Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Colistin is recommended in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) with a high prevalence of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB). However, the efficacy and safety of colistin are not well defined. Methods A multicenter prospective randomized trial conducted in 32 European centers compared the efficacy and safety of colistin (4.5 million unit loading dose followed by a maintenance dose of 3 million units every 8 h) versus meropenem (2 g every 8 h), both in combination with levofloxacin (500 mg every 12 h) for 7–14 days in patients with late VAP. Between May 2012 and October 2015, 232 patients were randomly assigned to the 2 treatment groups. The primary endpoint was mortality at 28 days after randomization in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat (mMITT) population. Secondary outcomes included clinical and microbiological cure, renal function at the end of the treatment, and serious adverse events. The study was interrupted after the interim analysis due to excessive nephrotoxicity in the colistin group; therefore, the sample size was not achieved. Results A total of 157 (67.7%) patients were included in the mMITT population, 36 of whom (22.9%) had VAP caused by CR-GNB. In the mMITT population, no significant difference in mortality between the colistin group (19/82, 23.2%) and the meropenem group (19/75, 25.3%) was observed, with a risk difference of − 2.16 (− 15.59 to 11.26, p  = 0.377); the noninferiority of colistin was not demonstrated due to early termination and limited number of patients infected by carbapenem-resistant pathogens. Colistin plus levofloxacin increased the incidence of renal failure (40/120, 33.3%, versus 21/112, 18.8%; p  = 0.012) and renal replacement therapy (11/120, 9.1%, versus 2/112, 1.8%; p  = 0.015). Conclusions This study did not demonstrate the noninferiority of colistin compared with meropenem, both combined with levofloxacin, in terms of efficacy in the empirical treatment of late VAP but demonstrated the greater nephrotoxicity of colistin. These findings do not support the empirical use of colistin for the treatment of late VAP due to early termination. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01292031 . Registered 9 February 2011.

In the third season of I-MOVE (Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe), we undertook a multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks in eight European Union (EU) member states to estimate 2010/11 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. Using systematic sampling, practitioners swabbed ILI/ARI patients within seven days of symptom onset. We compared influenza-positive to influenza laboratory-negative patients among those meeting the EU ILI case definition. A valid vaccination corresponded to > 14 days between receiving a dose of vaccine and symptom onset. We used multiple imputation with chained equations to estimate missing values. Using logistic regression with study as fixed effect we calculated influenza VE adjusting for potential confounders. We estimated influenza VE overall, by influenza type, age group and among the target group for vaccination. We included 2019 cases and 2391 controls in the analysis. Adjusted VE was 52% (95% CI 30-67) overall (N = 4410), 55% (95% CI 29-72) against A(H1N1) and 50% (95% CI 14-71) against influenza B. Adjusted VE against all influenza subtypes was 66% (95% CI 15-86), 41% (95% CI -3-66) and 60% (95% CI 17-81) among those aged 0-14, 15-59 and ≥60 respectively. Among target groups for vaccination (N = 1004), VE was 56% (95% CI 34-71) overall, 59% (95% CI 32-75) against A(H1N1) and 63% (95% CI 31-81) against influenza B. Results suggest moderate protection from 2010-11 trivalent influenza vaccines against medically-attended ILI laboratory-confirmed as influenza across Europe. Adjusted and stratified influenza VE estimates are possible with the large sample size of this multi-centre case-control. I-MOVE shows how a network can provide precise summary VE measures across Europe.

ObjectiveSuccessful clinical trials are subject to recruitment. Recently, the REJUVENATE trial, a prospective phase 2a open-label, single-arm interventional clinical trial conducted within the Innovative Medicines Initiative-supported Combatting Bacterial Resistance in Europe-Carbapenem Resistance project, was published, with 85% of the recruitment performed in Spain. We analysed the recruitment success in this trial by establishing a model of recruitment practice.MethodsA descriptive qualitative study was performed from May 2016 to October 2017 at 10 participating Spanish centres. Data were extracted from: (1) feasibility questionnaires to assess the centre’s potential for patient enrolment; (2) delegation of responsibility records; (3) pre-screening records including an anonymised list of potentially eligible and (4) screening and enrolment records. A descriptive analysis of the features was performed by the participating centre. Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine factors of recruitment success.ResultsThe highest recruitment rate was observed in Hospitals 3 and 6 (58.8 and 47.0 patients per month, respectively). All the study teams were multidisciplinary with a median of 15 members (range: 7–22). Only Hospitals 3, 5 and 6 had dedicated nursing staff appointed exclusively to this study. Moreover, in those three hospitals and in Hospital 9, the study coordinator performed exclusive functions as a research planner, and did not assume these functions for the other hospitals. The univariate analysis showed a significant association between recruitment success and months of recruitment (p=0.024), number of staff (p<0.001), higher number of pharmacists (p=0.005), infectious disease specialists (p<0.001), the presence of microbiologist in the research team (p=0.018) and specifically dedicated nursing staff (p=0.036).ConclusionsThe existence of broad multidisciplinary teams with staff dedicated exclusively to the study as well as the implementation of a well-designed local patient assessment strategy were the essential optimisation factors for recruitment success in Spain.Trial registration numberNCT02655419; EudraCT 2015-002726-39; analysis of pre-screened patients.

IntroductionHaematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a life-saving treatment for a number of haematological diseases. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) is its main complication and hampers survival. There is strong evidence that intestinal microbiota diversity of the recipient may increase the risk of GVHD worsening survival. Antibiotic regimens used during the early phase of the transplant may influence clinical outcomes by reducing intestinal microbiota diversity. Present guidelines of European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia exhort to optimising antibiotic use in haematological patients including HSCT recipients. The present study aims to investigate if, in HSCT recipients, the optimisation of antibacterial use may preserve intestinal microbiota composition reducing the incidence and severity of acute GVHD and improving relevant clinical outcomes.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective longitudinal observational study of two cohorts of HSCT recipients: (1) the intervention cohort includes patients treated in centres in which a predefined strategy of antibiotherapy optimisation is implemented, with the objective of optimising and reducing antibiotic administration according to clinical criteria and (2) the control cohort includes patients treated in centres in which a classic permissive strategy of antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment is used. Adult patient receiving a first HSCT as a treatment for any haematological condition are included. Clinical variables are prospectively recorded and up to five faecal samples are collected for microbiota characterisation at prestablished peritransplant time points. Patients are followed since the preconditioning phase throughout 1-year post-transplant and four follow-up visits are scheduled. Faecal microbiota composition and diversity will be compared between both cohorts along with acute GVHD incidence and severity, severe infections rate, mortality and overall and disease-free survival.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved between 2017 and 2018 by the Ethical Committees of participant centres. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03727113

IntroductionPatients with negative blood cultures (BCx) represent 85%–90% of all patients with BCx taken during hospital admission. This population usually includes a heterogeneous group of patients admitted with infectious diseases or febrile syndromes that require a blood culture. There is very little evidence of the clinical characteristics and antibiotic treatment given to these patients.Methods and analysisIn a preliminary exploratory prospective cohort study of patients with BCx taken, the clinical/therapeutic characteristics and outcomes/antimicrobial stewardship opportunities of a population of patients with negative BCx will be analysed. In the second phase, using a cluster randomised crossover design, the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention targeting patients with negative BCx will be evaluated in terms of quality of antimicrobial use (duration and de-escalation), length of hospital stay and mortality.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been and registered with clinicaltrials.gov. The findings of our study may support the implementation in clinical practice of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention to optimise the use of antibiotics in patients with negative BCx. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03535324.

Background Physicians of the Spanish Influenza Sentinel Surveillance System report and systematically swab patients attended to their practices for influenza-like illness (ILI). Within the surveillance system, some Spanish regions also participated in an observational study aiming at estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness (cycEVA study). During the season 2009-2010, we estimated pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness using both the influenza surveillance data and the cycEVA study. Methods We conducted two case-control studies using the test-negative design, between weeks 48/2009 and 8/2010 of the pandemic season. The surveillance-based study included all swabbed patients in the sentinel surveillance system. The cycEVA study included swabbed patients from seven Spanish regions. Cases were laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza A(H1N1)2009. Controls were ILI patients testing negative for any type of influenza. Variables collected in both studies included demographic data, vaccination status, laboratory results, chronic conditions, and pregnancy. Additionally, cycEVA questionnaire collected data on previous influenza vaccination, smoking, functional status, hospitalisations, visits to the general practitioners, and obesity. We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR), computing pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness as (1-OR)*100. Results We included 331 cases and 995 controls in the surveillance-based study and 85 cases and 351 controls in the cycEVA study. We detected nine (2.7%) and two (2.4%) vaccine failures in the surveillance-based and cycEVA studies, respectively. Adjusting for variables collected in surveillance database and swabbing month, pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness was 62% (95% confidence interval (CI): -5; 87). The cycEVA vaccine effectiveness was 64% (95%CI: -225; 96) when adjusting for common variables with the surveillance system and 75% (95%CI: -293; 98) adjusting for all variables collected. Conclusion Point estimates of the pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness suggested a protective effect of the pandemic vaccine against laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)2009 in the season 2009-2010. Both studies were limited by the low vaccine coverage and the late start of the vaccination campaign. Routine influenza surveillance provides reliable estimates and could be used for influenza vaccine effectiveness studies in future seasons taken into account the surveillance system limitations.

•Influenza surveillance data allowed measuring component-specific vaccine effectiveness.•The effectiveness against the seasonal A(H1N1) infection was higher than for A(H3N2) and B components.•Sub-optimal protective effect was observed in most of the studied seasons for A(H3N2) component.•Vaccine effectiveness against A(H3N2) infection appeared to be higher in children than in adults. We used data provided by the Spanish influenza surveillance system to measure seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended cases, laboratory confirmed with the predominately circulating influenza virus over eight seasons (2003–2011). Using the test-negative case-control design, we compared the vaccination status of swabbed influenza-like illnesses (ILI) patients who were laboratory confirmed with predominantly circulating influenza strain in the season (cases) to that of ILI patients testing negative for any influenza (controls). Data on age, sex, vaccination status and laboratory results were available for all seasons. We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted influenza VE for age, week of swabbing, Spanish region and season. We calculated the influenza VE by each season and pooling the seasons with the same predominant type/subtype. Overall influenza VE against infection with A(H3N2) subtype (four seasons) was 31 (95% confidence interval (CI):10; 48). For seasonal influenza A(H1N1) (two seasons), the effectiveness was 86% (95% CI: 65; 94). Against B infection (three seasons), influenza VE was 47% (95% CI: 27; 62). The Spanish influenza surveillance system allowed estimating influenza VE in the studied seasons for the predominant strain. Strengthening the influenza surveillance will result in more precise VE estimates for decision making.

