Continuous vs Intermittent Meropenem Administration in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The MERCY Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Meropenem is a widely prescribed ß-lactam antibiotic. Meropenem exhibits maximum pharmacodynamic efficacy when given by continuous infusion to deliver constant drug levels above the minimal inhibitory concentration. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous administration of meropenem may improve clinical outcomes. Objective: To determine whether continuous administration of meropenem reduces a composite of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria compared with intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who had been prescribed meropenem by their treating clinicians at 31 intensive care units of 26 hospitals in 4 countries (Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Russia). Patients were enrolled between June 5, 2018, and August 9, 2022, and the final 90-day follow-up was completed in November 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive an equal dose of the antibiotic meropenem by either continuous administration (n = 303) or intermittent administration (n = 304). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. There were 4 secondary outcomes, including days alive and free from antibiotics at day 28, days alive and free from the intensive care unit at day 28, and all-cause mortality at day 90. Seizures, allergic reactions, and mortality were recorded as adverse events. Results: All 607 patients (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years; 203 were women [33%]) were included in the measurement of the 28-day primary outcome and completed the 90-day mortality follow-up. The majority (369 patients, 61%) had septic shock. The median time from hospital admission to randomization was 9 days (IQR, 3-17 days) and the median duration of meropenem therapy was 11 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Only 1 crossover event was recorded. The primary outcome occurred in 142 patients (47%) in the continuous administration group and in 149 patients (49%) in the intermittent administration group (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81-1.13], P = .60). Of the 4 secondary outcomes, none was statistically significant. No adverse events of seizures or allergic reactions related to the study drug were reported. At 90 days, mortality was 42% both in the continuous administration group (127 of 303 patients) and in the intermittent administration group (127 of 304 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In critically ill patients with sepsis, compared with intermittent administration, the continuous administration of meropenem did not improve the composite outcome of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03452839.

Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of meropenem in critically ill patients (MERCY): A multicenter randomized double-blind trial. Rationale and design.

OBJECTIVE: Meropenem is a ß-lactam, carbapenem antibacterial agent with antimicrobial activity against gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic micro-organisms and is important in the empirical treatment of serious infections in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Multi-drug resistant gram-negative organisms, coupled with scarcity of new antibiotic classes, forced healthcare community to optimize the therapeutic potential of available antibiotics. Our aim is to investigate the effect of continuous infusion of meropenem against bolus administration, as indicated by a composite outcome of reducing death and emergence of extensive or pan drug-resistant pathogens in a population of ICU patients. DESIGN: Double blind, double dummy, multicenter randomized controlled trial (1:1 allocation ratio). SETTING: Tertiary and University hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: 600 ICU patients with sepsis or septic shock, needing by clinical judgment antibiotic therapy with meropenem, will be randomized to receive a continuous infusion of meropenem 3 g/24 h or an equal dose divided into three daily boluses (i.e. 1g q8h). MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint will be a composite outcome of reducing death and emergence of extensive or pan drug-resistant pathogens. Secondary endpoints will be death from any cause at day 90, antibiotic-free days at day 28, ICU-free days at day 28, cumulative SOFA-free (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score from randomization to day 28 and the two, separate, components of the primary endpoint. We expect a primary outcome reduction from 52 to 40% in the continuous infusion group. CONCLUSIONS: The trial will provide evidence for choosing intermittent or continuous infusion of meropenem for critically ill patients with multi-drug resistant gram-negative infections.

Non-invAsive VentIlation for early General wArd respiraTory failurE (NAVIGATE): A multicenter randomized controlled study. Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

OBJECTIVE: Few randomized trials have evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for early acute respiratory failure (ARF) in non-intensive care unit (ICU) wards. The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that early NIV for mild-moderate ARF in non-ICU wards can prevent development of severe ARF. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial. SETTING: Non-intensive care wards of tertiary centers. PATIENTS: Non-ICU ward patients with mild to moderate ARF without an established indication for NIV. INTERVENTIONS: Patients will be randomized to receive or not receive NIV in addition to best available care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We will enroll 520 patients, 260 in each group. The primary endpoint of the study will be the development of severe ARF. Secondary endpoints will be 28-day mortality, length of hospital stay, safety of NIV in non-ICU environments, and a composite endpoint of all in-hospital respiratory complications. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will help determine whether the early use of NIV in non-ICU wards can prevent progression from mild-moderate ARF to severe ARF.