A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.Methods: The cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B was evaluated using a decision-tree model. The decision tree was populated using both data and clinical definitions from published clinical studies. Model outcomes included success in terms of resolution of fever, baseline infection, absence of breakthrough infection, survival and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Discontinuation due to nephrotoxicity or other adverse events were included in the model. Efficacy and safety data were based on additional analyses of a randomised, double blind, multinational trial of caspofungin compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Information on life expectancy, quality of life, medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from peer-reviewed published data.Results: The caspofungin mean total treatment cost was £9762 (95% uncertainty interval 6955–12 577), which was £2033 (−2489; 6779) less than liposomal amphotericin B. Treatment with caspofungin resulted in 0.40 (−0.12; 0.94) additional QALYs saved in comparison with liposomal amphotericin B. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 95% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within the generally accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness (£30 000). Additional analyses with varying dose of caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B confirmed these findings.Conclusion: Given the underlying assumptions, caspofungin is cost-effective compared with liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.<br/

Rapid and point-of-care testing in respiratory tract infections: An antibiotic guardian?

This is a narrative review on the potential of rapid and point-of-care microbiological testing in pneumonia patients, focusing particularly on hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia, which have substantial mortality and diverse microbiology. This work is written from a United Kingdom perspective, but much of it is generalizable internationally. In a world where antimicrobial resistance is a major international threat, the use of rapid molecular diagnostics has great potential to improve both the management of pneumonia patients and the stewardship of antibiotics. Rapid tests potentially can distinguish patients with bacterial versus viral infection and can swiftly identify bacterial pathogens and their resistances. We seek to answer the question: "Can such tests be used as an antibiotic guardian?" Their availability at the bedside rather than in the laboratory should best ensure that results are swiftly used to optimize patient management but will raise new challenges, not the least with respect to maintaining quality control and microbiology/infection control input. A further challenge lies in assessing the degree of trust that treating clinicians will place in these molecular diagnostic tests, particularly when early de-escalation of antibiotic therapy is indicated

Understanding decisions about antibiotic prescribing in ICU: an application of the Necessity Concerns Framework

Background: Antibiotics are extensively prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs), yet little is known about how antibiotic-related decisions are made in this setting. We explored how beliefs, perceptions and contextual factors influenced ICU clinicians' antibiotic prescribing. Methods: We conducted 4 focus groups and 34 semistructured interviews with clinicians involved in antibiotic prescribing in four English ICUs. Focus groups explored factors influencing prescribing, whereas interviews examined decision-making processes using two clinical vignettes. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, applying the Necessity Concerns Framework. Results: Clinicians' antibiotic decisions were influenced by their judgement of the necessity for prescribing/not prescribing, relative to their concerns about potential adverse consequences. Antibiotic necessity perceptions were strongly influenced by beliefs that antibiotics would protect patients from deterioration and themselves from the ethical and legal consequences of undertreatment. Clinicians also reported concerns about prescribing antibiotics. These generally centred on antimicrobial resistance; however, protecting the individual patient was prioritised over these societal concerns. Few participants identified antibiotic toxicity concerns as a key influencer. Clinical uncertainty often complicated balancing antibiotic necessity against concerns. Decisions to start or continue antibiotics often represented € erring on the side of caution' as a protective response in uncertainty. This approach was reinforced by previous experiences of negative consequences ( € being burnt') which motivated prescribing € just in case' of an infection. Prescribing decisions were also context-dependent, exemplified by a lower perceived threshold to prescribe antibiotics out-of-hours, input from external team members and local prescribing norms. Conclusion: Efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship should consider clinicians' desire to protect with a prescription. Rapid molecular microbiology, with appropriate communication, may diminish clinicians' fears of not prescribing or of using narrower-spectrum antibiotics

Multicentre evaluation of two multiplex PCR platforms for the rapid microbiological investigation of nosocomial pneumonia in UK ICUs: the INHALE WP1 study

