differ from those in immunocompetent patients. Risk factors for immunocompromise were independently associated with neither Pseudomonas aeruginosa nor non-community-acquired bacteria. Specific risk factors were independently associated with fungal infections (odds ratio for AIDS and hematological cancer, 15.10 and 4.65, respectively; both P = .001), mycobacterial infections (AIDS; P = .006), and viral infections other than influenza (hematological cancer, 5.49; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be considered by clinicians in prescribing empiric antibiotic therapy for CAP in immunocompromised patients. Patients with AIDS and hematological cancer admitted with CAP may have higher prevalences of fungi, mycobacteria, and noninfluenza viruses