Suchergebnisse

The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situation. ; SAM-COVID was funded by Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (COV20/01031) co-funded by European Union (ERDF/ESF, "Investing in your future") and Fundación SEIMC/GeSIDA. In addition, Juan Berenguer, Jesús ...

Introduction Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a major health problem worldwide and is one of the main reasons for prescribing antibiotics. However, the causative agent is often not identified, resulting in antibiotic overtreatment, which is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance and adverse events. We aim to test the hypothesis that comprehensive molecular testing, compared with routine microbiological testing, would be effective in reducing antibiotic use in patients with CAP. Methods and analysis We will perform a randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial with two parallel groups (1:1) at two tertiary hospitals between 2020 and 2022. Non-severely immunosuppressed adults hospitalised for CAP will be considered eligible. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive either the experimental diagnosis (comprehensive molecular testing plus routine microbiological testing) or standard diagnosis (only microbiological routine testing). The primary endpoint will be antibiotic consumption measured as days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days. Secondary endpoints will be de-escalation to narrower antibiotic treatment, time to switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics, days to reaching an aetiological diagnosis, antibiotic-related side effects, length of stay, days to clinical stability, intensive care unit admission, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital readmission up to 30 days after randomisation and death from any cause by 48 hours and 30 days after randomisation. We will need to include 440 subjects to be able to reject the null hypothesis that both groups have equal days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days with a probability >0.8. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge Hospital (AC028/19) and from the Spanish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency, and it is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. Results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients, their caregivers and funders

SAFO study group and the Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI). ; [Introduction] Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia is a frequent condition, with high mortality rates. There is a growing interest in identifying new therapeutic regimens able to reduce therapeutic failure and mortality observed with the standard of care of beta-lactam monotherapy. In vitro and small-scale studies have found synergy between cloxacillin and fosfomycin against S. aureus. Our aim is to test the hypothesis that cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves higher treatment success than cloxacillin alone in patients with MSSA bacteraemia. ; [Methods] We will perform a superiority, randomised, open-label, phase IV–III, two-armed parallel group (1:1) clinical trial at 20 Spanish tertiary hospitals. Adults (≥18 years) with isolation of MSSA from at least one blood culture ≤72 hours before inclusion with evidence of infection, will be randomly allocated to receive either cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous plus fosfomycin 3 g/6-hour intravenous or cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous alone for 7 days. After the first week, sequential treatment and total duration of antibiotic therapy will be determined according to clinical criteria by the attending physician. Primary endpoints: (1) Treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint comprising all the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA at day 7. (2) Treatment success at test of cure (TOC) visit: patient alive and no isolation of MSSA in blood culture or at another sterile site from day 8 until TOC (12 weeks after randomisation). We assume a rate of treatment success of 74% in the cloxacillin group. Accepting alpha risk of 0.05 and beta risk of 0.2 in a two-sided test, 183 subjects will be required in each of the control and experimental groups to obtain statistically significant difference of 12% (considered clinically significant). ; [Ethics and dissemination] Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge University Hospital (AC069/18) and from the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (AEMPS, AC069/18), and is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. The results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients and funders. ; [Trial registration number] The protocol has been approved by AEMPS with the Trial Registration Number EudraCT 2018-001207-37. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959345; Pre-results. ; The SAFO trial is supported by a competitive grant awarded by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias at the Spanish government's National Institute of Health Research, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), (FIS PI17/01116). This study was supported by Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2017–2021 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0005). ; Peer reviewed