Infectious diseases, comorbidities and outcomes in hospitalized people who inject drugs (PWID) infections in persons who inject drugs.

Injection drug use poses a public health challenge. Clinical experience indicates that people who inject drugs (PWID) are hospitalized frequently for infectious diseases, but little is known about outcomes when admitted. Charts were identified from local hospitals between 2013-2018 using consultation lists and hospital record searches. Included individuals injected drugs in the past six months and presented with infection. Charts were accessed using the hospital information system, undergoing primary and secondary reviews using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for comparisons between outcome categories. Categorical data were summarized as count and frequency, and compared using Fisher's exact test. Of 240 individuals, 33% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 36% underwent surgery, 12% left against medical advice (AMA), and 9% died. Infectious diagnoses included bacteremia (31%), abscess (29%), endocarditis (29%), cellulitis (20%), sepsis (10%), osteomyelitis (9%), septic arthritis (8%), pneumonia (7%), discitis (2%), meningitis/encephalitis (2%), or other (7%). Sixty-six percent had stable housing and 60% had a family physician. Fifty-four percent of patient-initiated discharges were seen in the emergency department within 30 days and 29% were readmitted. PWID are at risk for infections. Understanding their healthcare trajectory is essential to improve their care.

Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review: Are Antifungal Noninferiority Trials at Risk of Eroding Effectiveness Because of Biocreep?

Noninferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) effectiveness may erode when results favor the active control over time and when a decreasingly effective control arm is used in serial trials. We analyzed 32 antifungal noninferiority RCTs (NI-RCTs) for these scenarios in this secondary analysis of a systematic review. Our exploratory analysis suggests that the erosion risk in the effectiveness of antifungal noninferiority trials is uncommon. Findings are limited by small sample size and overall risk of bias.

Methodological and reporting quality of non-inferiority randomized controlled trials comparing antifungal therapies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Detailed reporting is essential in non-inferiority randomized controlled trials (NI-RCTs) to assess evidence quality, as these trials inform standards of care. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of antifungal NI-RCTs. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane CENTRAL and the United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) drugs database were searched to 9 September 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: NI-RCTs differing by antifungal formulation, type, dose, administration and/or duration were included. Articles were independently assessed in duplicate using quality indicators developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in antifungal trials for prophylactic and therapeutic use. METHODS: The Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess risk of bias. Descriptive statistics were used; all statistical tests were two sided. RESULTS: Of 32 included studies, 22 (68.7%) did not justify the NIM. Handling of missing data was not described in 20 (62.5%). Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were both reported in 12/32 (37.5%) studies. Eleven of 32 studies (34.3%) reported potentially misleading conclusions. Industry-financed studies were more likely to report only the ITT analysis (n = 14/27, 51.9%). Methodological and reporting quality was unaffected by publication year; risk of bias from missing data changed over time. Overall risk of bias across included studies was moderate to high, with high risk in randomization process (n = 8/32, 25%), missing outcome data (n = 5/32, 15.6%), and selection of reported result (n = 9/32, 28.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Justification of the non-inferiority margin, reporting of ITT and PP analyses, missing data handling description, and ensuring conclusions are consistent with reported data is necessary to improve CONSORT adherence. Small sample size and overall risk of bias are study limitations. (Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42020219497).

Confidence interval of risk difference by different statistical methods and its impact on the study conclusion in antibiotic non-inferiority trials.

BACKGROUND: Numerous statistical methods can be used to calculate the confidence interval (CI) of risk differences. There is consensus in previous literature that the Wald method should be discouraged. We compared five statistical methods for estimating the CI of risk difference in terms of CI width and study conclusion in antibiotic non-inferiority trials. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a systematic review, we included non-inferiority trials that compared different antibiotic regimens, reported risk differences for the primary outcome, and described the number of successes and/or failures as well as patients in each arm. For each study, we re-calculated the risk difference CI using the Wald, Agresti-Caffo, Newcombe, Miettinen-Nurminen, and skewness-corrected asymptotic score (SCAS) methods. The CIs by different statistical methods were compared in terms of CI width and conclusion on non-inferiority. A wider CI was considered to be more conservative. RESULTS: The analysis included 224 comparisons from 213 studies. The statistical method used to calculate CI was not reported in 134 (59.8%) cases. The median (interquartile range IQR) for CI width by Wald, Agresti-Caffo, Newcombe, Miettinen-Nurminen, and SCAS methods was 13.0% (10.8%, 17.4%), 13.3% (10.9%, 18.5%), 13.6% (11.1%, 18.9%), 13.6% (11.1% and 19.0%), and 13.4% (11.1%, 18.9%), respectively. In 216 comparisons that reported a non-inferiority margin, the conclusion on non-inferiority was the same across the five statistical methods in 211 (97.7%) cases. The differences in CI width were more in trials with a sample size of 100 or less in each group and treatment success rate above 90%. Of the 18 trials in this subgroup with a specified non-inferiority margin, non-inferiority was shown in 17 (94.4%), 16 (88.9%), 14 (77.8%), 14 (77.8%), and 15 (83.3%) cases based on CI by Wald, Agresti-Caffo, Newcombe, Miettinen-Nurminen, and SCAS methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical method used to calculate CI was not reported in the majority of antibiotic non-inferiority trials. Different statistical methods for CI resulted in different conclusions on non-inferiority in 2.3% cases. The differences in CI widths were highest in trials with a sample size of 100 or less in each group and a treatment success rate above 90%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020165040 . April 28, 2020.

