Cargando…

A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment duration for patients with bloodstream infection is understudied. The Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) determined that it was feasible to enroll and randomize intensive care unit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Daneman, Nick, Rishu, Asgar H., Pinto, Ruxandra, Arabi, Yaseen, Belley-Cote, Emilie P., Cirone, Robert, Downing, Mark, Cook, Deborah J., Hall, Richard, McGuinness, Shay, McIntyre, Lauralyn, Muscedere, John, Parke, Rachael, Reynolds, Steven, Rogers, Benjamin A., Shehabi, Yahya, Shin, Phillip, Whitlock, Richard, Fowler, Robert A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6964073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31941546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-4033-9
_version_ 1783488427826610176
author Daneman, Nick
Rishu, Asgar H.
Pinto, Ruxandra
Arabi, Yaseen
Belley-Cote, Emilie P.
Cirone, Robert
Downing, Mark
Cook, Deborah J.
Hall, Richard
McGuinness, Shay
McIntyre, Lauralyn
Muscedere, John
Parke, Rachael
Reynolds, Steven
Rogers, Benjamin A.
Shehabi, Yahya
Shin, Phillip
Whitlock, Richard
Fowler, Robert A.
author_facet Daneman, Nick
Rishu, Asgar H.
Pinto, Ruxandra
Arabi, Yaseen
Belley-Cote, Emilie P.
Cirone, Robert
Downing, Mark
Cook, Deborah J.
Hall, Richard
McGuinness, Shay
McIntyre, Lauralyn
Muscedere, John
Parke, Rachael
Reynolds, Steven
Rogers, Benjamin A.
Shehabi, Yahya
Shin, Phillip
Whitlock, Richard
Fowler, Robert A.
author_sort Daneman, Nick
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment duration for patients with bloodstream infection is understudied. The Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) determined that it was feasible to enroll and randomize intensive care unit (ICU) patients with bloodstream infection to 7 versus 14 days of treatment, and served as the vanguard for the ongoing BALANCE main RCT. We performed this BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT to examine the feasibility and impact of potentially extending the BALANCE main RCT to include patients hospitalized on non-ICU wards. METHODS: We conducted an open pilot RCT among a subset of six sites participating in the ongoing BALANCE RCT, randomizing patients with positive non-Staphylococcus aureus blood cultures on non-ICU wards to 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. We compared feasibility outcomes, patient/pathogen characteristics, and overall outcomes among those enrolled in this BALANCE-Ward and prior BALANCE-ICU pilot RCTs. We estimated the sample size and non-inferiority margin impacts of expanding the BALANCE main RCT to include non-ICU patients. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were recruited over 47 site-months (mean 2.9 patients/site-month, median 1.0, range 0.1–4.4 patients/site-month). The overall recruitment rate exceeded the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (mean 1.10 patients/site-month, p < 0.0001). Overall protocol adherence also exceeded the adherence in the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (125/134, 93% vs 89/115, 77%, p = 0.0003). BALANCE-Ward patients were older, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, and higher proportions of infections caused by Escherichia coli and genito-urinary sources of bloodstream infection. The BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT patients had an overall 90-day mortality rate of 17/133 (12.8%), which was comparable to the 90-day mortality rate in the ICU pilot RCT (17/115, 14.8%) (p = 0.65). Simulation models indicated there would be minimal sample size and non-inferiority margin implications of expanding enrolment to increasing proportions of non-ICU versus ICU patients. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to enroll non-ICU patients in a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotics for bloodstream infection, and expanding the BALANCE RCT hospital-wide has the potential to improve the timeliness and generalizability of trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02917551. Registered on September 28, 2016.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6964073
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69640732020-01-22 A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards Daneman, Nick Rishu, Asgar H. Pinto, Ruxandra Arabi, Yaseen Belley-Cote, Emilie P. Cirone, Robert Downing, Mark Cook, Deborah J. Hall, Richard McGuinness, Shay McIntyre, Lauralyn Muscedere, John Parke, Rachael Reynolds, Steven Rogers, Benjamin A. Shehabi, Yahya Shin, Phillip Whitlock, Richard Fowler, Robert A. Trials Research BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment duration for patients with bloodstream infection is understudied. The Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) determined that it was feasible to enroll and randomize intensive care unit (ICU) patients with bloodstream infection to 7 versus 14 days of treatment, and served as the vanguard for the ongoing BALANCE main RCT. We performed this BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT to examine the feasibility and impact of potentially extending the BALANCE main RCT to include patients hospitalized on non-ICU wards. METHODS: We conducted an open pilot RCT among a subset of six sites participating in the ongoing BALANCE RCT, randomizing patients with positive non-Staphylococcus aureus blood cultures on non-ICU wards to 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. We compared feasibility outcomes, patient/pathogen characteristics, and overall outcomes among those enrolled in this BALANCE-Ward and prior BALANCE-ICU pilot RCTs. We estimated the sample size and non-inferiority margin impacts of expanding the BALANCE main RCT to include non-ICU patients. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were recruited over 47 site-months (mean 2.9 patients/site-month, median 1.0, range 0.1–4.4 patients/site-month). The overall recruitment rate exceeded the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (mean 1.10 patients/site-month, p < 0.0001). Overall protocol adherence also exceeded the adherence in the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (125/134, 93% vs 89/115, 77%, p = 0.0003). BALANCE-Ward patients were older, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, and higher proportions of infections caused by Escherichia coli and genito-urinary sources of bloodstream infection. The BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT patients had an overall 90-day mortality rate of 17/133 (12.8%), which was comparable to the 90-day mortality rate in the ICU pilot RCT (17/115, 14.8%) (p = 0.65). Simulation models indicated there would be minimal sample size and non-inferiority margin implications of expanding enrolment to increasing proportions of non-ICU versus ICU patients. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to enroll non-ICU patients in a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotics for bloodstream infection, and expanding the BALANCE RCT hospital-wide has the potential to improve the timeliness and generalizability of trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02917551. Registered on September 28, 2016. BioMed Central 2020-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6964073/ /pubmed/31941546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-4033-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Daneman, Nick
Rishu, Asgar H.
Pinto, Ruxandra
Arabi, Yaseen
Belley-Cote, Emilie P.
Cirone, Robert
Downing, Mark
Cook, Deborah J.
Hall, Richard
McGuinness, Shay
McIntyre, Lauralyn
Muscedere, John
Parke, Rachael
Reynolds, Steven
Rogers, Benjamin A.
Shehabi, Yahya
Shin, Phillip
Whitlock, Richard
Fowler, Robert A.
A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards
title A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards
title_full A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards
title_fullStr A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards
title_full_unstemmed A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards
title_short A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards
title_sort pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6964073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31941546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-4033-9
work_keys_str_mv AT danemannick apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT rishuasgarh apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT pintoruxandra apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT arabiyaseen apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT belleycoteemiliep apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT cironerobert apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT downingmark apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT cookdeborahj apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT hallrichard apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT mcguinnessshay apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT mcintyrelauralyn apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT muscederejohn apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT parkerachael apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT reynoldssteven apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT rogersbenjamina apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT shehabiyahya apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT shinphillip apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT whitlockrichard apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT fowlerroberta apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT apilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT danemannick pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT rishuasgarh pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT pintoruxandra pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT arabiyaseen pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT belleycoteemiliep pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT cironerobert pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT downingmark pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT cookdeborahj pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT hallrichard pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT mcguinnessshay pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT mcintyrelauralyn pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT muscederejohn pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT parkerachael pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT reynoldssteven pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT rogersbenjamina pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT shehabiyahya pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT shinphillip pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT whitlockrichard pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT fowlerroberta pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards
AT pilotrandomizedcontrolledtrialof7versus14daysofantibiotictreatmentforbloodstreaminfectiononnonintensivecareversusintensivecarewards