Hydrocortisone in Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Whether the antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of glucocorticoids may decrease mortality among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe community-acquired pneumonia to receive intravenous hydrocortisone (200 mg daily for either 4 or 7 days as determined by clinical improvement, followed by tapering for a total of 8 or 14 days) or to receive placebo. All the patients received standard therapy, including antibiotics and supportive care. The primary outcome was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients had undergone randomization when the trial was stopped after the second planned interim analysis. Data from 795 patients were analyzed. By day 28, death had occurred in 25 of 400 patients (6.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 8.6) in the hydrocortisone group and in 47 of 395 patients (11.9%; 95% CI, 8.7 to 15.1) in the placebo group (absolute difference, -5.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.6 to -1.7; P = 0.006). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, endotracheal intubation was performed in 40 of 222 (18.0%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 65 of 220 (29.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.86). Among the patients who were not receiving vasopressors at baseline, such therapy was initiated by day 28 in 55 of 359 (15.3%) of the hydrocortisone group and in 86 of 344 (25.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.82). The frequencies of hospital-acquired infections and gastrointestinal bleeding were similar in the two groups; patients in the hydrocortisone group received higher daily doses of insulin during the first week of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia being treated in the ICU, those who received hydrocortisone had a lower risk of death by day 28 than those who received placebo. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; CAPE COD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517489.).

Antibiotic Therapy for 6 or 12 Weeks for Prosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The management of prosthetic joint infection usually consists of a combination of surgery and antimicrobial therapy. The appropriate duration of antimicrobial therapy for this indication remains unclear. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to compare 6 weeks with 12 weeks of antibiotic therapy in patients with microbiologically confirmed prosthetic joint infection that had been managed with an appropriate surgical procedure. The primary outcome was persistent infection (defined as the persistence or recurrence of infection with the initial causative bacteria, with an antibiotic susceptibility pattern that was phenotypically indistinguishable from that at enrollment) within 2 years after the completion of antibiotic therapy. Noninferiority of 6 weeks of therapy to 12 weeks of therapy would be shown if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the absolute between-group difference (the value in the 6-week group minus the value in the 12-week group) in the percentage of patients with persistent infection within 2 years was not greater than 10 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients from 28 French centers were randomly assigned to receive antibiotic therapy for 6 weeks (205 patients) or for 12 weeks (205 patients). Six patients who withdrew consent were not included in the analysis. In the main analysis, 20 patients who died during follow-up were excluded, and missing outcomes for 6 patients who were lost to follow-up were considered to be persistent infection. Persistent infection occurred in 35 of 193 patients (18.1%) in the 6-week group and in 18 of 191 patients (9.4%) in the 12-week group (risk difference, 8.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 15.6); thus, noninferiority was not shown. Noninferiority was also not shown in the per-protocol and sensitivity analyses. We found no evidence of between-group differences in the percentage of patients with treatment failure due to a new infection, probable treatment failure, or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with microbiologically confirmed prosthetic joint infections that were managed with standard surgical procedures, antibiotic therapy for 6 weeks was not shown to be noninferior to antibiotic therapy for 12 weeks and resulted in a higher percentage of patients with unfavorable outcomes. (Funded by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, French Ministry of Health; DATIPO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01816009.).

Drug clustering to anticipate new aspects of drug safety profile: Application to gabapentinoids and other voltage-gated calcium channel ligand drugs.

