Search

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for providing unbiased evidence of intervention effects. Here, we provide an overview of the history of RCTs and discuss the major challenges and limitations of current critical care RCTs, including overly optimistic effect sizes; unnuanced conclusions based on dichotomization of results; limited focus on patient-centred outcomes other than mortality; lack of flexibility and ability to adapt, increasing the risk of inconclusive results and limiting knowledge gains before trial completion; and inefficiency due to lack of re-use of trial infrastructure. We discuss recent developments in critical care RCTs and novel methods that may provide solutions to some of these challenges, including a research programme approach (consecutive, complementary studies of multiple types rather than individual, independent studies), and novel design and analysis methods. These include standardization of trial protocols; alternative outcome choices and use of core outcome sets; increased acceptance of uncertainty, probabilistic interpretations and use of Bayesian statistics; novel approaches to assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects; adaptation and platform trials; and increased integration between clinical trials and clinical practice. We outline the advantages and discuss the potential methodological and practical disadvantages with these approaches. With this review, we aim to inform clinicians and researchers about conventional and novel RCTs, including the rationale for choosing one or the other methodological approach based on a thorough discussion of pros and cons. Importantly, the most central feature remains the randomisation, which provides unparalleled restriction of confounding compared to non-randomised designs by reducing confounding to chance.

Purpose To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5.

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled “a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform.” The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

Purpose To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Materials and method A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. Results We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). Conclusions HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted., Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image, Highlights • Wide variability in what PPE is available for ICU staff caring for COVID-19 patients. • More than half report at least one PPE item missing or out of stock. • Adverse effects of wearing PPE reported by 80% of health care workers. • Adverse effects related to duration of a shift wearing PPE without taking a break.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Background: Influenza is a global cause of morbidity and mortality and a significant risk for a future pandemic infection. Host hyperinflammation, similar to that seen in COVID-19, may occur in response to influenza virus pneumonia, with Janus kinase (JAK) signalling and proinflammatory cytokines Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 involved. Immune modulation treatment of hospitalised and critically ill COVID-19 patients, including with IL-6 and JAK inhibitors, has been found to be beneficial. Significant interest exists in the use of immunomodulatory agents targeting these pathways in the treatment of severe influenza pneumonia. Methods: We conducted a review with both systematic and narrative methods to assess whether, in patients with severe influenza pneumonia, treatment with immunomodulatory agents targeting IL-1, IL-6 or JAK signalling, in comparison to no immune modulation, is beneficial and improves clinical outcomes. Results: Our systematic search screened 5409 records and found no randomised controlled trials of IL-1, IL-6 or JAK immunomodulatory agents in patients with severe influenza pneumonia. To support this systematic search, we provide a narrative review of the biological rationale, previous use of these agents, including in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and an overview of their safety profiles. Conclusions: Although immune modulation has proven successful in treating hospitalised and critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a biological rationale exists for testing these agents in influenza, no agents targeting IL-1, IL-6 or JAK signalling have been assessed in randomised controlled trials of patients with severe influenza pneumonia. This highlights a significant evidence gap.

Objective: To estimate pairwise associations between administration of tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo with 28-day mortality, in COVID-19 patients receiving concomitant corticosteroids and non-invasive or mechanical ventilation, based on all available direct and indirect evidence. Methods: Eligible trials randomized hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that compared either interleukin-6 receptor antagonist with usual care or placebo in a recent prospective meta-analysis (27 trials, 10930 patients) or that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab. Data were restricted to patients receiving corticosteroids and either non-invasive or invasive ventilation at randomization. Pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo for all-cause mortality 28 days after randomization were estimated using a frequentist contrast-based network meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs), implementing multivariate fixed-effects models that assume consistency between the direct and indirect evidence. Results: One trial (REMAP-CAP) was identified that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab and supplied results on all-cause mortality at 28-days. This network meta-analysis was based on 898 eligible patients (278 deaths) from REMAP-CAP and 3710 eligible patients from 18 trials (1278 deaths) from the prospective meta-analysis. Summary ORs were similar for tocilizumab [0.82 [0.71-0.95, P=0.008]] and sarilumab [0.80 [0.61-1.04, P=0.09]] compared with usual care or placebo. The summary OR for 28-day mortality comparing tocilizumab with sarilumab was 1.03 [95%CI 0.81-1.32, P=0.80]. The P value for the global test for inconsistency was 0.28. Conclusion: Administration of either tocilizumab or sarilumab was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality compared with usual care or placebo. The association is not dependent on the choice of interleukin-6 receptor antagonist.

ObjectivesCatheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are a common healthcare-associated infection and therefore targeted by surveillance programmes in many countries. Concerns, however, have been voiced regarding the reliability and construct validity of CRBSI surveillance and the connection with the current diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of infection control practitioners (ICPs) and medical professionals with the current CRBSI surveillance in the Netherlands and their suggestions for improvement.DesignQualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) with ICPs and medical professionals separately, followed by semistructured interviews to investigate whether the points raised in the FGDs were recognised and confirmed by the interviewees. Analyses were performed using thematic analyses.SettingBasic, teaching and academic hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants24 ICPs and 9 medical professionals.ResultsMain themes derived from experiences with current surveillance were (1) ICPs’ doubt regarding the yield of surveillance given the low incidence of CRBSI, the high workload and IT problems; (2) the experienced lack of leadership and responsibility for recording information needed for surveillance and (3) difficulties with applying and interpreting the CRBSI definition. Suggestions were made to simplify the surveillance protocol, expand the follow-up and surveillance to homecare settings, simplify the definition and customise it for specific patient groups. Participants reported hoping for and counting on automatisation solutions to support future surveillance.ConclusionsThis study reveals several problems with the feasibility and acceptance of the current CRBSI surveillance and proposes several suggestions for improvement. This provides valuable input for future surveillance activities, thereby taking into account automation possibilities.

The authors regret errors were present in the published article. Counts of some of the adverse events were erroneous. Changes to the text include. Last sentence of the abstract should read. Adverse effects of PPE included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). All but pressure areas were associated with longer shift durations. Last sentence of the results section of the manuscript should read. All but pressure areas were associated with longer duration of shifts wearing PPE (Table 4). Table 1 the total number of community/urban type of hospital should read 740 instead of 741. Updated Tables 3 and 4 should read as below: The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

BackgroundThrombosis may contribute to morbidity and mortality in Covid-19. We hypothesized that therapeutic anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized, clinical trial. Patients with severe Covid-19, defined as the requirement for organ support with high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive ventilation, invasive ventilation, vasopressors, or inotropes, were randomized to receive therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis as per local usual care. The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned –1) and days free of organ support to day 21.ResultsTherapeutic anticoagulation met the pre-defined criteria for futility in patients with severe Covid-19. The primary outcome was available for 1,074 participants (529 randomized to therapeutic anticoagulation and 545 randomized to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis). Median organ support-free days were 3 days (interquartile range –1, 16) in patients assigned to therapeutic anticoagulation and 5 days (interquartile range –1, 16) in patients assigned to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.70-1.08, posterior probability of futility [odds ratioConclusionsIn patients with severe Covid-19, therapeutic anticoagulation did not improve hospital survival or days free of organ support compared to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.Trial registration numbers NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

The clinical spectrum of COVID-19 varies and the differences in host response characterizing this variation have not been fully elucidated. COVID-19 disease severity correlates with an excessive proinflammatory immune response and profound lymphopenia. Inflammatory responses according to disease severity were explored by plasma cytokine measurements and proteomics analysis in 147 COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, peripheral blood mononuclear cell cytokine production assays and whole blood flow cytometry were performed. Results confirm a hyperinflammatory innate immune state, while highlighting hepatocyte growth factor and stem cell factor as potential biomarkers for disease severity. Clustering analysis revealed no specific inflammatory endotypes in COVID-19 patients. Functional assays revealed abrogated adaptive cytokine production (interferon-γ, interleukin-17, and interleukin-22) and prominent T-cell exhaustion in critically ill patients, whereas innate immune responses were intact or hyperresponsive. Collectively, this extensive analysis provides a comprehensive insight into the pathobiology of severe to critical COVID-19 and highlights potential biomarkers of disease severity.

