Impact of alternate definitions of fever resolution on the composite endpoint in clinical trials of empirical antifungal therapy for neutropenic patients with persistent fever: analysis of results from the Caspofungin Empirical Therapy Study.

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Sensitivity analyses were incorporated in a Phase III study of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy for febrile neutropenic patients to determine the impact of varying definitions of fever resolution on response rates. METHODS: The primary analysis used a 5-part composite endpoint: resolution of any baseline invasive fungal infection, no breakthrough invasive fungal infection, survival, no premature discontinuation of study drug, and fever resolution for 48 h during the period of neutropenia. Pre-specified analyses used 3 other definitions for fever resolution: afebrile for 24 h during the period of neutropenia, afebrile at 7 days post therapy, and eliminating fever resolution altogether from the composite endpoint. Patients were stratified on entry by use of antifungal prophylaxis and risk of infection. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants or relapsed acute leukemia defined high-risk patients. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 41% of patients in each treatment group met the fever-resolution criteria. Low-risk patients had shorter durations of neutropenia but failed fever-resolution criteria more often than high-risk patients. In each exploratory analysis, response rates increased in both treatment groups compared to the primary analysis, particularly in low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates for the primary composite endpoint for both treatment groups in this study were driven by low rates of fever resolution. Requiring fever resolution during neutropenia in a composite endpoint can mask more clinically relevant outcomes

Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia.

Item does not contain fulltex

Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome : Secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Results: Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p < 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p < 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Conclusions: Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Dispensing Rates of Four Common Hearing Aid Product Features: Associations With Variations in Practice Among Audiologists

The purpose of the study was to develop and examine a list of potential variables that may account for variability in the dispensing rates of four common hearing aid features. A total of 29 potential variables were identified and placed into the following categories: (1) characteristics of the audiologist, (2) characteristics of the hearing aids dispensed by the audiologist, (3) characteristics of the audiologist?s patient population, and (4) evidence-based practice grades of recommendation for each feature. The potentially associative variables then were examined using regression analyses from the responses of 257 audiologists to a dispensing practice survey. There was a direct relation between price and level of hearing aid technology with the frequency of dispensing product features. There was also a direct relation between the belief by the audiologist that a feature might benefit patients and the frequency of dispensing that feature. In general, the results suggested that personal differences among audiologists and the hearing aids audiologists choose to dispense are related more strongly to dispensing rates of product features than to differences in characteristics of the patient population served by audiologists. An additional finding indicated that evidence-based practice recommendations were inversely related to dispensing rates of product features. This finding, however, may not be the result of dispensing trends as much as hearing aid manufacturing trends