Measuring outcomes in complicated intra-abdominal infections

Shadia Ahmed, Mark H Wilcox, Andrew Kirby, Shadia Ahmed, Mark H Wilcox, Andrew Kirby

Abstract

Purpose of review: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Clinical trials should help guide and improve the management of cIAIs. However, inappropriate selection or measurement of outcomes in cIAIs clinical trials can lead to misleading results on the effectiveness of interventions. This review aims to describe how outcomes are reported in randomized controlled trials evaluating antibiotic treatment for cIAIs and discuss how outcome reporting may be improved.

Recent findings: Commonly used primary outcomes are treatment success or failure, and these outcomes are endorsed by regulatory bodies. However, a consensus objective definition of either is not available and current measures are prone to bias. Variation exists in timing of outcome evaluation and analysis populations, which can lead to further bias. Use of core outcome sets can help standardize outcome reporting.

Summary: Inconsistency in outcome selection and reporting can lead to misleading results and impedes meta-analysis of data. Further progress, engaging clinical trialists, regulatory authorities, clinicians and patients is required to achieve consensus on which outcomes should be reported and how and when to measure them.

References

    1. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50:133–164.
    1. Inui T, Haridas M, Claridge JA, Malangoni MA. Mortality for intra-abdominal infection is associated with intrinsic risk factors rather than the source of infection. Surgery 2009; 146:654–661. discussion 661-652.
    1. Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults. A multicenter prospective study in intensive care units. French ICU Group for Severe Sepsis. JAMA 1995; 274:968–974.
    1. Sartelli M, Catena F, Ansaloni L, et al. Complicated intra-abdominal infections worldwide: the definitive data of the CIAOW Study. World J Emerg Surg 2014; 9:37.
    1. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008; 3:e3081.
    1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017; 18: (Suppl 3): 280.
    1. Nystrom PO, Bax R, Dellinger EP, et al. Proposed definitions for diagnosis, severity scoring, stratification, and outcome for trials on intraabdominal infection. Joint Working Party of SIS North America and Europe. World J Surg 1990; 14:148–158.
    1. Evans S, Rubin DB, Powers JH, Follmann D. Analysis populations in anti-infective clinical trials: whom to analyze? Stat Commun Infect Dis 2018; 10:pii: 20170002.
    1. Evans SR, Rubin D, Follmann D, et al. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) and response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR). Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61:800–806.
    1. Solomkin JS. A cool reception for desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR)/response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR) in intra-abdominal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65:1580–1581.
    1. Celestin AR, Odom SR, Angelidou K, et al. Novel method suggests global superiority of short-duration antibiotics for intra-abdominal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65:1577–1579.
    1. Sawyer RG, Claridge JA, Nathens AB, et al. Trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:1996–2005.
    1. Schweitzer VA, van Smeden M, Postma DF, et al. Response adjusted for days of antibiotic risk (RADAR): evaluation of a novel method to compare strategies to optimize antibiotic use. Clin Microbiol Infect 2017; 23:980–985.
    1. Solomkin J, Evans D, Slepavicius A, et al. Assessing the efficacy and safety of eravacycline vs ertapenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections in the Investigating Gram-Negative Infections Treated With Eravacycline (IGNITE 1) Trial: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2017; 152:224–232.
    1. Solomkin JS, Gardovskis J, Lawrence K, et al. IGNITE4: results of a phase 3, randomized, multicenter, prospective trial of eravacycline vs. meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 69:921–929.
    1. Qin X, Tran BG, Kim MJ, et al. A randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalised adults in Asia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2017; 49:579–588.
    1. Chen Y, Zhu D, Zhang Y, et al. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparison study of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline to imipenem/cilastatin to treat complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized subjects in China. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2018; 14:2327–2339.
    1. Montravers P, Tubach F, Lescot T, et al. Short-course antibiotic therapy for critically ill patients treated for postoperative intra-abdominal infection: the DURAPOP randomised clinical trial. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44:300–310.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner