367 research outputs found

    Rezafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (ReSTORE): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial

    No full text
    Background: Rezafungin is a next-generation, once-a-week echinocandin in development for the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis and for the prevention of invasive fungal disease caused by Candida, Aspergillus, and Pneumocystis spp after blood and marrow transplantation. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous rezafungin versus intravenous caspofungin in patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis. Methods: ReSTORE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial done at 66 tertiary care centres in 15 countries. Adults (≄18 years) with systemic signs and mycological confirmation of candidaemia or invasive candidiasis were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous rezafungin once a week (400 mg in week 1, followed by 200 mg weekly, for a total of two to four doses) or intravenous caspofungin (70 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 50 mg daily) for no more than 4 weeks. The primary endpoints were global cure (consisting of clinical cure, radiological cure, and mycological eradication) at day 14 for the European Medical Agency (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), both with a target non-inferiority margin of 20%, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received one or more doses of study drug and had documented Candida infection based on a culture from blood or another normally sterile site obtained within 96 h before randomisation). Safety was evaluated by the incidence and type of adverse events and deaths in the safety population, defined as all patients who received any amount of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03667690, and is complete. Findings: Between Oct 12, 2018, and Aug 29, 2021, 222 patients were screened for inclusion, and 199 patients (118 [59%] men; 81 [41%] women; mean age 61 years [SD 15·2]) were randomly assigned (100 [50%] patients to the rezafungin group and 99 [50%] patients to the caspofungin group). 55 (59%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 57 (61%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group had a global cure at day 14 (weighted treatment difference −1·1% [95% CI −14·9 to 12·7]; EMA primary endpoint). 22 (24%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 20 (21%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group died or had an unknown survival status at day 30 (treatment difference 2·4% [95% CI −9·7 to 14·4]; FDA primary endpoint). In the safety analysis, 89 (91%) of 98 patients in the rezafungin group and 83 (85%) of 98 patients in the caspofungin group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients in either group were pyrexia, hypokalaemia, pneumonia, septic shock, and anaemia. 55 (56%) patients in the rezafungin group and 52 (53%) patients in the caspofungin group had serious adverse events. Interpretation: Our data show that rezafungin was non-inferior to caspofungin for the primary endpoints of day-14 global cure (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality (FDA). Efficacy in the initial days of treatment warrants evaluation. There were no concerning trends in treatment-emergent or serious adverse events. These phase 3 results show the efficacy and safety of rezafungin and support its ongoing development. Funding: Cidara Therapeutics and Mundipharma

    Rezafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (ReSTORE): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial

    No full text
    10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02324-8The Lancet4011037049-5

    Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

    No full text
    Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

    Epidemiology and outcomes of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients: the EUROBACT-2 international cohort study

    No full text
    Purpose In the critically ill, hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSI) are associated with significant mortality. Granular data are required for optimizing management, and developing guidelines and clinical trials. Methods We carried out a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≄ 18 years of age) with HA-BSI treated in intensive care units (ICUs) between June 2019 and February 2021. Results 2600 patients from 333 ICUs in 52 countries were included. 78% HA-BSI were ICU-acquired. Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 8 [IQR 5; 11] at HA-BSI diagnosis. Most frequent sources of infection included pneumonia (26.7%) and intravascular catheters (26.4%). Most frequent pathogens were Gram-negative bacteria (59.0%), predominantly Klebsiella spp. (27.9%), Acinetobacter spp. (20.3%), Escherichia coli (15.8%), and Pseudomonas spp. (14.3%). Carbapenem resistance was present in 37.8%, 84.6%, 7.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. Difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) was present in 23.5% and pan-drug resistance in 1.5%. Antimicrobial therapy was deemed adequate within 24 h for 51.5%. Antimicrobial resistance was associated with longer delays to adequate antimicrobial therapy. Source control was needed in 52.5% but not achieved in 18.2%. Mortality was 37.1%, and only 16.1% had been discharged alive from hospital by day-28. Conclusions HA-BSI was frequently caused by Gram-negative, carbapenem-resistant and DTR pathogens. Antimicrobial resistance led to delays in adequate antimicrobial therapy. Mortality was high, and at day-28 only a minority of the patients were discharged alive from the hospital. Prevention of antimicrobial resistance and focusing on adequate antimicrobial therapy and source control are important to optimize patient management and outcomes