BACKGROUND: Culture-based microbiological investigation of hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP or VAP) is insensitive, with aetiological agents often unidentified. This can lead to excess antimicrobial treatment of patients with susceptible pathogens, while those with resistant bacteria are treated inadequately for prolonged periods. Using PCR to seek pathogens and their resistance genes directly from clinical samples may improve therapy and stewardship. METHODS: Surplus routine lower respiratory tract samples were collected from intensive care unit patients about to receive new or changed antibiotics for hospital-onset lower respiratory tract infections at 15 UK hospitals. Testing was performed using the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (bioMérieux) and Unyvero Pneumonia Panel (Curetis). Concordance analysis compared machine and routine microbiology results, while Bayesian latent class (BLC) analysis estimated the sensitivity and specificity of each test, incorporating information from both PCR panels and routine microbiology. FINDINGS: In 652 eligible samples; PCR identified pathogens in considerably more samples compared with routine microbiology: 60.4% and 74.2% for Unyvero and FilmArray respectively vs 44.2% by routine microbiology. PCR tests also detected more pathogens per sample than routine microbiology. For common HAP/VAP pathogens, FilmArray had sensitivity of 91.7%-100.0% and specificity of 87.5%-99.5%; Unyvero had sensitivity of 50.0%-100.0%%, and specificity of 89.4%-99.0%. BLC analysis indicated that, compared with PCR, routine microbiology had low sensitivity, ranging from 27.0% to 69.4%. INTERPRETATION: Conventional and BLC analysis demonstrated that both platforms performed similarly and were considerably more sensitive than routine microbiology, detecting potential pathogens in patient samples reported as culture negative. The increased sensitivity of detection realised by PCR offers potential for improved antimicrobial prescribing

INHALE: the impact of using FilmArray Pneumonia Panel molecular diagnostics for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia on antimicrobial stewardship and patient outcomes in UK Critical Care—study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonias (HAP and VAP) are common in critical care and can be life-threatening. Rapid microbiological diagnostics, linked to an algorithm to translate their results into antibiotic choices, could simultaneously improve patient outcomes and antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: The INHALE Randomised Controlled Trial is a multi-centre, parallel study exploring the potential of the BioFire FilmArray molecular diagnostic to guide antibiotic treatment of HAP/VAP in intensive care units (ICU); it identifies pathogens and key antibiotic resistance in around 90 min. The comparator is standard care whereby the patient receives empirical antibiotics until microbiological culture results become available, typically after 48–72 h. Adult and paediatric ICU patients are eligible if they are about to receive antibiotics for a suspected lower respiratory infection (including HAP/VAP) for the first time or a change in antibiotic because of a deteriorating clinical condition. Breathing spontaneously or intubated, they must have been hospitalised for 48 h or more. Patients are randomised 1:1 to receive either antibiotics guided by the FilmArray molecular diagnostic and its trial-based prescribing algorithm or standard care, meaning empirical antibiotics based on local policy, adapted subsequently based upon local microbiology culture results. Co-primary outcomes are (i) non-inferiority in clinical cure of pneumonia at 14 days post-randomisation and (ii) superiority in antimicrobial stewardship at 24 h post-randomisation (defined as % of patients on active and proportionate antibiotics). Secondary outcomes include further stewardship reviews; length of ICU stay; co-morbidity indicators, including septic shock, change in sequential organ failure assessment scores, and secondary pneumonias; ventilator-free days; adverse events over 21 days; all-cause mortality; and total antibiotic usage. Both cost-effectiveness of the molecular diagnostic-guided therapy and behavioural aspects determining antibiotic prescribing are being explored. A sample size of 552 will be required to detect clinically significant results with 90% power and 5% significance for the co-primary outcomes. Discussion: This trial will test whether the potential merits of rapid molecular diagnostics for pathogen and resistance detection in HAP/VAP are realised in patient outcomes and/or improved antibiotic stewardship. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN16483855. Retrospectively registered on 15 July 2019

Intensivists’ beliefs about rapid multiplex molecular diagnostic testing and its potential role in improving prescribing decisions and antimicrobial stewardship: a qualitative study

Background Rapid molecular diagnostic tests to investigate the microbial aetiology of pneumonias may improve treatment and antimicrobial stewardship in intensive care units (ICUs). Clinicians’ endorsement and uptake of these tests is crucial to maximise engagement; however, adoption may be impeded if users harbour unaddressed concerns or if device usage is incompatible with local practice. Accordingly, we strove to identify ICU clinicians’ beliefs about molecular diagnostic tests for pneumonias before implementation at the point-of-care. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 critical care doctors working in four ICUs in the United Kingdom. A clinical vignette depicting a fictitious patient with signs of pneumonia was used to explore clinicians’ beliefs about the importance of molecular diagnostics and their concerns. Data were analysed thematically. Results Clinicians’ beliefs about molecular tests could be grouped into two categories: perceived potential of molecular diagnostics to improve antibiotic prescribing (Molecular Diagnostic Necessity) and concerns about how the test results could be implemented into practice (Molecular Diagnostic Concerns). Molecular Diagnostic Necessity stemmed from beliefs that positive results would facilitate targeted antimicrobial therapy; that negative results would signal the absence of a pathogen, and consequently that having the molecular diagnostic results would bolster clinicians’ prescribing confidence. Molecular Diagnostic Concerns included unfamiliarity with the device’s capabilities, worry that it would detect non-pathogenic bacteria, uncertainty whether it would fail to detect pathogens, and discomfort with withholding antibiotics until receiving molecular test results. Conclusions Clinicians believed rapid molecular diagnostics for pneumonias were potentially important and were open to using them; however, they harboured concerns about the tests’ capabilities and integration into clinical practice. Implementation strategies should bolster users’ necessity beliefs while reducing their concerns; this can be accomplished by publicising the tests’ purpose and benefits, identifying and addressing clinicians’ misconceptions, establishing a trial period for first-hand familiarisation, and emphasising that, with a swift (e.g., 60–90 min) test, antibiotics can be started and refined after molecular diagnostic results become available

Host-Directed Therapies for tackling Multi-Drug Resistant TB – learning from the Pasteur-Bechamp debates

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a global emergency causing an estimated 1.5 million deaths annually. For several decades the major focus of TB treatment has been on antibiotic development targeting Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb). The lengthy TB treatment duration and poor treatment outcomes associated with multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) are of major concern. The sparse new TB drug pipeline and widespread emergence of MDR-TB signal an urgent need for more innovative interventions to improve treatment outcomes. Building on the historical Pasteur-Bechamp debates on the role of the ‘microbe’ versus the ‘host internal milieu’ in disease causation, we make the case for parallel investments into host-directed therapies (HDTs). A range of potential HDTs are now available which require evaluation in randomized controlled clinical trials as adjunct therapies for shortening the duration of TB therapy and improving treatment outcomes for drug-susceptible TB and MDR-TB. Funder initiatives that may enable further research into HDTs are described

Towards host-directed therapies for tuberculosis

The treatment of tuberculosis is based on combinations of drugs that directly target Mycobacterium tuberculosis. A new global initiative is now focusing on a complementary approach of developing adjunct host-directed therapies. Despite the availability of effective antibiotics for tuberculosis (TB) for the past half century, it remains an important global health problem; there are ~9 million active TB cases and ~1.5 million TB-induced deaths per year (see the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Tuberculosis Report in Further information). Health services around the world face major barriers to achieving optimal outcomes from current TB treatment regimens. These barriers include: the spread of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB); complex and toxic treatment regimens for MDR-TB; HIV co-infection; pharmacokinetic interactions between TB drugs and antiretroviral drugs; relapse; permanent damage to lung and other tissues; long-term functional disability; immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS); and co-morbidity with non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and chronic obstructive airway diseases. Another fundamental problem is the long duration of TB drug treatment (6 months for drug-sensitive TB and at least 18 months for drug-resistant TB) to achieve a cure, owing to the presence of dormant Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli that are phenotypically resistant to current classes of anti-TB drugs, which can only target bacterial replication. There is therefore an urgent need for new TB treatments. However, the TB drug pipeline is thin1, 2. For the past 60 years, efforts to develop new treatments have focused on compounds and regimens that target M. tuberculosis directly. Recently, however, attention has focused on investigating a range of adjunct treatment interventions known as host-directed therapies (HDTs) that instead target the host response to infection. Here, we highlight the rationale for HDTs, the current portfolio of HDTs and their mechanisms of action, and a consortium-based approach to drive forward their evaluation in clinical trials

Respiratory tract infections in the immunocompromised.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pulmonary infections are particularly common in the immunosuppressed host. This review discusses emerging threats, newer modalities of diagnostic tests and emerging treatment options, and also highlights the increasing problem of antimicrobial resistance. RECENT FINDINGS: Nosocomial pneumonia is increasingly due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms in immunosuppressed patients. Viral pneumonias remain a very significant threat, present atypically and carry a high mortality. Aspergillosis remains the most common fungal infection, and infections due to Mucorales are increasing. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is on the increase throughout the world. Mixed infections are common and early bronchoscopy with appropriate microbiological tests, including molecular diagnostics, optimise management and reduce mortality. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary infection remains the most frequent infectious complication in the immunocompromised host. These complex infections are often mixed, have atypical presentations and can be due to multidrug-resistant organisms. Multidisciplinary involvement in specialist centres with appropriate diagnostics, treatment and infection control improves outcome. There is a desperate need for new antimicrobial agents active against Gram-negative pathogens