Plastic pigtail vs lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis (PROMETHEUS study): an open-label, multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have displaced double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) as the standard treatment for walled-off necrosis (WON),ß but evidence for exclusively using LAMS is limited. We aimed to assess whether the theoretical benefit of LAMS was superior to DPS. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was carried out in 9 tertiary hospitals. Between June 2017, and Oct 2020, we screened 99 patients with symptomatic WON, of whom 64 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the DPS group (n = 31) or the LAMS group (n = 33). The primary outcome was short-term (4-weeks) clinical success determined by the reduction of collection. Secondary endpoints included long-term clinical success, hospitalization, procedure duration, recurrence, safety, and costs. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT03100578. RESULTS: A similar clinical success rate in the short term (RR, 1.41; 95% CI 0.88-2.25; p = 0.218) and in the long term (RR, 1.2; 95% CI 0.92-1.58; p = 0.291) was observed between both groups. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LAMS group (35 vs. 45-min, p = 0.003). The hospital admission after the index procedure (median difference, - 10 [95% CI - 17.5, - 1]; p = 0.077) and global hospitalization (median difference - 4 [95% CI - 33, 25.51]; p = 0.82) were similar between both groups. Reported stent-related adverse events were similar for the two groups (36 vs.45% in LAMS vs. DPS), except for de novo fever, which was significantly 26% lower in LAMS (RR, 0.26 [0.08-0.83], p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical superiority of LAMS over DPS for WON therapy was not proved, with similar clinical success, hospital stay and similar safety profile between both groups, yet a significant reduction in procedure time was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03100578.

Cloxacillin plus fosfomycin versus cloxacillin alone for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a randomized trial.

Treatment failure occurs in about 25% of patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia. We assessed whether cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves better treatment success than cloxacillin alone in hospitalized adults with MSSA bacteremia. We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase III-IV superiority randomized clinical trial. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive 2 g of intravenous cloxacillin alone every 4 h or with 3 g of intravenous fosfomycin every 6 h for the initial 7 days. The primary endpoint was treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint with the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA, adjudicated by an independent committee blinded to treatment allocation. We randomized 215 patients, of whom 105 received cloxacillin plus fosfomycin and 110 received cloxacillin alone. We analyzed the primary endpoint with the intention-to-treat approach in 214 patients who received at least 1 day of treatment. Treatment success at day 7 after randomization was achieved in 83 (79.8%) of 104 patients receiving combination treatment versus 82 (74.5%) of 110 patients receiving monotherapy (risk difference 5.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.95-16.48). Secondary endpoints, including mortality and adverse events, were similar in the two groups except for persistent bacteremia at day 3, which was less common in the combination arm. In a prespecified interim analysis, the independent committee recommended stopping recruitment for futility prior to meeting the planned randomization of 366 patients. Cloxacillin plus fosfomycin did not achieve better treatment success at day 7 of therapy than cloxacillin alone in MSSA bacteremia. Further trials should consider the intrinsic heterogeneity of the infection by using a more personalized approach. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03959345 .

Suspected adverse events following immunization against SARS-CoV2 in a university hospital in 2021: Observational study.

AIM: Vaccination against SARS-CoV2 has been proposed as a fundamental element for the control of the pandemic. This study aimed to describe the suspected adverse reactions (ADR) reported by vaccinated hospital workers. METHODS: A descriptive study of suspected ADR was conducted between January and March 2021. The suspected ADR were identified using a specifically designed electronic form and spontaneous reporting. Data were also collected regarding the characteristics of the professionals, vaccine administered, severity, and outcome of ADR. RESULTS: 8169 professionals received 2 doses of SARS-CoV2 vaccine (6672 Comirnaty® and 1497 Spikevax®) and 894 reports of suspected ADR were reported (762 for Comirnaty® and 132 for Spikevax®), resulting in a cumulative ADR incidence of 10.94% (95%CI: 10.27-11.62). The majority of ADR were reported only after the second dose, 497 (56.2%), while 211 (23.6%) were reported only after the first dose and 186 (21%) after both doses. The symptoms were mostly mild, did not require medical assistance, and disappeared within approximately 3 days. One hundred and seventeen professionals had a history of COVID-19 infection. These studies reported, statistically significant, more suspected ADR after the first dose (42.7%) than those with no history of COVID-19 (20.7%). Among professionals, more ADR occurred after the first dose with the Spikevax® vaccine (41.6%) than with the Comirnaty® vaccine (20.5%). CONCLUSION: The majority of suspected ADR reported were described in the summary of product characteristics (SmPC). Professionals with a history of COVID-19 reported more suspected ADR after the first dose than did those without a history.

Multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV-III study to evaluate the efficacy of cloxacillin plus fosfomycin versus cloxacillin alone in adult patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: study protocol for the SAFO trial.

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia is a frequent condition, with high mortality rates. There is a growing interest in identifying new therapeutic regimens able to reduce therapeutic failure and mortality observed with the standard of care of beta-lactam monotherapy. In vitro and small-scale studies have found synergy between cloxacillin and fosfomycin against S. aureus. Our aim is to test the hypothesis that cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves higher treatment success than cloxacillin alone in patients with MSSA bacteraemia. METHODS: We will perform a superiority, randomised, open-label, phase IV-III, two-armed parallel group (1:1) clinical trial at 20 Spanish tertiary hospitals. Adults (≥18 years) with isolation of MSSA from at least one blood culture ≤72 hours before inclusion with evidence of infection, will be randomly allocated to receive either cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous plus fosfomycin 3 g/6-hour intravenous or cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous alone for 7 days. After the first week, sequential treatment and total duration of antibiotic therapy will be determined according to clinical criteria by the attending physician.Primary endpoints: (1) Treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint comprising all the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA at day 7. (2) Treatment success at test of cure (TOC) visit: patient alive and no isolation of MSSA in blood culture or at another sterile site from day 8 until TOC (12 weeks after randomisation).We assume a rate of treatment success of 74% in the cloxacillin group. Accepting alpha risk of 0.05 and beta risk of 0.2 in a two-sided test, 183 subjects will be required in each of the control and experimental groups to obtain statistically significant difference of 12% (considered clinically significant). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge University Hospital (AC069/18) and from the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (AEMPS, AC069/18), and is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. The results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients and funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol has been approved by AEMPS with the Trial Registration Number EudraCT 2018-001207-37. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959345; Pre-results.

Methylprednisolone Pulses Plus Tacrolimus in Addition to Standard of Care vs. Standard of Care Alone in Patients With Severe COVID-19. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Severe lung injury is triggered by both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the subsequent host-immune response in some COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, single-center, open-label, phase II trial with the aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC alone, in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome was time to clinical stability within 56 days after randomization. Results: From April 1 to May 2, 2020, 55 patients were prospectively included for subsequent randomization; 27 were assigned to the experimental group and 28 to the control group. The experimental treatment was not associated with a difference in time to clinical stability (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.37]) nor most secondary outcomes. Median methylprednisolone cumulative doses were significantly lower (360 mg [IQR 360-842] vs. 870 mg [IQR 364-1451]; p = 0.007), and administered for a shorter time (median of 4.00 days [3.00-17.5] vs. 18.5 days [3.00-53.2]; p = 0.011) in the experimental group than in the control group. Although not statistically significant, those receiving the experimental therapy showed a numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, especially at day 10 [2 (7.41%) vs. 5 (17.9%); OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.05-2.1); p = 0.282]. The total number of non-serious adverse events was 42 in each the two groups. Those receiving experimental treatment had a numerically higher rate of non-serious infectious adverse events [16 (38%) vs. 10 (24%)] and serious infectious adverse events [7 (35%) vs. 3 (23%)] than those receiving SoC. Conclusions: The combined use of methylprednisolone pulses plus tacrolimus, in addition to the SoC, did not significantly improve the time to clinical stability or other secondary outcomes compared with the SoC alone in severe COVID-19. Although not statistically significant, patients receiving the experimental therapy had numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, supporting recent non-randomized studies with calcineurin inhibitors. It is noteworthy that the present trial had a limited sample size and several other limitations. Therefore, further RCTs should be done to assess the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus to tackle the inflammatory stages of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier [NCT04341038/EudraCT: 2020-001445-39].

