Antibiotics for Preventing Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Recurrent urinary tract infections are a common health problem. The only comprehensive synthesis on antibiotic prophylaxis in the last 15 years has been a guideline-embedded meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published up to October 13, 2020, evaluating patients age ≥12 years with either ≥2 episodes of lower urinary tract infection (UTI) within 6 months or ≥3 in the past year. Placebo or antibiotics were allowed as comparators. Study quality was low. In the 11 placebo-controlled trials, the risk for developing UTI was 85% lower with prophylaxis in comparison with placebo (risk ratio [RR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08-0.29). In the 9 head-to-head trials, the efficacy of the antibiotic agents appeared similar: The pooled RR indicated no difference between nitrofurantoin and comparators (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.37), nor trimethoprim (+/- sulfamethoxazole; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.89-2.03) or norfloxacin and comparators (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70). Studies comparing intermittent (postcoital) with continuous strategies revealed intermittent application to be equally effective

Antibiotics for preventing recurrent urinary tract infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Recurrent urinary tract infections are a common health problem. The only comprehensive synthesis on antibiotic prophylaxis in the last 15 years has been a guideline-embedded meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published up to October 13, 2020, evaluating patients age ≥12 years with either ≥2 episodes of lower urinary tract infection (UTI) within 6 months or ≥3 in the past year. Placebo or antibiotics were allowed as comparators. Study quality was low. In the 11 placebo-controlled trials, the risk for developing UTI was 85% lower with prophylaxis in comparison with placebo (risk ratio [RR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08-0.29). In the 9 head-to-head trials, the efficacy of the antibiotic agents appeared similar: The pooled RR indicated no difference between nitrofurantoin and comparators (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.37), nor trimethoprim (+/- sulfamethoxazole; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.89-2.03) or norfloxacin and comparators (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70). Studies comparing intermittent (postcoital) with continuous strategies revealed intermittent application to be equally effective

Quantifying the Implementation and Cost of a Multisite Antibiotic Stewardship Intervention for Asymptomatic Bacteriuria

OBJECTIVE: The intensity of an antibiotic stewardship intervention to achieve clinical impact is not known. We conducted a multisite dissemination project of an intervention to reduce treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and studied: (1) the association between implementation metrics and clinical outcomes and (2) the cost of implementation. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A central site facilitated a multimodality intervention to decrease unnecessary urine cultures and antibiotic treatment in patients with ASB at 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. METHODS: The intervention consisted of a decision support aid algorithm and interactive teaching cases that provided in the moment audit and feedback on how to manage ASB. Implementation outcomes included minutes spent in intervention delivery, number of healthcare professionals reached, and number of sessions delivered. Clinical outcomes included days of antibiotic therapy (DOT), length of antibiotic therapy (LOT), and number of urine cultures ordered per 1000 bed days. Personnel reported weekly time logs. RESULTS: Minutes spent in intervention delivery were inversely correlated with two clinical outcomes, DOT ( CONCLUSIONS: The amount of time local teams spent in delivery of an antibiotic stewardship intervention was correlated with the desired decrease in antibiotic use. Implementing this successful antibiotic stewardship intervention required minimal time

A hospital-site controlled intervention using audit and feedback to implement guidelines concerning inappropriate treatment of catheter-associated asymptomatic bacteriuria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. However, many cases treated as hospital-acquired CAUTI are actually asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU). Evidence-based guidelines recommend that providers neither screen for nor treat ABU in most catheterized patients, but there is a significant gap between these guidelines and clinical practice. Our objectives are (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention for increasing guideline-concordant care concerning catheter-associated ABU and (2) to measure improvements in healthcare providers' knowledge of and attitudes toward the practice guidelines associated with the intervention.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The study uses a controlled pre/post design to test an intervention using audit and feedback of healthcare providers to improve their compliance with ABU guidelines. The intervention and the control sites are two VA hospitals. For objective 1 we will review medical records to measure the clinical outcomes of inappropriate screening for and treatment of catheter-associated ABU. For objective 2 we will survey providers' knowledge and attitudes. Three phases of our protocol are proposed: the first 12-month phase will involve observation of the baseline incidence of inappropriate screening for and treatment of ABU at both sites. This surveillance for clinical outcomes will continue at both sites throughout the study. Phase 2 consists of 12 months of individualized audit and feedback at the intervention site and guidelines distribution at both sites. The third phase, also over 12 months, will provide unit-level feedback at the intervention site to assess sustainability. Healthcare providers at the intervention site during phase 2 and at both sites during phase 3 will complete pre/post surveys of awareness and familiarity (knowledge), as well as of acceptance and outcome expectancy (attitudes) regarding the relevant practice guidelines.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Our proposal to bring clinical practice in line with published guidelines has significant potential to decrease overdiagnosis of CAUTI and associated inappropriate antibiotic use. Our study will also provide information about how to maximize effectiveness of audit and feedback to achieve guideline adherence in the inpatient setting.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01052545">NCT01052545</a></p

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed