28 research outputs found

    Quasiexperimental intervention study protocol to optimise the use of new antibiotics in Spain: the NEW_SAFE project

    Get PDF
    Introduction Ceftaroline, tedizolid, dalbavancin, ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam are novel antibiotics used to treat infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDR). Their use should be supervised and monitored as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Appropriate use of the new antibiotics will be improved by including consensual indications for their use in local antibiotic guidelines, together with educational interventions providing advice to prescribers to ensure that the recommendations are clearly understood. Methods and analysis This study will be implemented in two phases. First, a preliminary historical cohort (2017-2019) of patients from 13 Andalusian hospitals treated with novel antibiotics will be analysed. Second, a quasiexperimental intervention study will be developed with an interrupted time-series analysis (2020-2021). The intervention will consist of an educational interview between prescribers and ASP leaders at each hospital to reinforce the proper use of novel antibiotics. The educational intervention will be based on a consensus guideline designed and disseminated by leaders after the retrospective cohort data have been analysed. The outcomes will be acceptance of the intervention and appropriateness of prescription. Incidence of infection and colonisation with MDR organisms as well as incidence ofClostridioides difficileinfection will also be analysed. Changes in prescription quality between periods and the safety profile of the antibiotics in terms of mortality rate and readmissions will also be measured. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will be obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board. The study is being conducted in compliance with the protocol and regulatory requirements consistent with International Council of Harmonisation E6 Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences

    Quasiexperimental intervention study protocol to optimise the use of new antibiotics in Spain: the NEW_SAFE project

    Get PDF
    [Introduction] Ceftaroline, tedizolid, dalbavancin, ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam are novel antibiotics used to treat infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDR). Their use should be supervised and monitored as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Appropriate use of the new antibiotics will be improved by including consensual indications for their use in local antibiotic guidelines, together with educational interventions providing advice to prescribers to ensure that the recommendations are clearly understood.[Methods and analysis] This study will be implemented in two phases. First, a preliminary historical cohort (2017–2019) of patients from 13 Andalusian hospitals treated with novel antibiotics will be analysed. Second, a quasiexperimental intervention study will be developed with an interrupted time-series analysis (2020–2021). The intervention will consist of an educational interview between prescribers and ASP leaders at each hospital to reinforce the proper use of novel antibiotics. The educational intervention will be based on a consensus guideline designed and disseminated by leaders after the retrospective cohort data have been analysed. The outcomes will be acceptance of the intervention and appropriateness of prescription. Incidence of infection and colonisation with MDR organisms as well as incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection will also be analysed. Changes in prescription quality between periods and the safety profile of the antibiotics in terms of mortality rate and readmissions will also be measured.[Ethics and dissemination] Ethical approval will be obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board. The study is being conducted in compliance with the protocol and regulatory requirements consistent with International Council of Harmonisation E6 Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences.[Trial registration number] NCT03941951; Pre-results.The study is funded by the Consejería de Salud, Junta de Andalucía, grant PI-0077-2018. The investigators also receive funds for research from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001) through the Plan Nacional de I+D+ i 2013‐2016, cofinanced by European Development Regional Fund “A way to achieve Europe”, Operative program Intelligent Growth 2014‐2020

    Combination of Tocilizumab and Steroids to Improve Mortality in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection : A Spanish, Multicenter, Cohort Study

    Get PDF
    We aimed to determine the impact of tocilizumab use on severe COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 19) pneumonia mortality. We performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 18 tertiary hospitals in Spain from March to April 2020. Consecutive patients admitted with severe COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab were compared to patients not treated with tocilizumab, adjusting by inverse probability of the treatment weights (IPTW). Tocilizumab's effect in patients receiving steroids during the 48 h following inclusion was analysed. During the study period, 506 patients with severe COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among them, 268 were treated with tocilizumab and 238 patients were not. Median time to tocilizumab treatment from onset of symptoms was 11 days [interquartile range (IQR) 8-14]. Global mortality was 23.7%. Mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab than in controls: 16.8% versus 31.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.514 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.355-0.744], p < 0.001; weighted HR 0.741 (95% CI 0.619-0.887), p = 0.001. Tocilizumab treatment reduced mortality by 14.7% relative to no tocilizumab treatment [relative risk reduction (RRR) 46.7%]. We calculated a number necessary to treat of 7. Among patients treated with steroids, mortality was lower in those treated with tocilizumab than in those treated with steroids alone [10.9% versus 40.2%, HR 0.511 (95% CI 0.352-0.741), p = 0.036; weighted HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.449-0.804), p < 0.001] (interaction p = 0.094). These results show that survival of patients with severe COVID-19 is higher in those treated with tocilizumab than in those not treated and that tocilizumab's effect adds to that of steroids administered to non-intubated patients with COVID-19 during the first 48 h of presenting with respiratory failure despite oxygen therapy. Randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm these results. European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (EU PAS Register) identifier, EUPAS34415 The online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-020-00373-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