Daptomycin Plus Fosfomycin Versus Daptomycin Alone for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia and Endocarditis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether daptomycin plus fosfomycin provides higher treatment success than daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia and endocarditis. METHODS: A randomized (1:1) phase 3 superiority, open-label, and parallel group clinical trial of adult inpatients with MRSA bacteremia was conducted at 18 Spanish hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg/kg of daptomycin intravenously daily plus 2 g of fosfomycin intravenously every 6 hours, or 10 mg/kg of daptomycin intravenously daily. Primary endpoint was treatment success 6 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Of 167 patients randomized, 155 completed the trial and were assessed for the primary endpoint. Treatment success at 6 weeks after the end of therapy was achieved in 40 of 74 patients who received daptomycin plus fosfomycin and in 34 of 81 patients who were given daptomycin alone (54.1% vs 42.0%; relative risk, 1.29 [95% confidence interval, .93-1.8]; P = .135). At 6 weeks, daptomycin plus fosfomycin was associated with lower microbiologic failure (0 vs 9 patients; P = .003) and lower complicated bacteremia (16.2% vs 32.1%; P = .022). Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 13 of 74 patients (17.6%) receiving daptomycin plus fosfomycin, and in 4 of 81 patients (4.9%) receiving daptomycin alone (P = .018). CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin plus fosfomycin provided 12% higher rate of treatment success than daptomycin alone, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. This antibiotic combination prevented microbiological failure and complicated bacteremia, but it was more often associated with adverse events. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01898338.

Multicenter study of plastic vs. self-expanding metal stents in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis - PROMETHEUS: a randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: It seems that lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are displacing plastic stents in the therapy of pancreatic-fluid collection in walled-off necrosis (WON). To date, there is no quality of evidence to recommend LAMS as the standard treatment in the management of WON. The theoretical benefit of LAMS over plastic stents needs to be proven. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled, multicenter, prospective clinical trial with two parallel groups, without masking. One-hundred and fourteen patients with WON will undergo endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural draining in nine tertiary hospitals in Spain and will be randomized to the LAMS or plastic-stent group. The primary endpoint is the short-term (4 weeks) clinical success determined by the reduction of the collection (to < 50% or < 5 cm in size), along with clinical improvement. Secondary endpoints: long-term (4 months) clinical success (total resolution or 5 cm), procedure duration, level of difficulty, safety, and recurrences. DISCUSSION: The PROMETHEUS trial has been designed to determine whether LAMS are superior to plastic stents in EUS-guided transmural drainage of WON. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03100578. Registered on 4 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home.

Consent in clinical trials: what do patients know?

OBJECTIVE: To assess participants' knowledge of key aspects about the clinical trials in which they are enrolled, describe the consent process, and assess the importance that investigators give to various aspects of trial information when verbally informing candidates. DESIGN: Prospective study based on a structured questionnaire interview of participants within 3 months after trial enrollment and an anonymous questionnaire sent to clinical trial investigators. SUBJECTS: A total of 140 participants included in 40 clinical trials were interviewed, and 51 investigators answered the questionnaire. RESULTS: The formal steps to obtain informed consent were usually carried out. Participants were aware of the purpose of the trial and the right to discontinue participation, but only 23% knew that treatment was randomly allocated, 57% knew they might receive a placebo, and 42% was aware that adverse effects could occur. Patients who had read the information sheet had better knowledge of most aspects, except for the risk of adverse effects. The investigators considered that compensation, insurance coverage, possibility of receiving a placebo, and treatment allocation were the least important aspects of the trial when informing candidates for participation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the formal steps for obtaining informed consent were usually carried out, a relevant percentage of patients included in clinical trials were unaware of important aspects of their participation. Patients showed more limited knowledge about the same points that investigators considered less important when informing potential participants. Deferring signature on the consent form and encouraging reading of the information sheet may improve participants' knowledge about clinical trials.

Utilización de estatinas en geriatría / No disponible

No disponible