AIMS: Gabapentin and pregabalin bind to α2-δ subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels (Cav ). Other drugs targeting Cav include cardiovascular calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and anticonvulsants (levetiracetam, ethosuximide and zonisamide). In addition to pharmacodynamics, the safety profile of gabapentinoids seems to overlap with the one of cardiovascular CCBs (oedema) and Cav -blocking anticonvulsants (suicide and ataxia). The objective of this study was to cluster the safety profile of different Cav -ligand drugs by focusing on whether gabapentinoids present a distinct adverse drug reaction (ADR) signature from cardiovascular CCBs and anticonvulsants. METHODS: We extracted all ADRs with at least one significant disproportionate reporting (reporting odds ratio) related to gabapentinoids, CCBs or anticonvulsants in VigiBase. After principal component analysis preprocessing, a hierarchical ascendent classification was performed to cluster gabapentinoids and other Cav -ligand drugs that share a similar ADR signature. The robustness of the results was determined through four sensitivity analyses, varying on the dataset or the clustering method. RESULTS: A total of 16 drugs and 65 ADRs were included. Gabapentinoids were in Cluster #1, which included eight other drugs (isradipine, nicardipine, lacidipine, lercanidipine, ethosuximide, levetiracetam, zonisamide and nimodipine). Cluster #2 contained two drugs (diltiazem and verapamil) and Cluster #3 contained four drugs (amlodipine, felodipine, nifedipine and nitrendipine). The clustering results were consistent in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of gabapentinoids overlaps with those of some dihydropyridine CCBs and Cav -blocking anticonvulsants. These results could be used to anticipate some unidentified ADRs of gabapentinoids from information accumulated with older drugs and sharing a common molecular target and ADR signature.

Designs used in published therapeutic studies of rare superficial vascular anomalies: a systematic literature search.

BACKGROUND: Rare superficial vascular anomalies represent a wide range of diseases. Their management is difficult given the broad spectrum and the lack of clinical trials assessing treatment efficacy. A randomized clinical trial of vascular anomalies is difficult because of the rarity of the diseases and is enhanced by the population of interest often being children. Therefore, suitable designs are needed. We conducted a methodological systematic literature search to identify designs implemented for investigating the treatment of rare superficial vascular anomalies. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on January 25, 2021, of the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union Clinical Trials Register databases. This systematic methodological literature search was registered at the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021232449). Randomized and non-randomized studies were included if they met the following criteria: were prospective studies of rare superficial vascular anomaly therapies, dealt with humans (adults and children) and were published in English from 2000. We excluded case reports/case series reporting fewer than 10 patients, reviews, retrospective studies, animal studies, studies of systemic or common vascular anomalies and non-therapeutic studies. We did not assess risk of bias in the included studies because our review was a methodological one focused on the design used. The review provided a descriptive analysis of relevant features of eligible research studies. RESULTS: From 2046 articles identified, we included 97 studies (62 reports and 35 ongoing studies): 25 randomized controlled studies, 7 non-randomized comparative studies, 64 prospective cohorts and 1 case series. Among the 32 comparative studies included, 21 used a parallel-group design. The 11 other studies used different designs such as cross-over, randomized placebo phase, delayed-start, within-person, or challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge or used a historical control group or an observational run-in period. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic literature search highlights the lack of randomized control trials in superficial vascular anomalies due to the rarity of patients and their heterogeneity. New designs are emerging and can overcome the limitations of testing treatments in parallel groups.

Design and Methodological Issues of Within-Person (Split-Body) Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating a Topical Treatment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Topical drugs are often used as first-line treatment for dermatological conditions. A within-person design may then be well adapted: it consists of randomizing lesions/body sites rather than patients, which are then concomitantly treated by the different drugs compared, reducing inter-group variability and therefore requiring fewer patients than the classical parallel-group trial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to provide a methodological overview of within-person randomized trials (WP-RCTs) in dermatology. METHODS: We searched for eligible trials published between 2017 and 2021 in MEDLINE, Embase, and Central in dermatology journals and the 6 highest-impact-factor general medical journals. Two authors selected publications and extracted data independently. RESULTS: From 1,034 articles identified, we included 54 WP-RCTs, mainly for acne vulgaris, psoriasis, actinic keratosis, and atopic dermatitis. In most of the trials, patients had only 2 lesions/body sites. In none of the trials, did we detect a potential carry-across effect (known to be the major methodological problem in WP-RCTs). Twelve studies reported a care provider applying the treatment, and in 26 studies, the patients themselves applied the treatment. Finally, we also highlight statistical issues for the statistical analysis: overall, 14 (26.9%) studies used a test for independent observations, thus ignoring the between-lesion correlation. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review highlights that despite the publication of the CONSORT checklist extension for WP-RCTs in 2017, this design is rarely used, and when it is, there are methodological and reporting concerns.