    Risk factors for unfavorable outcome and impact of early post-transplant infection in solid organ recipients with COVID-19: A prospective multicenter cohort study

    Get PDF
    The aim was to analyze the characteristics and predictors of unfavorable outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with COVID-19. We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of 210 consecutive SOTRs hospitalized with COVID-19 in 12 Spanish centers from 21 February to 6 May 2020. Data pertaining to demographics, chronic underlying diseases, transplantation features, clinical, therapeutics, and complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with these unfavorable outcomes. Males accounted for 148 (70.5%) patients, the median age was 63 years, and 189 (90.0%) patients had pneumonia. Common symptoms were fever, cough, gastrointestinal disturbances, and dyspnea. The most used antiviral or host-targeted therapies included hydroxychloroquine 193/200 (96.5%), lopinavir/ritonavir 91/200 (45.5%), and tocilizumab 49/200 (24.5%). Thirty-seven (17.6%) patients required ICU admission, 12 (5.7%) suffered graft dysfunction, and 45 (21.4%) died. A shorter interval between transplantation and COVID-19 diagnosis had a negative impact on clinical prognosis. Four baseline features were identified as independent predictors of intensive care need or death: advanced age, high respiratory rate, lymphopenia, and elevated level of lactate dehydrogenase. In summary, this study presents comprehensive information on characteristics and complications of COVID-19 in hospitalized SOTRs and provides indicators available upon hospital admission for the identification of SOTRs at risk of critical disease or death, underlining the need for stringent preventative measures in the early post-transplant period

    Effectiveness of Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteremic Urinary Tract Infections

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE The consumption of broad-spectrum drugs has increased as a consequence of the spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Escherichia coli. Finding alternatives for these infections is critical, for which some neglected drugs may be an option. OBJECTIVE To determine whether fosfomycin is noninferior to ceftriaxone or meropenem in the targeted treatment of bacteremic urinary tract infections (bUTIs) due to MDR E coli. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open clinical trial was conducted at 22 Spanish hospitals from June 2014 to December 2018. Eligible participants were adult patients with bacteremic urinary tract infections due to MDR E coli; 161 of 1578 screened patients were randomized and followed up for 60 days. Data were analyzed in May 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to receive intravenous fosfomycin disodium at 4 g every 6 hours (70 participants) or a comparator (ceftriaxone or meropenem if resistant; 73 participants) with the option to switch to oral fosfomycin trometamol for the fosfomycin group or an active oral drug or pa renteral ertapenem for the comparator group after 4 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was clinical and microbiological cure (CMC) 5 to 7 days after finalization of treatment; a noninferiority margin of 7% was considered. RESULTS Among 143 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (median [IQR] age, 72 [62-81] years; 73 [51.0%] women), 48 of 70 patients (68.6%) treated with fosfomycin and 57 of 73 patients (78.1%) treated with comparators reached CMC (risk difference, -9.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, -21.5 to infinity percentage points; P = .10). While clinical or microbiological failure occurred among 10 patients (14.3%) treated with fosfomycin and 14 patients (19.7%) treated with comparators (risk difference, -5.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI. -infinity to 4.9; percentage points; P = .19), an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations occurred with fosfomycin vs comparators (6 discontinuations [8.5%] vs 0 discontinuations; P = .006). In an exploratory analysis among a subset of 38 patients who underwent rectal colonization studies, patients treated with fosfomycin acquired a new ceftriaxone-resistant or meropenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria at a decreased rate compared with patients treated with comparators (0 of 21 patients vs 4 of 17 patients [23.5%]; 1-sided P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that fosfomycin did not demonstrate noninferiority to comparators as targeted treatment of bUTI from MDR E coli; this was due to an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations. This finding suggests that fosfomycin may be considered for selected patients with these infections

    Clinical and Ecological Impact of an Educational Program to Optimize Antibiotic Treatments in Nursing Homes (PROA-SENIOR): A Cluster, Randomized, Controlled Trial and Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

