Evaluating in vivo effectiveness of sotrovimab for the treatment of Omicron subvariant BA.2 versus BA.1: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In vitro data suggested reduced neutralizing capacity of sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody, against Omicron BA.2 subvariant. However, limited in vivo data exist regarding clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to Omicron BA.2. METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted at three Canadian academic tertiary centres. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥ 18 years with mild COVID-19 (sequencing-confirmed Omicron BA.1 or BA.2) treated with sotrovimab between February 1 to April 1, 2022. Thirty-day co-primary outcomes included hospitalization due to moderate or severe COVID-19; all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality. Risk differences (BA.2 minus BA.1 group) for co-primary outcomes were adjusted with propensity score matching (e.g., age, sex, vaccination, immunocompromised status). RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included (15 BA.2, 70 BA.1) with similar baseline characteristics between groups. Adjusted risk differences were non-statistically significant between groups for 30-day hospitalization (- 14.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 32.6 to 4.0%), ICU admission (- 7.1%; 95%CI: - 20.6 to 6.3%), and mortality (- 7.1%; 95%CI: - 20.6 to 6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were demonstrated in hospitalization, ICU admission, or mortality rates within 30 days between sotrovimab-treated patients with BA.1 versus BA.2 infection. More real-world data may be helpful to properly assess sotrovimab's effectiveness against infections due to specific emerging COVID-19 variants.

More Than a Decade Since the Latest CONSORT Non-inferiority Trials Extension: Do Infectious Diseases Trials Do Enough?

More than a decade after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group released a reporting items checklist for non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, the infectious diseases literature continues to underreport these items. Trialists, journals, and peer reviewers should redouble their efforts to ensure infectious diseases studies meet these minimum reporting standards.

Respiratory viral infections including COVID-19 in solid organ transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Respiratory viral infections are prevalent and contribute to significant morbidity and mortality among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. We review updates from literature on respiratory viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in the SOT recipient. RECENT FINDINGS: With the wider availability and use of molecular diagnostic tests, our understanding of the epidemiology and impact of respiratory viruses in the SOT population continues to expand. While considerable attention has been given to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the advances in prevention and treatment strategies of SARS-CoV-2 offered valuable insights into the development of new therapeutic options for managing other respiratory viruses in both the general and SOT population. SUMMARY: Respiratory viruses can present with a diverse range of symptoms in SOT recipients, with potentially associated acute rejection and chronic lung allograft dysfunction in lung transplant recipients. The epidemiology, clinical presentations, diagnostic approaches, and treatment and preventive strategies for clinically significant RNA and DNA respiratory viruses in SOT recipients are reviewed. This review also covers novel antivirals, immunologic therapies, and vaccines in development for various community-acquired respiratory viruses.

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

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the reporting quality of antiretroviral (ARV) noninferiority (NI) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has improved since the CONSORT guideline release in 2006. The primary objective of this systematic review was assessing the methodological and reporting quality of ARV NI-RCTs. We also assessed reporting quality by funding source and publication year. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central from inception to 14 November 2022. We included NI-RCTs comparing ≥2 ARV regimens used for human immunodeficiency virus treatment or prophylaxis. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess risk of bias. Screening and data extraction were performed blinded and in duplicate. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data; statistical tests were 2 sided, with significance defined as P < .05. The systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42022328586), and not funded. RESULTS: We included 160 articles reporting 171 trials. Of these articles, 101 (63.1%) did not justify the NI margin used, and 28 (17.5%) did not provide sufficient information for sample size calculation. Eighty-nine of 160 (55.6%) reported both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, while 118 (73.8%) described missing data handling. Ten of 171 trials (5.9%) reported potentially misleading results. Pharmaceutical industry-funded trials were more likely to be double-blinded (28.1% vs 10.3%; P = .03) and to describe missing data handling (78.5% vs 59.0%; P = .02). The overall risk of bias was low in 96 of 160 studies (60.0%). CONCLUSIONS: ARV NI-RCTs should improve NI margin justification, reporting of intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and missing data handling to increase CONSORT adherence.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Objective: To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles. Evidence Review: This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022. Findings: This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Prognostic factors for streptococcal toxic shock syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the prognostic effects of demographic and modifiable factors in streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to 19 September 2022, along with citations of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies of patients with Group A Streptococcus-induced STSS that quantified the association between at least one prognostic factor and outcome of interest. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We performed random-effects meta-analysis after duplicate data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: One randomised trial and 40 observational studies were eligible (n=1918 patients). We found a statistically significant association between clindamycin treatment and mortality (n=144; OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.37), but the certainty of evidence was low. Within clindamycin-treated STSS patients, we found a statistically significant association between intravenous Ig treatment and mortality (n=188; OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75), but the certainty of evidence was also low. The odds of mortality may increase in patients ≥65 years when compared with patients 18-64 years (n=396; OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.84), but the certainty of evidence was low. We are uncertain whether non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the odds of mortality (n=50; OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 15.14; very low certainty). Results failed to show a significant association between any other prognostic factor and outcome combination (very low to low certainty evidence) and no studies quantified the association between a prognostic factor and morbidity post-infection in STSS survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with clindamycin and within clindamycin-treated patients, IVIG, was each significantly associated with mortality, but the certainty of evidence was low. Future research should focus on morbidity post-infection in STSS survivors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166961.

What Is the Optimal Follow-up Length for Mortality in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia? Observations From a Systematic Review of Attributable Mortality.

Background: Deaths following Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) may be related or unrelated to the infection. In SAB therapeutics research, the length of follow-up should be optimized to capture most attributable deaths and minimize nonattributable deaths. We performed a secondary analysis of a systematic review to describe attributable mortality in SAB over time. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 1991 to 7 May 2021 for human observational studies of SAB. To be included in this secondary analysis, the study must have reported attributable mortality. Two reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias independently. Pooling of study estimates was not performed due to heterogeneity in the definition of attributable deaths. Results: Twenty-four observational cohort studies were included. The median proportion of all-cause deaths that were attributable to SAB was 77% (interquartile range [IQR], 72%-89%) at 1 month and 62% (IQR, 58%-75%) at 3 months. At 1 year, this proportion was 57% in 1 study. In 2 studies that described the rate of increase in mortality over time, 2-week follow-up captured 68 of 79 (86%) and 48 of 57 (84%) attributable deaths that occurred by 3 months. By comparison, 1-month follow-up captured 54 of 57 (95%) and 56 of 60 (93%) attributable deaths that occurred by 3 months in 2 studies. Conclusions: The proportion of deaths that are attributable to SAB decreases as follow-up lengthens. Follow-up duration between 1 and 3 months seems optimal if evaluating processes of care that impact SAB mortality. Clinical Trials Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253891.

How Generalizable Are Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia? A Description of the Mortality Gap Between RCTs and Observational Studies.

In Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, mortality rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are consistently lower than observational studies. Stringent eligibility criteria and omission of early deaths in RCTs contribute to this mortality gap. Clinicians should acknowledge the possibility of a lower treatment effect when applying RCT results to bedside care.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate all-cause mortality in SAB and explore mortality change over time. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched from January 1, 1991 to May 7, 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Human observational studies on patients with S. aureus bloodstream infection were included. PARTICIPANTS: The study analyzed data of patients with a positive blood culture for S. aureus. METHODS: Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A generalized, linear, mixed random effects model was used to pool estimates. RESULTS: A total of 341 studies were included, describing a total of 536,791 patients. From 2011 onward, the estimated mortality was 10.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-12.1%) at 7 days, 13.3% (95% CI, 11.1%-15.8%) at 2 weeks, 18.1% (95% CI, 16.3%-20.0%) at 1 month, 27.0% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.3%) at 3 months, and 30.2% (95% CI, 22.4%-39.3%) at 1 year. In a meta-regression model of 1-month mortality, methicillin-resistant S. aureus had a higher mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06 per 10% increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus proportion). Compared with prior to 2001, more recent time periods had a lower mortality rate (aOR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03 for 2001-2010; aOR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97 for 2011 onward). CONCLUSIONS: SAB mortality has decreased over the last 3 decades. However, more than one in four patients will die within 3 months, and continuous improvement in care remains necessary.

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).

In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, tocilizumab reduces mortality at 28 d.

SOURCE CITATION: WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518. 34228774.

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.

Management of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Prosthetic Joint Infection: 2 Cases and Literature Review.

Prosthetic joint infection caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TBPJI) is uncommon but can be encountered in immunocompromised patients or those from tuberculosis-endemic regions. A lack of clinical suspicion and experience with TBPJI often leads to a delay in diagnosis. We report 2 cases of TBPJI in a Hungarian-Canadian and Iranian-Canadian immigrant, respectively. Both were treated with concurrent surgical and medical therapy. We also performed a literature review on TBPJI case reports, outlining their diagnosis and management.

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 .

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.

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.

Pain and emotion: new research directions.

Recently, there has been growing interest in the relation between pain and emotion. Numerous recent studies have been conducted in this area. This article provides an introduction to this interesting area by highlighting selected research topics including studies on: stress and pain, negative emotional states and pain, catastrophizing and pain, the fear of pain, emotional regulation processes and pain, the effects of enhancing emotional regulation on pain, and the relation of emotional distress to treatment seeking in persons having pain. The article concludes with a discussion of important directions for future research in this area.