Indication for a Pneumocystis Prophylaxis Therapy in Patients with Vascular Anomalies Treated with PIK3/AKT/mTOR Pathway Inhibitors: Experts' Opinion and Systematic Review from the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Vascular anomalies (VAs) are increasingly being treated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors. These drugs have immunosuppressive properties and thus theoretically overexpose patients to opportunistic infections, especially Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP). PJP prophylaxis use lacks consensus. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of PJP in patients receiving mTOR/PI3K/AKT inhibitors for VAs and determine any indication for pneumocystis prophylaxis in this population. METHODS: The study was conducted in 2 parts: (1) we sent a survey to a panel of international experts of VAs asking about their use of pneumocystis prophylaxis drugs and (2) we performed a systematic review of the literature of all published cases of patients receiving these drugs for VA to estimate the prevalence of PJP in this population. RESULTS: Answers from 68 experts were analyzed: 21 (30.9%) answered they always add PJP prophylaxis when prescribing mTOR inhibitors, 20 (29.4%) case-by-case, and 27 (39.7%) never. For the systematic review, among 3,053 reports screened, 217 were included involving 1,189 patients (1,143 received sirolimus, 38 everolimus, 4 alpelisib, 4 miransertib). Among the 1,189 cases, 2 (0.2%) PJP were reported: one under sirolimus and one under everolimus. Thus, the prevalence of PJP was estimated at 0.88 cases/1,000 patients under sirolimus (95% CI: -0.84 to 2.59) and 26.31 cases/1,000 under everolimus (95% CI: -24.58 to 77.18). Patients with PJP never received prophylaxis drugs. We found no PJP cases under alpelisib and miransertib. PJP prophylaxis was given in 218 (18.3%) cases, more frequently for children (91.3 vs. 77.2% in the non-prophylaxis group, p = 0.012), mostly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (186 patients, 85.3%). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that even if PJP is a rare event, it may occur in patients with VAs treated with an mTOR inhibitor. Although our results cannot allow for revising guidelines, prophylaxis with TMP-SMX might be appropriate for a subgroup of patients with risk factors for PJP.

Co-development of a school-based and primary care-based multicomponent intervention to improve HPV vaccine coverage amongst French adolescents (the PrevHPV Study).

INTRODUCTION: Despite various efforts to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage in France, it has always been lower than in most other high-income countries. The health authorities launched in 2018 the national PrevHPV research programme to (1) co-develop with stakeholders and (2) evaluate the impact of a multicomponent complex intervention aimed at improving HPV vaccine coverage amongst French adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development process of the PrevHPV intervention using the GUIDance for rEporting of intervention Development framework as a guide. METHODS: To develop the intervention, we used findings from (1) published evidence on effective strategies to improve vaccination uptake and on theoretical frameworks of health behaviour change; (2) primary data on target populations' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, behaviours and practices as well as the facilitators and barriers to HPV vaccination collected as part of the PrevHPV Programme and (3) the advice of working groups involving stakeholders in a participatory approach. We paid attention to developing an intervention that would maximise reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance in real-world contexts. RESULTS: We co-developed three components: (1) adolescents' and parents' education and motivation using eHealth tools (web conferences, videos, and a serious video game) and participatory learning at school; (2) general practitioners' e-learning training on HPV using motivational interviewing techniques and provision of a decision aid tool and (3) easier access to vaccination through vaccination days organised on participating middle schools' premises to propose free of charge initiation of the HPV vaccination. CONCLUSION: We co-developed a multicomponent intervention that addresses a range of barriers and enablers of HPV vaccination. The next step is to build on the results of its evaluation to refine it before scaling it up if proven efficient. If so, it will add to the small number of multicomponent interventions aimed at improving HPV vaccination worldwide. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The public (adolescents, their parents, school staff and health professionals) participated in the needs assessment using a mixed methods approach. The public was also involved in the components' development process to generate ideas about potential activities/tools, critically revise the successive versions of the tools and provide advice about the intervention practicalities, feasibility and maintenance.