    Get PDF
    [Background] Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are recommended in nursing homes (NHs), although data are limited. We aimed to determine the clinical and ecological impact of an ASP for NHs.[Methods] We performed a cluster, randomized, controlled trial and a before–after study with interrupted time-series analyses in 14 NHs for 30 consecutive months from July 2018 to December 2020 in Andalusia, Spain. Seven facilities implemented an ASP with a bundle of 5 educational measures (general ASP) and 7 added 1-to-1 educational interviews (experimental ASP). The primary outcome was the overall use of antimicrobials, calculated monthly as defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 resident days (DRD).[Results] The total mean antimicrobial consumption decreased by 31.2% (−16.72 DRD; P = .045) with respect to the preintervention period; the overall use of quinolones and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid dropped by 52.2% (P = .001) and 42.5% (P = .006), respectively; and the overall prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) decreased from 24.7% to 17.4% (P = .012). During the intervention period, 12.5 educational interviews per doctor were performed in the experimental ASP group; no differences were found in the total mean antimicrobial use between groups (−14.62 DRD; P = .25). Two unexpected coronavirus disease 2019 waves affected the centers increasing the overall mean use of antimicrobials by 40% (51.56 DRD; P < .0001).[Conclusions] This study suggests that an ASP for NHs appears to be associated with a decrease in total consumption of antimicrobials and prevalence of MDROs. This trial did not find benefits associated with educational interviews, probably due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.[Clinical Trials Registration] NCT03543605.Peer reviewe

    Efficacy of clozapine versus standard treatment in adult individuals with intellectual disability and treatment-resistant psychosis (CLOZAID): study protocol of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

    Get PDF
    BackgroundIntellectual disability (ID) affects approximately 1% of the worldwide population and individuals with ID have a higher comorbidity with mental illness, and specifically psychotic disorders. Unfortunately, among individuals with ID, limited research has been conducted since ID individuals are usually excluded from mental illness epidemiological studies and clinical trials. Here we perform a clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of clozapine in the treatment of resistant psychosis in individuals with ID. The article highlights the complexity of diagnosing and treating psychopathological alterations associated with ID and advocates for more rigorous research in this field.MethodsA Phase IIB, open-label, randomized, multicenter clinical trial (NCT04529226) is currently ongoing to assess the efficacy of oral clozapine in individuals diagnosed with ID and suffering from treatment-resistant psychosis. We aim to recruit one-hundred and fourteen individuals (N=114) with ID and resistant psychosis, who will be randomized to TAU (treatment as usual) and treatment-with-clozapine conditions. As secondary outcomes, changes in other clinical scales (PANSS and SANS) and the improvement in functionality, assessed through changes in the Euro-QoL-5D-5L were assessed. The main outcome variables will be analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), assessing the effects of status variable (TAU vs. Clozapine), time, and the interaction between them.DiscussionThe treatment of resistant psychosis among ID individuals must be directed by empirically supported research. CLOZAID clinical trial may provide relevant information about clinical guidelines to optimally treat adults with ID and treatment-resistant psychosis and the benefits and risks of an early use of clozapine in this underrepresented population in clinical trials.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT04529226. EudraCT: 2020-000091-37

    Safety and efficacy of colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia as part of a macro-project funded by the Seventh Framework Program of the European Commission studying off-patent antibiotics: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

    No full text
    Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common and severe hospital-adquired infections, and multidrugresistant gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) constitute the main etiology in many countries. Inappropriate empiric antimicrobial treatment is associated with increased mortality. In this context, the empirical treatment of choice for VAP is unknown. Colistin, is now the antimicrobial with greatest in vitro activity against MDR-GNB. Methods/Design The MagicBullet clinical trial is an investigator-driven clinical study, funded by the Seventh Framework Program of the European Commission. This is designed as a phase IV, randomized, controlled, open label, non-inferiority and international trial to assess the safety and efficacy of colistin versus meropenem in late onset VAP. The study is conducted in a total of 32 centers in three European countries (Spain, Italy and Greece) with specific high incidences of infections caused by MDR-GNB. Patients older than 18 years who develop VAP with both clinical and radiological signs, and are on mechanical ventilation for more than 96 hours, or less than 96 hours but with previous antibiotic treatment plus one week of hospitalization, are candidates for inclusion in the study. A total sample size of 496 patients will be randomized according to a severity clinical score (at the time of VAP diagnosis in a 1:1 ratio to receive either colistin 4.5 MU as a loading dose, followed by 3 MU every eight hours (experimental arm), or meropenem 2 g every eight hours (control arm), both combined with levofloxacin. Mortality from any cause at 28 days will be considered as the main outcome. Clinical and microbiological cure will be evaluated at 72 hours, eight days, the finalization of antibiotic treatment, and 28 days of follow-up. The efficacy evaluation will be performed in every patient who receives at least one study treatment drug, and with etiologic diagnosis of VAP, intention-to-treat population and per protocol analysis will be performed. Discussion Currently, there is no study being undertaken which analyzes empiric treatment of (VAP) with a suspicion of multi-resistance. Colistin, an off-patent antibiotic commercialized for more than 60 years, could widen the antibiotic alternatives for a high-mortality illness aggravated by antibiotic resistance.European Union Directorate General for Research and Innovation under the Health Cooperation Work Programme of the Seventh Framework 27823

