Explore the vast range of titles available.

Reduced duration of antibiotic treatment might contain the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in intensive care units. We aimed to establish the effectiveness of an algorithm based on the biomarker procalcitonin to reduce antibiotic exposure in this setting. In this multicentre, prospective, parallel-group, open-label trial, we used an independent, computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly assign patients in a 1:1 ratio to procalcitonin (n=311 patients) or control (n=319) groups; investigators were masked to assignment before, but not after, randomisation. For the procalcitonin group, antibiotics were started or stopped based on predefined cut-off ranges of procalcitonin concentrations; the control group received antibiotics according to present guidelines. Drug selection and the final decision to start or stop antibiotics were at the discretion of the physician. Patients were expected to stay in the intensive care unit for more than 3 days, had suspected bacterial infections, and were aged 18 years or older. Primary endpoints were mortality at days 28 and 60 (non-inferiority analysis), and number of days without antibiotics by day 28 (superiority analysis). Analyses were by intention to treat. The margin of non-inferiority was 10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00472667. Nine patients were excluded from the study; 307 patients in the procalcitonin group and 314 in the control group were included in analyses. Mortality of patients in the procalcitonin group seemed to be non-inferior to those in the control group at day 28 (21·2% [65/307] vs 20·4% [64/314]; absolute difference 0·8%, 90% CI −4·6 to 6·2) and day 60 (30·0% [92/307] vs 26·1% [82/314]; 3·8%, −2·1 to 9·7). Patients in the procalcitonin group had significantly more days without antibiotics than did those in the control group (14·3 days [SD 9·1] vs 11·6 days [SD 8·2]; absolute difference 2·7 days, 95% CI 1·4 to 4·1, p<0·0001). A procalcitonin-guided strategy to treat suspected bacterial infections in non-surgical patients in intensive care units could reduce antibiotic exposure and selective pressure with no apparent adverse outcomes. Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France, and Brahms, Germany.

Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed. To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo. The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events. Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group. In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.

Background. Blood levels of voriconazole, a first line therapy for invasive aspergillosis, may correlate with adverse events and treatment response. However, no randomized controlled studies have been conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of voriconazole. This study aimed to determine whether routine TDM of voriconazole reduces drug adverse events or improves treatment response in invasive fungal infections. Methods. This was a randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled, single center trial. One hundred ten adult patients were randomly assigned to TDM or non-TDM groups. In the TDM group, voriconazole dosage was adjusted (target range, 1.0–5.5 mg/L) according to the serum trough level measured on the fourth day after initiation of voriconazole. The non-TDM group received a fixed, standard dosage. Voriconazole-related adverse events were monitored, and treatment response was assessed three months after the initiation of therapy. Results. Baseline characteristics including the CYP2C19 genotype were comparable between the two groups. While the incidence of adverse events was not different between the TDM group and the non-TDM group (both 42%; P = .97), the proportion of voriconazole discontinuation due to adverse events was significantly lower in the TDM group than in the non-TDM group (4% vs 17%; P = .02). A complete or partial response was observed in 81% (30 of 37) of patients in the TDM group compared to 57% (20 of 34) in the non-TDM group (P = .04). Conclusions. Routine TDM of voriconazole may reduce drug discontinuation due to adverse events and improve the treatment response in invasive fungal infections. Clinical Trial Registration. NCT00890708.

The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) are commonly used to assess Crohn's disease (CD) activity; however neither instrument is fully validated. We evaluated the responsiveness to change of the SES-CD and CDEIS using data from a trial of adalimumab, a drug therapy of known efficacy. Paired video recordings (N=112) of colonoscopies (baseline and week 8-12) obtained from patients with CD who participated in a trial of adalimumab therapy were reviewed in random order, in duplicate, by four central readers (56 pairs of videos by 2 groups of readers). Responsiveness of the SES-CD and the CDEIS was evaluated by comparing correlations between the observed and pre-specified predictions of change scores for these endoscopic indices with a global endoscopic evaluation of severity (GELS), a patient reported outcome (PRO2), and the Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI), and by calculation of the standardized effect size, and Guyatt's Responsiveness statistic (GRS) using 2 definitions of change; (1) treatment assignment and (2) an absolute change in total PRO2 of 50. The potential application of effect size estimates was demonstrated by calculating hypothetical sample sizes for comparing two independent groups. The impact of removing stenosis as an index item and adjusting for the number of segments observed was also assessed. Changes in both endoscopic instruments and the GELS were highly correlated. The SES-CD displayed numerically higher effect sizes for both definitions of change. The standardized effect size and GRS estimates (95% confidence interval) for the SES-CD based on treatment assignment were 0.84 (0.53, 1.15) and 0.79 (0.48, 1.09). Corresponding values for the CDEIS were 0.72 (0.42, 1.02) and 0.75 (0.45, 1.06). The standardized effect size and GRS estimates for the SES-CD based on an absolute change in total PRO2 of 50 points or greater were 0.76 (0.49, 1.02) and 0.93 (0.64, 1.21). Corresponding values for CDEIS were 0.70 (0.44, 0.97), 0.83 (0.55, 1.10). Removal of stenosis as an index item and adjusting for observed segments did not improve responsiveness estimates. Although both the SES-CD and CDEIS are valid measures of endoscopic disease activity that are moderately responsive to changes in endoscopic disease activity, the SES-CD displayed numerically greater responsiveness in this data set.

