| 1. |
- De Bus, Liesbet, et al.
(författare)
-
Antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure : the DIANA study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 46:7, s. 1404-1417
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: The DIANA study aimed to evaluate how often antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of empirical treatment is performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to estimate the effect of ADE on clinical cure on day 7 following treatment initiation.METHODS: Adult ICU patients receiving empirical antimicrobial therapy for bacterial infection were studied in a prospective observational study from October 2016 until May 2018. ADE was defined as (1) discontinuation of an antimicrobial in case of empirical combination therapy or (2) replacement of an antimicrobial with the intention to narrow the antimicrobial spectrum, within the first 3 days of therapy. Inverse probability (IP) weighting was used to account for time-varying confounding when estimating the effect of ADE on clinical cure.RESULTS: Overall, 1495 patients from 152 ICUs in 28 countries were studied. Combination therapy was prescribed in 50%, and carbapenems were prescribed in 26% of patients. Empirical therapy underwent ADE, no change and change other than ADE within the first 3 days in 16%, 63% and 22%, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at day 28 was 15.8% in the ADE cohort and 19.4% in patients with no change [p = 0.27; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.60-1.14)]. The IP-weighted relative risk estimate for clinical cure comparing ADE with no-ADE patients (no change or change other than ADE) was 1.37 (95% CI 1.14-1.64).CONCLUSION: ADE was infrequently applied in critically ill-infected patients. The observational effect estimate on clinical cure suggested no deleterious impact of ADE compared to no-ADE. However, residual confounding is likely.
|
|
| 2. |
- Paul, Mical, et al.
(författare)
-
European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (endorsed by European society of intensive care medicine)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Clinical Microbiology and Infection. - : Elsevier. - 1198-743X .- 1469-0691. ; 28:4, s. 521-547
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ScopeThese ESCMID guidelines address the targeted antibiotic treatment of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCephRE) and carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, focusing on the effectiveness of individual antibiotics and on combination versus monotherapy.MethodsAn expert panel was convened by ESCMID. A systematic review was performed including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, examining different antibiotic treatment regimens for the targeted treatment of infections caused by the 3GCephRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Treatments were classified as head-to-head comparisons between individual antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens, including defined monotherapy and combination regimens only. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, preferably at 30 days and secondary outcomes included clinical failure, microbiological failure, development of resistance, relapse/recurrence, adverse events and length of hospital stay. The last search of all databases was conducted in December 2019, followed by a focused search for relevant studies up until ECCMID 2021. Data were summarized narratively. The certainty of the evidence for each comparison between antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens was classified by the GRADE recommendations. The strength of the recommendations for or against treatments was classified as strong or conditional (weak).RecommendationsThe guideline panel reviewed the evidence per pathogen, preferably per site of infection, critically appraising the existing studies. Many of the comparisons were addressed in small observational studies at high risk of bias only. Notably, there was very little evidence on the effects of the new, recently approved, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors on infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Most recommendations are based on very-low- and low-certainty evidence. A high value was placed on antibiotic stewardship considerations in all recommendations, searching for carbapenem-sparing options for 3GCephRE and limiting the recommendations of the new antibiotics for severe infections, as defined by the sepsis-3 criteria. Research needs are addressed.
|
|