The Second Heart Program-A multidisciplinary team supporting people who inject drugs with infective endocarditis: Protocol of a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe and highly prevalent infection among people who inject drugs (PWID). While short-term (30-day) outcomes are similar between PWID and non-PWID, the long-term outcomes among PWID after IE are poor, with 1-year mortality rates in excess of 25%. Novel clinical interventions are needed to address the unique needs of PWID with IE, including increasing access to substance use treatment and addressing structural barriers and social determinants of health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PWID with IE will be connected to a multidisciplinary team that will transition with them from hospital to the community. The six components of the Second Heart Team are: (1) peer support worker with lived experience, (2) systems navigator, (3) addiction medicine physician, (4) primary care physician, (5) infectious diseases specialist, (6) cardiovascular surgeon. A convergent mixed-methods study design will be used to test the feasibility of this intervention. We will concurrently collect quantitative and qualitative data and 'mix' at the interpretation stage of the study to answer our research questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (Project No. 7012). Results will be presented at national and international conferences and submitted for publication in a scientific journal. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRARION: Trial registration number: ISRCTN14968657 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14968657.

Intention-to-treat analysis may be more conservative than per protocol analysis in antibiotic non-inferiority trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In non-inferiority trials, there is a concern that intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, by including participants who did not receive the planned interventions, may bias towards making the treatment and control arms look similar and lead to mistaken claims of non-inferiority. In contrast, per protocol (PP) analysis is viewed as less likely to make this mistake and therefore preferable in non-inferiority trials. In a systematic review of antibiotic non-inferiority trials, we compared ITT and PP analyses to determine which analysis was more conservative. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a systematic review, we included non-inferiority trials that compared different antibiotic regimens, used absolute risk reduction (ARR) as the main outcome and reported both ITT and PP analyses. All estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were oriented so that a negative ARR favored the control arm, and a positive ARR favored the treatment arm. We compared ITT to PP analyses results. The more conservative analysis between ITT and PP analyses was defined as the one having a more negative lower CI limit. RESULTS: The analysis included 164 comparisons from 154 studies. In terms of the ARR, ITT analysis yielded the more conservative point estimate and lower CI limit in 83 (50.6%) and 92 (56.1%) comparisons respectively. The lower CI limits in ITT analysis favored the control arm more than in PP analysis (median of - 7.5% vs. -6.9%, p = 0.0402). CIs were slightly wider in ITT analyses than in PP analyses (median of 13.3% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.0001). The median success rate was 89% (interquartile range IQR 82 to 93%) in the PP population and 44% (IQR 23 to 60%) in the patients who were included in the ITT population but excluded from the PP population (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to common belief, ITT analysis was more conservative than PP analysis in the majority of antibiotic non-inferiority trials. The lower treatment success rate in the ITT analysis led to a larger variance and wider CI, resulting in a more conservative lower CI limit. ITT analysis should be mandatory and considered as either the primary or co-primary analysis for non-inferiority trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040 .

A practical clinical guide to counselling on and managing contraception, pre-conception planning, and menopause for women living with HIV.

Background: Women represent one quarter of the population living with HIV in Canada and are an increasingly important sector of the HIV community. While some women's health issues such as cervical cancer screening and management are well addressed in HIV management guidelines, others are not. These include sexual and reproductive health factors such as contraception, pre-conception planning, and menopause. Existing literature has shown that while women living with HIV in Canada receive good HIV care based on HIV care cascade indicators, their women's health and sexual and reproductive health care needs are not being met. Methods: In this article, we present a clinical guide for clinicians providing care for women living with HIV on three key women's health topics that are under-discussed during HIV care visits: (1) contraception, (2) pre-conception planning, and (3) menopause. Results: We have summarized the most pertinent clinical factors on each topic to support straightforward counselling and present important considerations in the context of HIV-related diseases and treatment. Finally, when relevant, we have provided practical stepwise approaches for addressing each of these women's health care topics when seeing a patient during a visit. Conclusions: It is important that HIV specialists stay well-versed in the complex clinical interactions between HIV treatment and management of women's health issues.