Introduction and objectiveMultiple sclerosis (MS) is the most frequent autoimmune demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. MS patients usually present with lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). Objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of treating MS patients with LUTD with either a b3 agonist (mirabegron) or anticholinergics. The study’s primary outcome is the LUTD symptom improvement. Material and MethodsThis is a multi-center, single-blinded, comparative study including 91 MS patients with LUTD. At baseline, patients underwent thorough clinical examination, urine cultivation and abdominal ultrasound and completed urination diaries and specific, validated questionnaires (NBSS, MusiQoL). At second visit, patients were administered either mirabegron or anticholinergics. Treatment was always carried out alongside with MS treatment. Reevaluation was performed 3 months after first visit. Patients underwent the same clinical and imaging tests that were carried out at first visit.ResultsWe compared several clinical and imaging parameters between the two groups at first visit and month 3 after treatment. Νo statistical difference was noted between the mirabegron group and the anticholinergic group in terms of LUTD improvement. In both groups, improvement from baseline regarding LUTD was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired and unpaired t test method. No patient discontinued either medication due to side effects.ConclusionsMS patients receiving either mirabegron or anticholinergic therapy for LUTD showed improvement. Nevertheless, no statistical difference was noted between the two cohorts at 3 months in terms of drug efficacy in all the statistically significant parameters.

Objective. Emergency department (ED) providers are high volume but low quantity prescribers of opioid analgesics (OA). Few studies have examined differences in opioid prescribing decisions specifically among ED providers. The aim of this study was to describe OA prescribing decisions of ED providers at geographically diverse centers, including utilization of prescribing guidelines and prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP). Methods. This was a multi-center cross-sectional Web-based survey of ED providers who prescribe OA. Respondents were asked about their OA prescribing decisions, their use of PDMPs, and their use of prescribing guidelines. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of association were used to assess the relationship between providers' opioid prescribing decisions and independent covariates. Results. The total survey population was 957 individuals and 515 responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 54%. The frequency of respondents who prescribed different types of pain medication was variable between centers. Fifty-nine percent (219/369) of respondents were registered to access a PDMP, and 5% (18/369) were not aware whether their state had a PDMP. Forty percent (172/426) of respondents used OA prescribing guidelines, while 24% (103/426) did not, and 35% (151/426) were unaware of prescribing guidelines. Sixteen percent (68/439) of respondents indicated they have prescribed OA to expedite patient discharge, and 12% (54/439) to improve patient satisfaction. No significant differences in OA prescribing decisions were found between groups either by use of PDMP or by guideline adherence. Conclusions. In this multi-center survey study of ED clinicians, OA prescribing decisions varied between centers and found some providers occasionally prescribe OA for non-medical reasons including expediting ED discharge and increasing patient satisfaction. The utilization of prescribing guidelines and PDMPs was not associated with differences in OA prescribing decisions.

Rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics may affect the rivaroxaban benefit–risk balance. This study aimed to quantify associations between model-predicted rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics and efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), using data from the phase 3 ROCKET AF trial (NCT00403767). In ROCKET AF, 14,264 patients with NVAF were randomized to rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily [OD], or 15 mg OD if creatinine clearance was 30–49 mL/min) or dose-adjusted warfarin (median follow-up: 707 days); rivaroxaban plasma concentration was measured in a subset of 161 patients. In this post hoc exposure–response analysis, a multivariate Cox model was used to correlate individual predicted rivaroxaban exposures and patient characteristics with time-to-event efficacy and safety outcomes in 7061 and 7111 patients, respectively. There was no significant association between model-predicted rivaroxaban trough plasma concentration (Ctrough) and efficacy outcomes. Creatinine clearance and history of stroke were significantly associated with efficacy outcomes. Ctrough was significantly associated with the composite of major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding (hazard ratio [95th percentile vs. median]: 1.26 [95% confidence interval 1.13–1.40]) but not with major bleeding alone. The exposure–response relationship for major or NMCR bleeding was shallow with no clear threshold for an acceleration in risk. History of gastrointestinal bleeding had a greater influence on safety outcomes than Ctrough. These results support fixed rivaroxaban 15 mg and 20 mg OD dosages in NVAF. Therapeutic drug monitoring is unlikely to offer clinical benefits in this indication beyond evaluation of patient characteristics.