    Risk factors for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: an international matched case-control-control study (EURECA)

    Full text link
    Cases were patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), complicated intraabdominal (cIAI), pneumonia or bacteraemia from other sources (BSI-OS) due to CRE; control groups were patients with infection caused by carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacterales (CSE), and by non-infected patients, respectively. Matching criteria included type of infection for CSE group, ward and duration of hospital admission. Conditional logistic regression was used to identify risk factors. Findings Overall, 235 CRE case patients, 235 CSE controls and 705 non-infected controls were included. The CRE infections were cUTI (133, 56.7%), pneumonia (44, 18.7%), cIAI and BSI-OS (29, 12.3% each). Carbapenemase genes were found in 228 isolates: OXA-48/like, 112 (47.6%), KPC, 84 (35.7%), and metallo-beta-lactamases, 44 (18.7%); 13 produced two. The risk factors for CRE infection in both type of controls were (adjusted OR for CSE controls; 95% CI; p value) previous colonisation/infection by CRE (6.94; 2.74-15.53; <0.001), urinary catheter (1.78; 1.03-3.07; 0.038) and exposure to broad spectrum antibiotics, as categorical (2.20; 1.25-3.88; 0.006) and time-dependent (1.04 per day; 1.00-1.07; 0.014); chronic renal failure (2.81; 1.40-5.64; 0.004) and admission from home (0.44; 0.23-0.85; 0.014) were significant only for CSE controls. Subgroup analyses provided similar results. Interpretation The main risk factors for CRE infections in hospitals with high incidence included previous coloni-zation, urinary catheter and exposure to broad spectrum antibiotics

    Covid-19 triage in the emergency department 2.0: how analytics and AI transform a human-made algorithm for the prediction of clinical pathways

    Get PDF
    The Covid-19 pandemic has pushed many hospitals to their capacity limits. Therefore, a triage of patients has been discussed controversially primarily through an ethical perspective. The term triage contains many aspects such as urgency of treatment, severity of the disease and pre-existing conditions, access to critical care, or the classification of patients regarding subsequent clinical pathways starting from the emergency department. The determination of the pathways is important not only for patient care, but also for capacity planning in hospitals. We examine the performance of a human-made triage algorithm for clinical pathways which is considered a guideline for emergency departments in Germany based on a large multicenter dataset with over 4,000 European Covid-19 patients from the LEOSS registry. We find an accuracy of 28 percent and approximately 15 percent sensitivity for the ward class. The results serve as a benchmark for our extensions including an additional category of palliative care as a new label, analytics, AI, XAI, and interactive techniques. We find significant potential of analytics and AI in Covid-19 triage regarding accuracy, sensitivity, and other performance metrics whilst our interactive human-AI algorithm shows superior performance with approximately 73 percent accuracy and up to 76 percent sensitivity. The results are independent of the data preparation process regarding the imputation of missing values or grouping of comorbidities. In addition, we find that the consideration of an additional label palliative care does not improve the results

    Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a first booster with BNT162b2 or full-dose mRNA-1273 : a randomised VACCELERATE trial in adults 6575\ua0years (EU-COVAT-1)

