124
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2): a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation

      research-article
      , PhD a , , Prof, MD d , e , , Prof, MD g , h , , PhD i , , PhD j , , PhD k , , Prof, PhD l , , MBChB m , , Prof, MD n , o , , MD d , , MPH d , , Prof, PhD d , , MBChB p , , MD h , , Prof, PhD d , , MD q , , MD r , , PhD a , m , , PhD f , , MBChB s , , MBChB t , , Prof, PhD u , , PhD v , , MBBS w , , MBChB x , , MA x , , MD y , , Prof, FFICM z , , MBBS aa , , MBChB ab , , PhD ac , , PhD ac , , BSc ac , , BSc a , , PhD b , , MSc f , , MClinRes c , , PhD c , , Prof, PhD a , b , *
      The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine
      Elsevier

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1β and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia.

          Methods

          VAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 10 4 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425.

          Findings

          Between Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes.

          Interpretation

          Antibiotic use remains high in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antibiotic stewardship was not improved by a rapid, highly sensitive rule-out test. Prescribing culture, rather than poor test performance, might explain this absence of effect.

          Funding

          UK Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

          Process evaluation is an essential part of designing and testing complex interventions. New MRC guidance provides a framework for conducting and reporting process evaluation studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

            It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections.

              Currently, no single U.S. surveillance system can provide estimates of the burden of all types of health care-associated infections across acute care patient populations. We conducted a prevalence survey in 10 geographically diverse states to determine the prevalence of health care-associated infections in acute care hospitals and generate updated estimates of the national burden of such infections. We defined health care-associated infections with the use of National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. One-day surveys of randomly selected inpatients were performed in participating hospitals. Hospital personnel collected demographic and limited clinical data. Trained data collectors reviewed medical records retrospectively to identify health care-associated infections active at the time of the survey. Survey data and 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, stratified according to patient age and length of hospital stay, were used to estimate the total numbers of health care-associated infections and of inpatients with such infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. Surveys were conducted in 183 hospitals. Of 11,282 patients, 452 had 1 or more health care-associated infections (4.0%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 4.4). Of 504 such infections, the most common types were pneumonia (21.8%), surgical-site infections (21.8%), and gastrointestinal infections (17.1%). Clostridium difficile was the most commonly reported pathogen (causing 12.1% of health care-associated infections). Device-associated infections (i.e., central-catheter-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia), which have traditionally been the focus of programs to prevent health care-associated infections, accounted for 25.6% of such infections. We estimated that there were 648,000 patients with 721,800 health care-associated infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. Results of this multistate prevalence survey of health care-associated infections indicate that public health surveillance and prevention activities should continue to address C. difficile infections. As device- and procedure-associated infections decrease, consideration should be given to expanding surveillance and prevention activities to include other health care-associated infections.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Respir Med
                Lancet Respir Med
                The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine
                Elsevier
                2213-2600
                2213-2619
                1 February 2020
                February 2020
                : 8
                : 2
                : 182-191
                Affiliations
                [a ]Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
                [b ]National Institute for Health Research Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Cooperative, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
                [c ]Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
                [d ]The Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
                [e ]Regional Intensive Care Unit, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, UK
                [f ]Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, UK
                [g ]Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Queen's Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh, UK
                [h ]Intensive Care Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [i ]Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [j ]Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
                [k ]Department of Cancer and Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [l ]Division of Infection Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Manchester National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [m ]Integrated Critical Care Unit, Sunderland Royal Hospital, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK
                [n ]Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
                [o ]Intensive Care Unit, Heartlands Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
                [p ]Integrated Critical Care Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK
                [q ]Intensive Care Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK
                [r ]Intensive Care Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
                [s ]Intensive Care Unit, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [t ]Intensive Care Unit, Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, Chester, UK
                [u ]Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
                [v ]Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Coventry, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
                [w ]Intensive Care Unit, Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital, Cramlington, UK
                [x ]Intensive Care Unit, Preston Royal Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
                [y ]Intensive Care Unit, Sandwell General Hospital, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, West Bromwich, UK
                [z ]Intensive Care Unit, James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
                [aa ]Intensive Care Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust, Gateshead, UK
                [ab ]Intensive Care Unit, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK
                [ac ]Becton Dickinson Biosciences Europe, Erembodegem, Belgium
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof A John Simpson, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK j.simpson@ 123456ncl.ac.uk
                Article
                S2213-2600(19)30367-4
                10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30367-4
                7599318
                31810865
                dcff0ffa-7c5c-4356-a8bf-f131f6807159
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article