Although the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle recommends obtaining blood cultures within 1 hour of sepsis recognition, adherence is suboptimal in many settings. We, therefore, implemented routine blood culture collection for all nonelective ICU admissions (regardless of infection suspicion) and evaluated its diagnostic yield.A before-after analysis.A mixed-ICU of a tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands.Patients acutely admitted to the ICU between January 2015 and December 2018.Automatic orders for collecting a single set of blood cultures immediately upon ICU admission were implemented on January 1, 2017. Blood culture results and the impact of contaminated blood cultures were compared for 2015-2016 (before period) and 2017-2018 (after period). Positive blood cultures were categorized as bloodstream infection or contamination. Blood cultures were obtained in 573 of 1,775 patients (32.3%) and in 1,582 of 1,871 patients (84.5%) in the before and after periods, respectively (p0.0001), and bloodstream infection was diagnosed in 95 patients (5.4%) and 154 patients (8.2%) in both study periods (relative risk 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-2.0; p = 0.0006). The estimated number needed to culture for one additional patient with bloodstream infection was 17. Blood culture contamination occurred in 40 patients (2.3%) and 180 patients (9.6%) in the before period and after period, respectively (relative risk 4.3; 95% CI 3.0-6.0; p0.0001). Rate of vancomycin use or presumed episodes of catheter-related bloodstream infections treated with antibiotics did not differ between both study periods.Implementation of routine blood cultures was associated with a 1.5-fold increase of detected bloodstream infection. The 4.3-fold increase in contaminated blood cultures was not associated with an increase in vancomycin use in the ICU.

BackgroundSubstantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aimed to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. Methods: Rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified published and unpublished RCTs by September 14, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 registry). All-cause mortality was extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status.ResultsSixty-two trials were potentially eligible. We included 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients). The combined summary OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.08 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.18; I2=0%; 24 trials; 7659 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I2=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects.ConclusionsWe found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the survival of COVID-19 patients. For hydroxychloroquine, the confidence interval is compatible with increased mortality (OR 1.18) or negligibly reduced mortality (OR 0.99). Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Introduction Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high incidence of thrombosis and mortality despite standard anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. There is equipoise regarding the optimal dose of anticoagulant intervention in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and consequently, immediate answers from high-quality randomized trials are needed. Methods The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was searched on June 17, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing increased dose to standard dose anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Two authors independently screened the full records for eligibility and extracted data in duplicate. Results A total of 20 trials were included in the review. All trials are open label, 5 trials use an adaptive design, 1 trial uses a factorial design, 2 trials combine multi-arm parallel group and factorial designs in flexible platform trials, and at least 15 trials have multiple study sites. With individual target sample sizes ranging from 30 to 3000 participants, the pooled sample size of all included trials is 12 568 participants. Two trials include only intensive care unit patients, and 10 trials base patient eligibility on elevated D-dimer levels. Therapeutic intensity anticoagulation is evaluated in 14 trials. All-cause mortality is part of the primary outcome in 14 trials. Discussion Several trials evaluate different dose regimens of anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Because these trials compete for sites and study participants, a collaborative effort is needed to complete trials faster, conduct pooled analyses and bring effective interventions to patients more quickly.

Objectives: Infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae are increasing worldwide, especially in ICUs, and have been associated with high mortality rates. However, unequivocally demonstrating causality of such infections to death is difficult in critically ill patients because of potential confounding and competing events. Here, we quantified the effects of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae carriage on patient outcome in two Greek ICUs with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae endemicity. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Two ICUs with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae endemicity. Patients: Patients admitted to the ICU with an expected length of ICU stay of at least 3 days were included. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae colonization was established through screening in perineum swabs obtained at admission and twice weekly and inoculated on chromogenic plates. Detection of carbapenemases was performed phenotypically, with confirmation by polymerase chain reaction. Risk factors for ICU mortality were evaluated using cause-specific hazard ratios and subdistribution hazard ratios, with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae colonization as time-varying covariate. One thousand seven patients were included, 36 (3.6%) were colonized at admission, and 96 (9.5%) acquired carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae colonization during ICU stay, and 301 (29.9%) died in ICU. Of 132 carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 125 (94.7%) were Klebsiella pneumoniae and 74 harbored K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (56.1%), 54 metallo-beta-lactamase (40.9%), and four both (3.0%). Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae colonization was associated with a statistically significant increase of the subdistribution hazard ratio for ICU mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.79; 95% CI, 1.31-2.43), not explained by an increased daily hazard of dying (cause-specific hazard ratio for death = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.74-1.41), but by an increased length of stay (cause-specific hazard ratio for discharge alive = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-0.94). Other risk factors in the subdistribution hazard model were Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11-1.15), female gender (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02-1.62), presence of solid tumor (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06), hematopoietic malignancy (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.04-2.51), and immunodeficiency (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.11-2.27). Conclusions: Patients colonized with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae have on average a 1.79 times higher hazard of dying in ICU than noncolonized patients, primarily because of an increased length of stay.