    No full text
    Abstract: Background Vaccination remains crucial for protection against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially for people of advanced age, however, optimal dosing regimens are as yet lacking. Methods EU-COVAT-1-AGED Part A is a randomised controlled, adaptive, multicentre phase II trial evaluating safety and immunogenicity of a 3rd vaccination (1st booster) in individuals 6575 years. Fifty-three participants were randomised to full-doses of either mRNA-1273 (Spikevax\uae, 100 \ub5g) or BNT162b2 (Comirnaty\uae, 30 \ub5g). The primary endpoint was the rate of 2-fold circulating antibody titre increase 14 days post-vaccination measured by quantitative electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunoassay, targeting RBD region of Wuhan wild-type SARS-CoV-2. Secondary endpoints included the changes in neutralising capacity against wild-type and 25 variants of concern at 14 days and up to 12 months. Safety was assessed by monitoring of solicited adverse events (AEs) for seven days after on-study vaccination. Unsolicited AEs were collected until the end of follow-up at 12 months, SAEs were pursued for a further 30 days. Results Between 08th of November 2021 and 04th of January 2022, 53 participants 6575 years received a COVID-19 vaccine as 1st booster. Fifty subjects (BNT162b2 n = 25/mRNA-1273 n = 25) were included in the analyses for immunogenicity at day 14. The primary endpoint of a 2-fold anti-RBD IgG titre increase 14 days after vaccination was reached for all subjects. A 3rd vaccination of full-dose mRNA-1273 provided higher anti-RBD IgG titres (Geometric mean titre) D14 mRNA-127310711 IU/mL (95 %-CI: 8003;14336) vs. BNT162b2: 7090 IU/mL (95 %-CI: 5688;8837). We detected a pattern showing higher neutralising capacity of full-dose mRNA-1273 against wild-type as well as for 23 out of 25 tested variants. Interpretation Third doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 provide substantial circulating antibody increase 14 days after vaccination. Full-dose mRNA-1273 provides higher antibody levels with an overall similar safety profile for people 6575 years

    VACCELERATE Site Network: Real-time definition of clinical study capacity in Europe

    Get PDF
    Background: The inconsistent European vaccine trial landscape rendered the continent of limited interest for vaccine developers. The VACCELERATE consortium created a network of capable clinical trial sites throughout Europe. VACCELERATE identifies and provides access to state-of-the-art vaccine trial sites to accelerate clinical development of vaccines. Methods: Login details for the VACCELERATE Site Network (vaccelerate.eu/site-network/) questionnaire can be obtained after sending an email to. Interested sites provide basic information, such as contact details, affiliation with infectious disease networks, main area of expertise, previous vaccine trial experience, site infrastructure and preferred vaccine trial settings. In addition, sites can recommend other clinical researchers for registration in the network. If directly requested by a sponsor or sponsor representative, the VACCELERATE Site Network pre-selects vaccine trial sites and shares basic study characteristics provided by the sponsor. Interested sites provide feedback with short surveys and feasibility questionnaires developed by VACCELERATE and are connected with the sponsor to initiate the site selection process. Results: As of April 2023, 481 sites from 39 European countries have registered in the VACCELERATE Site Network. Of these, 137 (28.5 %) sites have previous experience conducting phase I trials, 259 (53.8 %) with phase II, 340 (70.7 %) with phase III, and 205 (42.6 %) with phase IV trials, respectively. Infectious diseases were reported as main area of expertise by 274 sites (57.0 %), followed by any kind of immunosuppression by 141 (29.3 %) sites. Numbers are super additive as sites may report clinical trial experience in several indications. Two hundred and thirty-one (47.0 %) sites have the expertise and capacity to enrol paediatric populations and 391 (79.6 %) adult populations. Since its launch in October 2020, the VACCELERATE Site Network has been used 21 times for academic and industry trials, mostly interventional studies, focusing on different pathogens such as fungi, monkeypox virus, Orthomyxoviridae/influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, or Streptococcus pneumoniae/pneumococcus. Conclusions: The VACCELERATE Site Network enables a constantly updated Europe-wide mapping of experienced clinical sites interested in executing vaccine trials. The network is already in use as a rapid-turnaround single contact point for the identification of vaccine trials sites in Europe.The VACCELERATE Site Network has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro gramme (grant agreement No 101037867) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium fĂŒr Bil dung und Forschung [BMBF]) (grant agreement No BMBF01KX2040).S
    • 

    corecore