Rationale In-stent reocclusion after endovascular therapy has a negative impact on outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to tandem lesions (TL). Optimal antiplatelet therapy approach in these patients to avoid in-stent reocclusion is yet to be elucidated. Aims To assess efficacy and safety of intravenous tirofiban versus intravenous aspirin in patients undergoing MT plus carotid stenting in the setting of AIS due to TL. Sample size estimates Two hundred forty patients will be enrolled, 120 in every treatment arm. Methods and design A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled (aspirin group), assessor-blinded clinical trial will be conducted. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be randomized at MT onset to the experimental or control group (1:1). Intravenous aspirin will be administered at a 500-mg single dose and tirofiban at a 500-mcg bolus followed by a 200-mcg/h infusion during the first 24 h. All patients will be followed for up to 3 months. Study outcomes Primary efficacy outcome will be the proportion of patients with carotid in-stent thrombosis within the first 24 h after MT. Primary safety outcome will be the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Discussion This will be the first clinical trial to assess the best antiplatelet therapy to avoid in-stent thrombosis after MT in patients with TL. Trial registration The trial is registered as NCT05225961. February, 7th, 2022.

In the first five I-MOVE (Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe) influenza seasons vaccine effectiveness (VE) results were relatively homogenous among participating study sites. In 2013–2014, we undertook a multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks in six European Union (EU) countries to measure 2013–2014 influenza VE against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. Influenza A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses co-circulated during the season. Practitioners systematically selected ILI patients to swab within eight days of symptom onset. We compared cases (ILI positive to influenza A(H3N2) or A(H1N1)pdm09) to influenza negative patients. We calculated VE for the two influenza A subtypes and adjusted for potential confounders. We calculated heterogeneity between sites using the I2 index and Cochrane's Q test. If the I2 was <50%, we estimated pooled VE as (1 minus the OR)×100 using a one-stage model with study site as a fixed effect. If the I2 was >49% we used a two-stage random effects model. We included in the A(H1N1)pdm09 analysis 531 cases and 1712 controls and in the A(H3N2) analysis 623 cases and 1920 controls. For A(H1N1)pdm09, the Q test (p=0.695) and the I2 index (0%) suggested no heterogeneity of adjusted VE between study sites. Using a one-stage model, the overall pooled adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm2009 was 47.5% (95% CI: 16.4–67.0). For A(H3N2), the I2 was 51.5% (p=0.067). Using a two-stage model for the pooled analysis, the adjusted VE against A(H3N2) was 29.7 (95% CI: −34.4–63.2). The results suggest a moderate 2013–2014 influenza VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 and a low VE against A(H3N2). The A(H3N2) estimates were heterogeneous among study sites. Larger sample sizes by study site are needed to prevent statistical heterogeneity, decrease variability and allow for two-stage pooled VE for all subgroup analyses.

Background In Spain, the influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated in the last three seasons using the observational study cycEVA conducted in the frame of the existing Spanish Influenza Sentinel Surveillance System. The objective of the study was to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI) among the target groups for vaccination in Spain in the 2011–2012 season. We also studied influenza VE in the early (weeks 52/2011-7/2012) and late (weeks 8-14/2012) phases of the epidemic and according to time since vaccination. Methods Medically attended patients with ILI were systematically swabbed to collect information on exposure, laboratory outcome and confounding factors. Patients belonging to target groups for vaccination and who were swabbed <8 days after symptom onset were included. Cases tested positive for influenza and controls tested negative for any influenza virus. To examine the effect of a late season, analyses were performed according to the phase of the season and according to the time between vaccination and symptoms onset. Results The overall adjusted influenza VE against A(H3N2) was 45% (95% CI, 0–69). The estimated influenza VE was 52% (95% CI, -3 to 78), 40% (95% CI, -40 to 74) and 22% (95% CI, -135 to 74) at 3.5 months, 3.5-4 months, and >4 months, respectively, since vaccination. A decrease in VE with time since vaccination was only observed in individuals aged ≥ 65 years. Regarding the phase of the season, decreasing point estimates were only observed in the early phase, whereas very low or null estimates were obtained in the late phase for the shortest time interval. Conclusions The 2011–2012 influenza vaccine showed a low-to-moderate protective effect against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza in the target groups for vaccination, in a late season and with a limited match between the vaccine and circulating strains. The suggested decrease in influenza VE with time since vaccination was mostly observed in the elderly population. The decreasing protective effect of the vaccine in the late part of the season could be related to waning vaccine protection because no viral changes were identified throughout the season.