Background: Intensive care units (ICUs) are high-risk areas for transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, but no controlled study has tested the effect of rapid screening and isolation of carriers on transmission in settings with best-standard precautions. We assessed interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in European ICUs. Methods: We did this study in three phases at 13 ICUs. After a 6 month baseline period (phase 1), we did an interrupted time series study of universal chlorhexidine body-washing combined with hand hygiene improvement for 6 months (phase 2), followed by a 12-15 month cluster randomised trial (phase 3). ICUs were randomly assigned by computer generated randomisation schedule to either conventional screening (chromogenic screening for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA] and vancomycin-resistant enterococci [VRE]) or rapid screening (PCR testing for MRSA and VRE and chromogenic screening for highly resistant Enterobacteriaceae [HRE]); with contact precautions for identified carriers. The primary outcome was acquisition of resistant bacteria per 100 patient-days at risk, for which we calculated step changes and changes in trends after the introduction of each intervention. We assessed acquisition by microbiological surveillance and analysed it with a multilevel Poisson segmented regression model. We compared screening groups with a likelihood ratio test that combined step changes and changes to trend. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00976638. Findings: Seven ICUs were assigned to rapid screening and six to conventional screening. Mean hand hygiene compliance improved from 52% in phase 1 to 69% in phase 2, and 77% in phase 3. Median proportions of patients receiving chlorhexidine body-washing increased from 0% to 100% at the start of phase 2. For trends in acquisition of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, weekly incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0·976 (0·954-0·999) for phase 2 and 1·015 (0·998-1·032) for phase 3. For step changes, weekly IRR was 0·955 (0·676-1·348) for phase 2 and 0·634 (0·349-1·153) for phase 3. The decrease in trend in phase 2 was largely caused by changes in acquisition of MRSA (weekly IRR 0·925, 95% CI 0·890-0·962). Acquisition was lower in the conventional screening group than in the rapid screening group, but did not differ significantly (p=0·06). Interpretation: Improved hand hygiene plus unit-wide chlorhexidine body-washing reduced acquisition of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, particularly MRSA. In the context of a sustained high level of compliance to hand hygiene and chlorhexidine bathings, screening and isolation of carriers do not reduce acquisition rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria, whether or not screening is done with rapid testing or conventional testing. Funding: European Commission. © 2014 Derde et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY-NC-SA.

The changed epidemiology of extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL), the spread to the community and the need for prudent use of carbapenems require updated knowledge of risk factors for colonization with ESBL-producing enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE). An 8-month prospective study in the medical ICU of an 850-bed general and university-affiliated hospital. Of 610 patients admitted, 531 (87 %) had a rectal swab obtained at admission, showing a 15 % (82 patients) ESBL-PE carriage rate, mostly of E. coli (n = 51, 62 %); ESBL-PE caused 9 (3 %) infections on admission. By multivariable analysis, transfer from another ICU (OR = 2.56 [1, 22]), hospital admission in another country [OR = 5.28 (1.56–17.8)], surgery within the past year [OR = 2.28 (1.34–3.86)], prior neurologic disease [OR = 2.09 (1.1–4.0)], and prior administration of third generation cephalosporin (within 3–12 months before ICU admission) [OR = 3.05 (1.21–7.68)] were independent predictive factors of colonization by ESBL-PE upon ICU admission. Twenty-eight patients (13 % of those staying for more than 5 days) acquired ESBL carriage in ICU, mostly with E. cloacae (n = 13, 46 %) and K. pneumoniae (n = 10, 36 %). In carriers, ESBL-PE caused 10 and 27 % of first and second episodes of ICU-acquired infections, respectively. We found a high prevalence of ESBLE-PE colonization on admission to our ICU, even in the subgroup admitted from the community, but few first infections. Identifying risk factors for ESBL-PE colonization may help identifying which patients may warrant empiric ESBL-targeted antimicrobial drug therapy as a means to limit carbapenem use.