Historique: Les femmes forment le quart de la population qui vit avec le VIH au Canada et un segment croissant de la communauté du VIH. Certains problèmes de santé des femmes, comme le dépistage et la prise en charge du cancer du col de l'utérus, sont bien couverts dans les directives sur la prise en charge du VIH, mais d'autres non. Des facteurs liés à la santé sexuelle et reproductive, tels que la contraception, la planification avant la conception et la ménopause, en font partie. Les publications scientifiques ont démontré que les femmes qui vivent avec le VIH au Canada reçoivent de bons soins du VIH en fonction des indicateurs de soins du VIH ventilés en cascade, mais que leurs besoins en matière de santé des femmes, de santé sexuelle et de santé reproductive ne sont pas respectés. Méthodologie: Dans le présent article, les auteurs proposent un guide clinique à l'intention des cliniciens qui soignent des femmes atteintes du VIH, à l'égard de trois sujets en santé des femmes qui ne sont pas assez abordés pendant les rendez-vous sur les soins du VIH : 1) la contraception, 2) la planification avant la conception et 3) la ménopause. Résultats: Les auteurs ont résumé les facteurs cliniques les plus appropriés relatifs à chaque sujet pour favoriser un counseling franc et présentent des points de vue importants dans le contexte des maladies et des traitements liés au VIH. Enfin, lorsque c'est approprié, ils ont fourni une démarche pratique graduelle pour aborder chacun de ces sujets en santé des femmes lors d'un rendez-vous. Conclusions: Il est important que les spécialistes du VIH demeurent bien informés des interactions cliniques complexes entre le traitement du VIH et la prise en charge des problèmes de santé des femmes.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapies: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic noninferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used for approval of new antibiotics and making changes to antibiotic prescribing in clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to assess the methodological and reporting quality of antibiotic noninferiority RCTs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Food and Drug Administration drug database from inception until November 22, 2019, for noninferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibiotic therapies. Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administration routes, or durations were included. Methodological and reporting quality indicators were based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. RESULTS: The systematic review included 227 studies. Of these, 135 (59.5%) studies were supported by pharmaceutical industry. Only 83 (36.6%) studies provided a justification for the noninferiority margin. Reporting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were done in 165 (72.7%) studies. The conclusion was misleading in 34 (15.0%) studies. The studies funded by pharmaceutical industry were less likely to be stopped early because of logistical reasons (3.0% vs 19.1%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04-.37) and to show inconclusive results (11.1% vs 42.9%; OR = 0.17; 95% CI, .08-.33). The quality of studies decreased over time with respect to blinding, early stopping, reporting of ITT with PP analysis, and having misleading conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials. Quality can be improved across the entire spectrum from investigators, funding agencies, as well as during the peer-review process.There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials including justification of noninferiority margin, reporting of intention-to-treat analysis with per-protocol analysis, and having conclusions that are concordant with study results.Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040.

