Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity.

BACKGROUND: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study's population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. METHODS: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. RESULTS: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10-16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0-15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. CONCLUSION: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012.

Colistin alone versus colistin plus meropenem for treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colistin-carbapenem combinations are synergistic in vitro against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. We aimed to test whether combination therapy improves clinical outcomes for adults with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant or carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. METHODS: A randomised controlled superiority trial was done in six hospitals in Israel, Greece, and Italy. We included adults with bacteraemia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, hospital-acquired pneumonia, or urosepsis caused by carbapenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, by computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by centre, to intravenous colistin (9-million unit loading dose, followed by 4·5 million units twice per day) or colistin with meropenem (2-g prolonged infusion three times per day). The trial was open-label, with blinded outcome assessment. Treatment success was defined as survival, haemodynamic stability, improved or stable Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, stable or improved ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of expired oxygen for patients with pneumonia, and microbiological cure for patients with bacteraemia. The primary outcome was clinical failure, defined as not meeting all success criteria by intention-to-treat analysis, at 14 days after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, we randomly assigned 406 patients to the two treatment groups. Most patients had pneumonia or bacteraemia (355/406, 87%), and most infections were caused by Acinetobacter baumannii (312/406, 77%). No significant difference between colistin monotherapy (156/198, 79%) and combination therapy (152/208, 73%) was observed for clinical failure at 14 days after randomisation (risk difference -5·7%, 95% CI -13·9 to 2·4; risk ratio [RR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·83-1·03). Results were similar among patients with A baumannii infections (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·09). Combination therapy increased the incidence of diarrhoea (56 [27%] vs 32 [16%] patients) and decreased the incidence of mild renal failure (37 [30%] of 124 vs 25 [20%] of 125 patients at risk of or with kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy was not superior to monotherapy. The addition of meropenem to colistin did not improve clinical failure in severe A baumannii infections. The trial was unpowered to specifically address other bacteria. FUNDING: EU AIDA grant Health-F3-2011-278348.

The Effectiveness and Safety of High-Dose Colistin: Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing colistin dosing should translate to improved patient outcomes. METHODS: We used data from 2 prospective cohort studies performed between 2006 and 2009 and between 2012 and 2015. In the latter period, a new policy of high-dose colistin (9 million international units [MIU] loading dose followed by 9 MIU daily for normal renal function) was introduced in 2 participating hospitals. We included adult inpatients with invasive infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria treated with colistin. Our primary exposure variable was colistin dose, dichotomized to high-dose vs other regimens. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We generated a propensity score for high-dose colistin and conducted propensity-adjusted multivariable and matched-cohort analyses for mortality. RESULTS: Of 529 consecutive patients fulfilling inclusion criteria, 144 were treated with high-dose colistin and 385 with lower-dose colistin regimens. The median daily dose in the high-dose group was 9 MIU (interquartile range [IQR], 9-9) vs 4 MIU (IQR, 3-6) with other regimens. There were 50 of 144 (34.7%) deaths with high-dose colistin vs 165 of 385 (42.9%) with low-dose colistin (P = .1). The propensity-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-1.83) for high-dose colistin. Similar results were obtained when using the study period as the exposure variable, in the subgroup of bacteremic patients (n = 207) and in the propensity-matched cohort (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, .67-1.82]). Nephrotoxicity (RIFLE injury or higher; OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.29-3.48]; n = 396) and seizures were significantly more common with high-dose colistin. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort, we found no association between high colistin dosing and all-cause mortality. High dosing was associated with more nephrotoxicity.