    Assessing the impact on intestinal microbiome and clinical outcomes of antibiotherapy optimisation strategies in haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: study protocol for the prospective multicentre OptimBioma study

    No full text
    Introduction: Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a life-saving treatment for a number of haematological diseases. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) is its main complication and hampers survival. There is strong evidence that intestinal microbiota diversity of the recipient may increase the risk of GVHD worsening survival. Antibiotic regimens used during the early phase of the transplant may influence clinical outcomes by reducing intestinal microbiota diversity. Present guidelines of European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia exhort to optimising antibiotic use in haematological patients including HSCT recipients. The present study aims to investigate if, in HSCT recipients, the optimisation of antibacterial use may preserve intestinal microbiota composition reducing the incidence and severity of acute GVHD and improving relevant clinical outcomes. Methods and analysis: This is a prospective longitudinal observational study of two cohorts of HSCT recipients: (1) the intervention cohort includes patients treated in centres in which a predefined strategy of antibiotherapy optimisation is implemented, with the objective of optimising and reducing antibiotic administration according to clinical criteria and (2) the control cohort includes patients treated in centres in which a classic permissive strategy of antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment is used. Adult patient receiving a first HSCT as a treatment for any haematological condition are included. Clinical variables are prospectively recorded and up to five faecal samples are collected for microbiota characterisation at prestablished peritransplant time points. Patients are followed since the preconditioning phase throughout 1-year post-transplant and four follow-up visits are scheduled. Faecal microbiota composition and diversity will be compared between both cohorts along with acute GVHD incidence and severity, severe infections rate, mortality and overall and disease-free survival. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved between 2017 and 2018 by the Ethical Committees of participant centres. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international scientific conferences

    Factors associated with recruitment success in the phase 2a study of aztreonam–avibactam development programme: a descriptive qualitative analysis among sites in Spain

    No full text
    Objective Successful clinical trials are subject to recruitment. Recently, the REJUVENATE trial, a prospective phase 2a open-label, single-arm interventional clinical trial conducted within the Innovative Medicines Initiative-supported Combatting Bacterial Resistance in Europe-Carbapenem Resistance project, was published, with 85% of the recruitment performed in Spain. We analysed the recruitment success in this trial by establishing a model of recruitment practice. Methods A descriptive qualitative study was performed from May 2016 to October 2017 at 10 participating Spanish centres. Data were extracted from: (1) feasibility questionnaires to assess the centre’s potential for patient enrolment; (2) delegation of responsibility records; (3) pre-screening records including an anonymised list of potentially eligible and (4) screening and enrolment records. A descriptive analysis of the features was performed by the participating centre. Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine factors of recruitment success. Results The highest recruitment rate was observed in Hospitals 3 and 6 (58.8 and 47.0 patients per month, respectively). All the study teams were multidisciplinary with a median of 15 members (range: 7–22). Only Hospitals 3, 5 and 6 had dedicated nursing staff appointed exclusively to this study. Moreover, in those three hospitals and in Hospital 9, the study coordinator performed exclusive functions as a research planner, and did not assume these functions for the other hospitals. The univariate analysis showed a significant association between recruitment success and months of recruitment (p=0.024), number of staff (p<0.001), higher number of pharmacists (p=0.005), infectious disease specialists (p<0.001), the presence of microbiologist in the research team (p=0.018) and specifically dedicated nursing staff (p=0.036). Conclusions The existence of broad multidisciplinary teams with staff dedicated exclusively to the study as well as the implementation of a well-designed local patient assessment strategy were the essential optimisation factors for recruitment success in Spain
    corecore