Prevention of Early Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia after Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are treated with targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm are at increased risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia. The benefit of preventive short-term antibiotic therapy has not been shown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving adult patients (>18 years of age) in intensive care units (ICUs) who were being mechanically ventilated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest related to initial shockable rhythm and treated with targeted temperature management at 32 to 34°C. Patients with ongoing antibiotic therapy, chronic colonization with multidrug-resistant bacteria, or moribund status were excluded. Either intravenous amoxicillin-clavulanate (at doses of 1 g and 200 mg, respectively) or placebo was administered three times a day for 2 days, starting less than 6 hours after the cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was early ventilator-associated pneumonia (during the first 7 days of hospitalization). An independent adjudication committee determined diagnoses of ventilator-associated pneumonia. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients underwent randomization, and 194 were included in the analysis. After adjudication, 60 cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia were confirmed, including 51 of early ventilator-associated pneumonia. The incidence of early ventilator-associated pneumonia was lower with antibiotic prophylaxis than with placebo (19 patients [19%] vs. 32 [34%]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.92; P = 0.03). No significant differences between the antibiotic group and the control group were observed with respect to the incidence of late ventilator-associated pneumonia (4% and 5%, respectively), the number of ventilator-free days (21 days and 19 days), ICU length of stay (5 days and 8 days if patients were discharged and 7 days and 7 days if patients had died), and mortality at day 28 (41% and 37%). At day 7, no increase in resistant bacteria was identified. Serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A 2-day course of antibiotic therapy with amoxicillin-clavulanate in patients receiving a 32-to-34°C targeted temperature management strategy after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with initial shockable rhythm resulted in a lower incidence of early ventilator-associated pneumonia than placebo. No significant between-group differences were observed for other key clinical variables, such as ventilator-free days and mortality at day 28. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; ANTHARTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02186951.).

Targeted Temperature Management for Cardiac Arrest with Nonshockable Rhythm.

BACKGROUND: Moderate therapeutic hypothermia is currently recommended to improve neurologic outcomes in adults with persistent coma after resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the effectiveness of moderate therapeutic hypothermia in patients with nonshockable rhythms (asystole or pulseless electrical activity) is debated. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing moderate therapeutic hypothermia (33°C during the first 24 hours) with targeted normothermia (37°C) in patients with coma who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after resuscitation from cardiac arrest with nonshockable rhythm. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable neurologic outcome, assessed on day 90 after randomization with the use of the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale (which ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). We defined a favorable neurologic outcome as a CPC score of 1 or 2. Outcome assessment was blinded. Mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: From January 2014 through January 2018, a total of 584 patients from 25 ICUs underwent randomization, and 581 were included in the analysis (3 patients withdrew consent). On day 90, a total of 29 of 284 patients (10.2%) in the hypothermia group were alive with a CPC score of 1 or 2, as compared with 17 of 297 (5.7%) in the normothermia group (difference, 4.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1 to 8.9; P = 0.04). Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between the hypothermia group and the normothermia group (81.3% and 83.2%, respectively; difference, -1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.0 to 4.3). The incidence of prespecified adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with coma who had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest with nonshockable rhythm, moderate therapeutic hypothermia at 33°C for 24 hours led to a higher percentage of patients who survived with a favorable neurologic outcome at day 90 than was observed with targeted normothermia. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and others; HYPERION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01994772.).

Heterogeneity in pragmatic randomised trials: sources and management.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials aim to generate evidence to directly inform patient, caregiver and health-system manager policies and decisions. Heterogeneity in patient characteristics contributes to heterogeneity in their response to the intervention. However, there are many other sources of heterogeneity in outcomes. Based on the expertise and judgements of the authors, we identify different sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, which translate into heterogeneity in patient responses-some we consider as desirable and some as undesirable. For each of them, we discuss and, using real-world trial examples, illustrate how heterogeneity should be managed over the whole course of the trial. MAIN TEXT: Heterogeneity in centres and patients should be welcomed rather than limited. Interventions can be flexible or tailored and control interventions are expected to reflect usual care, avoiding use of a placebo. Co-interventions should be allowed; adherence should not be enforced. All these elements introduce heterogeneity in interventions (experimental or control), which has to be welcomed because it mimics reality. Outcomes should be objective and possibly routinely collected; standardised assessment, blinding and adjudication should be avoided as much as possible because this is not how assessment would be done outside a trial setting. The statistical analysis strategy must be guided by the objective to inform decision-making, thus favouring the intention-to-treat principle. Pragmatic trials should consider including process analyses to inform an understanding of the trial results. Needed data to conduct these analyses should be collected unobtrusively. Finally, ethical principles must be respected, even though this may seem to conflict with goals of pragmatism; consent procedures could be incorporated in the flow of care.