Anticoagulant plasma concentrations and patient characteristics might affect the benefit–risk balance of therapy. The study objective was to assess the impact of model-predicted rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics on outcomes in patients receiving rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (VTE-P) after hip/knee replacement surgery. Post hoc exposure–response analyses were conducted using data from the phase 3 RECORD1–4 studies, in which 12,729 patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or enoxaparin for ≤ 39 days. Multivariate regression approaches were used to correlate model-predicted individual rivaroxaban exposures and patient characteristics with outcomes. In the absence of measured rivaroxaban exposure, exposure estimates were predicted based on individual increases in prothrombin time (PT) and by making use of the known correlation between rivaroxaban plasma concentration and dynamics of PT. No significant associations between rivaroxaban exposure and total VTE or major bleeding were identified. A significant association between exposure and a composite of major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding from day 4 after surgery was observed. The relationship was shallow, with an approximate predicted absolute increase in a composite of major or NMCR bleeding from 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–1.54] to 2.18% (95% CI 1.51–3.17) at the 5th and 95th percentiles of trough plasma concentration, respectively. In conclusion, based on the underlying data and analysis, no reliable target window for exposure with improved benefit–risk could be identified within the investigated exposure range. Hence, monitoring rivaroxaban levels is unlikely to be beneficial in VTE-P.

Reporting of toxic adverse effects of anticancer treatments by clinicians generally results in the underreporting of these toxicities. Patient-reported outcomes, which fully reflect the experiences of patients receiving treatment, offer an alternative to reporting of toxicities by clinicians. In this Perspective, the authors describe the barriers and challenges to routine integration of patient-reported outcomes into clinical trials, and describe the PRO–CTCAE, which is designed to help circumvent some of these challenges. Symptomatic toxicities associated with anticancer treatments, such as nausea and vomiting, are frequently underreported by clinicians, even when data are prospectively collected within clinical trials. Such underreporting can result in an underestimation of the absolute rate of toxicity, which is highly relevant information for patients and their physicians in clinical practice, and for regulatory authorities. Systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been demonstrated to be a valid, reliable, feasible and precise approach to tabulating symptomatic toxicities and enables symptoms that are missed by clinicians to be detected. In this Perspectives, the barriers and challenges that should be addressed when considering broad integration of PRO toxicity monitoring in oncology clinical trials are discussed, including challenges related to data collection logistics, analytical approaches, and resource utilization. Instruments conceived to enable description of treatment-related adverse effects, from the patient perspective, bring the potential to improve risk-versus-benefit analyses in clinical research, and to provide patients with accurate information, on the basis of previous experiences of their peers.

Objective. In the United States, per-capita opioid dispensing has increased concurrently with analgesic-related mortality and morbidity since the 1990s. To deter diversion and abuse of controlled substances, most states have implemented electronic prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). We evaluated the impact of state PDMPs on opioid dispensing. Methods. We acquired data on opioids dispensed in a given quarter of the year for each state and the District of Columbia from 1999 to 2008 from the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System and converted them to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). We used multivariable linear regression modeling with generalized estimating equations to assess the effect of state PDMPs on per-capita dispensing of MMEs. Results. The annual MMEs dispensed per capita increased progressively until 2007 before stabilizing. Adjusting for temporal trends and demographic characteristics, implementation of state PDMPs was associated with a 3% decrease in MMEs dispensed per capita (p= 0.68). The impact of PDMPs on MMEs dispensed per capita varied markedly by state, from a 66% decrease in Colorado to a 61% increase in Connecticut. Conclusions. Implementation of state PDMPs up to 2008 did not show a significant impact on per-capita opioids dispensed. To control the diversion and abuse of prescription drugs, state PDMPs may need to improve their usability, implement requirements for committee oversight of the PDMP, and increase data sharing with neighboring states.