Comparison of four COVID-19 screening strategies to facilitate early case identification within the homeless shelter population: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare the effectiveness of four different surveillance strategies in detecting COVID-19 within the homeless shelter population. 2. To assess the participant adherence over time for each surveillance method. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective cluster-randomized study to compare the effectiveness of four different surveillance regimens across eight homeless shelters in the city of Hamilton. PARTICIPANTS: Participants will include both residents of, and the staff working within, the homeless shelters. All participants aged 18 or older who consent to the study and are able to collect a swab sample (where relevant) are eligible for the study. The study will take place across eight homeless shelters (four men-only and four women-only) in the City of Hamilton in Ontario, Canada. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR GROUPS: The comparator group will receive active daily surveillance of symptoms and testing will only be completed in symptomatic participants (i.e. those who fail screening or who seek care for potential COVID-19 related symptoms). The three intervention arms will all receive active daily surveillance of symptoms and testing of symptomatic participants (as in the comparator group) in addition to one of the following: 1. Once weekly self-collected oral swabs (OS) regardless of symptoms using written and visual instructions. 2. Once weekly self-collected oral-nares swab (O-NS) regardless of symptoms using written and visual instructions. 3. Once weekly nurse collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) regardless of symptoms. Participants will follow verbal and written instructions for the collection of OS and O-NS specimens. For OS collection, participants are instructed to first moisten the swab on their tongue, insert the swab between the cheek and the lower gums and rotate the swab three times. This is repeated on the other side. For O-NS collection, after oral collection, the swab is inserted comfortably (about 2-3 cm) into one nostril, parallel to the floor and turned three times, then repeated in the other nostril. NPS specimens were collected by the nurse following standard of care procedure. All swabs were placed into a viral inactivation medium and transported to the laboratory for COVID-19 testing. Briefly, total nucleic acid was extracted from specimens and then amplified by RT-PCR for the UTR and Envelope genes of SARS-CoV-2 and the human RNase P gene, which is used as a sample adequacy marker. MAIN OUTCOMES: 1. PRIMARY OUTCOME: COVID-19 detection rate, i.e. the number of new positive cases over the study period of 8 weeks in each arm of the study. 2. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Qualitative assessment of study enrollment over 8 weeks. Percentage of participants who performed 50% or more of the weekly swabs in the intervention arms in the 8 week study period. RANDOMIZATION: We will use a computer-generated random assignment list to randomize the shelters to one of four interventions. Shelters were stratified by gender, and the simple randomization scheme was applied within each stratum. The randomization scheme was created using WinPEPI. BLINDING: This is an open-label study in which neither participants nor assessors are blinded. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): Since we are including our total sample frame, a sample size estimation at the cluster level is not required. However, if we succeed to enroll 50 participants per shelter from 8 shelters (n=400), and the detection rate is 3 times higher in the intervention groups (0.15) than in the comparator groups (0.05), we will have 90% power to detect a statistically significant and clinically important difference at a type I error rate of alpha=0.05 (one tailed), assuming an intraclass correlation of ~0.008. These computations were done using WinPEPI, and informed by conservative estimates from other studies on respiratory illness in the homeless (see Full protocol). TRIAL STATUS: The protocol version number is 3.0. Recruitment began on April 17, 2020 and is ongoing. Due to low numbers of COVID cases in the community and shelter system during the initial study period, the trial was extended. The estimated date for the end of the extended recruitment period is Feb 1, 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 18, 2020 with the identifier NCT04438070 . FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Novel Antibiotics May Be Noninferior but Are They Becoming Less Effective?: a Systematic Review.

Novel antibiotics approved by noninferiority trials may become less effective over time in two scenarios: (i) the treatment effect in studies of novel antibiotics may be consistently worse than studies of older antibiotics; (ii) when a decreasingly effective control arm is used in a series of noninferiority trials. Our systematic review of 175 noninferiority antibiotic trials found these scenarios to be rare.

Haemophilus influenzae type b necrotizing fasciitis in an adult with common variable immunodeficiency.

Necrotizing fasciitis of an extremity due to Haemophilus influenzae is exceptionally uncommon in adults, particularly since the advent of widespread vaccination with conjugated H. influenzae type b (Hib). We report a previously vaccinated, 39-year-old male with a history of common variable immunodeficiency (CVID), poorly compliant with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy, who required emergent treatment for left leg necrotizing fasciitis. The patient was initially treated with piperacillin-tazobactam, vancomycin, and clindamycin, in tandem with surgical debridement and wash-out. The patient responded well and completed a 2-week course of ceftriaxone following blood culture results that demonstrated beta-lactamase-positive Hib. This is the fifth documented case of necrotizing fasciitis caused by H. influenzae, and the first affecting an adult with prior Hib vaccination. This case highlights the importance of IVIG compliance for CVID patients and advocates considering encapsulated organisms as part of the differential diagnosis for severe skin and soft tissue infections in this patient population.

La fasciite nécrosante d'une extrémité, causée par l'Haemophilus influenzae, est d'une extrême rareté chez les adultes, particulièrement depuis l'adoption de la vaccination généralisée par le vaccin conjugué contre l'H. influenzae de type b (Hib). Les auteurs signalent le cas d'un homme de 39 ans déjà vacciné ayant une histoire d'hypogammaglobulinémie à expression variable, qui adhérait peu au traitement aux immunoglobulines intraveineuses et qui a dû recevoir un traitement d'urgence contre une fasciite nécrosante de la jambe gauche. Il a d'abord reçu du pipéracilline-tazobactam, de la vancomycine et de la clindamycine, conjointement avec un débridement chirurgical et un lavage. Le patient a bien répondu et a terminé un cycle de cetriaxone de deux semaines après une hémoculture qui a révélé un Hib positif à la bêta-lactamase. Il s'agit du cinquième cas démontré de fasciite nécrosante causée par l'H. influenzae, et le premier touchant un adulte déjà vacciné contre le Hib. Ce cas fait ressortir l'importance de respecter le traitement aux immunoglobulines intraveineuses en cas d'hypogammaglobulinémie à expression variable et démontre l'intérêt d'envisager des organismes encapsulés dans le diagnostic différentiel de graves infections de la peau et des tissus mous auprès de cette population de patients.