Intervention effect estimates in randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care versus secondary or tertiary care settings: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical practice guidelines are based on randomised controlled trials conducted in secondary or tertiary care setting and general practitioners frequently question their relevance for primary care patients. Our aim was to compare the intervention effect estimates between primary care setting randomised controlled trials (PC-RCTs) and secondary or tertiary care setting randomised controlled trials (ST-RCTs). METHODS: Meta-epidemiological study of meta-analyses (MAs) of a binary outcome including at least one PC-RCT and one ST-RCT. PC-RCTs were defined as trials recruiting patients in general practices, primary care practices, family practices, community centers or community pharmacies. ST-RCTs were defined as trials recruiting in hospitals, including hospitalized patients, hospital outpatients and patients from emergency departments. For each MA, we estimated a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) by using random-effects meta-regression, with an ROR less than 1 indicating lower estimates of the intervention effect in PC-RCTs than ST-RCTs. Finally, we estimated a combined ROR across MAs by using a random-effects meta-analysis. We performed subgroup analyses considering the type of outcomes (objective vs subjective), type of experimental intervention (pharmacological vs non-pharmacological), and control group (active vs inactive) as well as analyses adjusted on items of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Among 1765 screened reviews, 76 MAs with 230 PC-RCTs and 384 ST-RCTs were selected. The main medical fields were pneumology (13.2%) and psychiatry or addictology (38.2%). Intervention effect estimates did not significantly differ between PC-RCTs and ST-RCTs (ROR = 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.08), with moderate heterogeneity across MAs (I2 = 45%). Subgroup and adjusted analyses led to consistent results. CONCLUSION: We did not observe any significant difference in intervention effect estimates between PC-RCTs and ST-RCTs. Nevertheless, most of the medical fields in this meta-epidemiological study were not representative of the pathologies encountered in primary care. Further studies with pathologies more frequently encountered in primary care are needed.

Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: The MAGPOP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged pregnancies are a frequent indication for induction of labour. When the cervix is unfavourable, cervical ripening before oxytocin administration is recommended to increase the likelihood of vaginal delivery, but no particular method is currently recommended for cervical ripening of prolonged pregnancies. This trial evaluates whether the use of mechanical cervical ripening with a silicone double balloon catheter for induction of labour in prolonged pregnancies reduces the cesarean section rate for nonreassuring fetal status compared with pharmacological cervical ripening by a vaginal pessary for the slow release of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial conducted in 15 French maternity units. Women with singleton pregnancies, a vertex presentation, ≥41+0 and ≤42+0 weeks' gestation, a Bishop score <6, intact membranes, and no history of cesarean delivery for whom induction of labour was decided were randomised to either mechanical cervical ripening with a Cook Cervical Ripening Balloon or pharmacological cervical ripening by a Propess vaginal pessary serving as a prostaglandin E2 slow-release system. The primary outcome was the rate of cesarean for nonreassuring fetal status, with an independent endpoint adjudication committee determining whether the fetal heart rate was nonreassuring. Secondary outcomes included delivery (time from cervical ripening to delivery, number of patients requiring analgesics), maternal and neonatal outcomes. Between January 2017 and December 2018, 1,220 women were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, 610 allocated to a silicone double balloon catheter, and 610 to the Propess vaginal pessary for the slow release of dinoprostone. The mean age of women was 31 years old, and 80% of them were of white ethnicity. The cesarean rates for nonreassuring fetal status were 5.8% (35/607) in the mechanical ripening group and 5.3% (32/609) in the pharmacological ripening group (proportion difference: 0.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1% to 3.1%, p = 0.70). Time from cervical ripening to delivery was shorter in the pharmacological ripening group (23 hours versus 32 hours, median difference 6.5 95% CI 5.0 to 7.9, p < 0.001), and fewer women required analgesics in the mechanical ripening group (27.5% versus 35.4%, difference in proportion -7.9%, 95% CI -13.2% to -2.7%, p = 0.003). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for other delivery, maternal, and neonatal outcomes. A limitation was a low observed rate of cesarean section. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed no difference in the rates of cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal status between mechanical ripening with a silicone double balloon catheter and pharmacological cervical ripening with a pessary for the slow release of dinoprostone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02907060.

Integrons, a predictive biomarker for antibiotic resistance in acute sepsis: the IRIS study.

BACKGROUND: Considering the increase in MDR Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), the choice of empirical antibiotic therapy is challenging. In parallel, use of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be avoided to decrease antibiotic selection pressure. Accordingly, clinicians need rapid diagnostic tools to narrow antibiotic therapy. Class 1-3 integrons, identified by intI1-3 genes, are genetic elements that play a major role in antibiotic resistance in GNB. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the IRIS study was to evaluate the negative and positive predictive values (NPVs and PPVs, respectively) of intI1-3 as markers of antibiotic resistance. METHODS: The IRIS study was an observational cross-sectional multicentre study that enrolled adult subjects with suspected urinary tract or intra-abdominal infections. intI1-3 were detected directly from routinely collected biological samples (blood, urine or intra-abdominal fluid) using real-time PCR. A patient was considered 'MDR positive' if at least one GNB, expressing acquired resistance to at least two antibiotic families among ß-lactams, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones and/or co-trimoxazole, was isolated from at least one biological sample. RESULTS: Over a 2 year period, 513 subjects were enrolled and 409 had GNB documentation, mostly Enterobacterales. intI1 and/or intI2 were detected in 31.8% of patients and 24.4% of patients were considered 'MDR positive'. The NPV of intI1 and/or intI2 as a marker of acquired antibiotic resistances was estimated at 92.8% (89.1%-95.5%). The NPVs for first-line antibiotics were all above 92%, notably >96% for resistance to third-generation cephalosporins. CONCLUSIONS: The IRIS study strongly suggests that the absence of intI1 and intI2 in biological samples from patients with GNB-related infections is predictive of the absence of acquired resistances.

Effectiveness of a multicomponent pharmacist intervention at hospital discharge for drug-related problems: A cluster randomised cross-over trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess whether a pharmacist intervention associating medication reconciliation at discharge with a link to the community pharmacist reduces drug-related problems (DRP) in adult patients during the 7 days after hospital discharge in 22 university or general hospitals in France. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised cross-over superiority trial with hospital units as the cluster unit. The primary outcome was a composite of any kind of DRP (prescription/dispensation, patient error or gap due to no medication available) during the 7 days after discharge, assessed by phone with the patient and community pharmacist. Among secondary outcomes, we studied self-reported unplanned hospitalisations at day 35 after discharge and severe iatrogenic problems. RESULTS: A total of 1092 patients were enrolled in 48 units (538 in the experimental periods and 554 in the control periods). Three patients refused to have their data analysed and were excluded from the analyses. As compared with usual care, the pharmacist intervention led to a lower proportion of patients with at least one DRP (44.0% vs 50.6%; odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.98) and severe iatrogenic problems (5.2% vs 8.7%; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.93) but no significant difference in unplanned hospitalisations at day 35 (5.8% vs 4.5%; OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.91-2.35). CONCLUSION: Medication reconciliation associated with communication between the hospital and community pharmacist may decrease patient exposure to DRP and severe iatrogenic problems but not unplanned hospitalisation. However, this intervention could be recommended in health policies to improve drug management.

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials.

BACKGROUND: Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent. METHODS: A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%-77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%-68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk. CONCLUSION: Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on 21-Day Mortality or Respiratory Support Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe lung damage. Corticosteroids are a possible therapeutic option. Objective: To determine the effect of hydrocortisone on treatment failure on day 21 in critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized double-blind sequential trial conducted in France, with interim analyses planned every 50 patients. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure were enrolled from March 7 to June 1, 2020, with last follow-up on June 29, 2020. The study intended to enroll 290 patients but was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive low-dose hydrocortisone (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, was defined as death or persistent dependency on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the need for tracheal intubation (among patients not intubated at baseline); cumulative incidences (until day 21) of prone position sessions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inhaled nitric oxide; Pao2:Fio2 ratio measured daily from day 1 to day 7, then on days 14 and 21; and the proportion of patients with secondary infections during their ICU stay. Results: The study was stopped after 149 patients (mean age, 62.2 years; 30.2% women; 81.2% mechanically ventilated) were enrolled. One hundred forty-eight patients (99.3%) completed the study, and there were 69 treatment failure events, including 11 deaths in the hydrocortisone group and 20 deaths in the placebo group. The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, occurred in 32 of 76 patients (42.1%) in the hydrocortisone group compared with 37 of 73 (50.7%) in the placebo group (difference of proportions, -8.6% [95.48% CI, -24.9% to 7.7%]; P = .29). Of the 4 prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference. No serious adverse events were related to the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, low-dose hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce treatment failure (defined as death or persistent respiratory support) at day 21. However, the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517489.

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

Enteral versus parenteral early nutrition in ventilated adults with shock: a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study (NUTRIREA-2).

BACKGROUND: Whether the route of early feeding affects outcomes of patients with severe critical illnesses is controversial. We hypothesised that outcomes were better with early first-line enteral nutrition than with early first-line parenteral nutrition. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study (NUTRIREA-2 trial) done at 44 French intensive-care units (ICUs), adults (18 years or older) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support for shock were randomly assigned (1:1) to either parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition, both targeting normocaloric goals (20-25 kcal/kg per day), within 24 h after intubation. Randomisation was stratified by centre using permutation blocks of variable sizes. Given that route of nutrition cannot be masked, blinding of the physicians and nurses was not feasible. Patients receiving parenteral nutrition could be switched to enteral nutrition after at least 72 h in the event of shock resolution (no vasopressor support for 24 consecutive hours and arterial lactate <2 mmol/L). The primary endpoint was mortality on day 28 after randomisation in the intention-to-treat-population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01802099. FINDINGS: After the second interim analysis, the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board deemed that completing patient enrolment was unlikely to significantly change the results of the trial and recommended stopping patient recruitment. Between March 22, 2013, and June 30, 2015, 2410 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned; 1202 to the enteral group and 1208 to the parenteral group. By day 28, 443 (37%) of 1202 patients in the enteral group and 422 (35%) of 1208 patients in the parenteral group had died (absolute difference estimate 2·0%; [95% CI -1·9 to 5·8]; p=0·33). Cumulative incidence of patients with ICU-acquired infections did not differ between the enteral group (173 [14%]) and the parenteral group (194 [16%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·72-1·09]; p=0·25). Compared with the parenteral group, the enteral group had higher cumulative incidences of patients with vomiting (406 [34%] vs 246 [20%]; HR 1·89 [1·62-2·20]; p<0·0001), diarrhoea (432 [36%] vs 393 [33%]; 1·20 [1·05-1·37]; p=0·009), bowel ischaemia (19 [2%] vs five [<1%]; 3·84 [1·43-10·3]; p=0·007), and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (11 [1%] vs three [<1%]; 3·7 [1·03-13·2; p=0·04). INTERPRETATION: In critically ill adults with shock, early isocaloric enteral nutrition did not reduce mortality or the risk of secondary infections but was associated with a greater risk of digestive complications compared with early isocaloric parenteral nutrition. FUNDING: La Roche-sur-Yon Departmental Hospital and French Ministry of Health.

Topical use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in dermatology: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are currently used in many dermatologic indications. Their topical use is recent and poorly codified. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the topical use of mTOR inhibitors in dermatologic conditions and evaluate their efficacy and safety. METHODS: A literature search was performed in January 2017. Reports of all studies investigating the use of topical mTOR inhibitors in any dermatology diseases were included. The exclusion criteria were systemic use and mucosal administration. RESULTS: We included 40 studies with a total of 262 patients. In all, 11 dermatologic conditions were found, the most frequent being angiofibromas linked to tuberous sclerosis complex (157 patients). Topical mTOR inhibitors were significantly more efficient than placebo for angiofibromas (relative risk, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-5.00; I2 = 0%). The median concentration of sirolimus was 0.1%, with a median treatment duration of 12 weeks. Topical mTOR inhibitors were well tolerated, with only mild or moderate local side effects (mostly irritative) reported. Blood level of sirolimus was not detected in 90% of patients. LIMITATIONS: High heterogeneity in most studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review supports the efficacy of topical sirolimus for angiofibromas linked to tuberous sclerosis complex, with only local side effects reported. Other indications require further research.