Twenty-three hospital laboratories from Europe and Israel participated in an external quality assessment (EQA) of the culture-based detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Participants also reported the MRSA prevalence in clinical cultures and patient screening specimens, as well as the MRSA screening practices employed at their hospitals. An EQA panel of 18 samples consisting of two MRSA harbouring SCCmec IV and I, and one strain each of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative S. epidermidis, methicillin-sensitive S. aureus and Escherichia coli as pure strains or in mixtures at 1071 cfu absolute loads was analysed by the 23 participants. Seventeen (74%) participants identified 17 or more samples correctly. Of these, 15 (88%) utilised a chromogenic medium alone (ChromID, bioMérieux; BBL CHROMagar, BD Diagnostics; MRSA Select, Bio-Rad Laboratories) or combined with a conventional medium and up to three confirmatory tests. Proportions of MRSA among S. aureus isolated from clinical cultures varied widely, even among hospitals within countries, ranging from 1120% to 6170%. MRSA carriage rates were less variable (020%) between countries. Almost all participants (n = 22, 96%) screened patients for MRSA carriage during 20092010, of which 15 (68%) screened intensive care unit (ICU) patients alone or combined with other targeted high-risk groups, and 10 (45%) combined nasal screening with another body site.

In an international study in 13 European intensive care units using protocolized surveillance and microbiological analysis, the transmission capacity of bacteria resistant to expanded-spectrum cephalosporins was 3.7 times higher for non-Escherichia coli Enterobacteriaceae (mainly Klebsiella pneumoniae) than for E. coli., Background The global emergence of infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae resistant to expanded-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs) in intensive care units (ICUs) is, at least partly, driven by cross-transmission. Yet, individual transmission capacities of bacterial species have not been quantified. Methods In this post hoc analysis of a multicenter study in 13 European ICUs, prospective surveillance data and a mathematical model were used to estimate transmission capacities and single-admission reproduction numbers (RA) of Escherichia coli and non–E. coli Enterobacteriaceae (non-EcE), all being ESC resistant. Surveillance was based on a chromogenic selective medium for ESC-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, allowing identification of E. coli and of Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Serratia, and Citrobacter species, grouped as non-EcE. Results Among 11420 patients included, the admission prevalence was 3.8% for non-EcE (74% being Klebsiella pneumoniae) and 3.3% for E. coli. Acquisition rates were 7.4 and 2.6 per 100 admissions at risk for non-EcE and E. coli, respectively. The estimated transmission capacity of non-EcE was 3.7 (95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.4–11.3) times higher than that of E. coli, yielding single-admission reproduction numbers (RA) of 0.17 (95% CrI, .094–.29) for non-EcE and 0.047 (95% CrI, .018–.098) for E. coli. Conclusions In ICUs, non-EcE, mainly K. pneumoniae, are 3.7 times more transmissible than E. coli. Estimated RA values of these bacteria were below the critical threshold of 1, suggesting that in these ICUs outbreaks typically remain small with current infection control policies.

IMP-8 metallo-β-lactamase was identified in Klebsiella pneumoniae sequence type 252 (ST252), isolated in a Portuguese hospital in 2009. bla IMP-8 was the first gene cassette of a novel class 3 integron, In1144, also carrying the bla GES-5 , bla BEL-1 , and aacA4 cassettes. In1144 was located on a ColE1-like plasmid, pKP-M1144 (12,029 bp), with a replication region of limited nucleotide similarity to those of other RNA-priming plasmids, such as pJHCMW1. In1144 and pKP-M1144 represent an interesting case of evolution of resistance determinants in Gram-negative bacteria.

Objectives To perform the first multinational Enterobacter cloacae clonality study, using the MLST scheme newly developed in Japan. Methods The analysis included 195 rectal carriage E. cloacae isolates resistant to expanded-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs), collected from patients in 12 hospital units across Europe and Israel. All of the isolates were typed by PFGE and 173 isolates were subjected to MLST. ESC resistance was analysed phenotypically; genes encoding ESBLs and carbapenemases were identified by PCR and sequencing. Results MLST distinguished 88 STs, which correlated with the PFGE data. PFGE was more discriminatory, producing 129 pulsotypes (169 patterns). Numerous STs were observed in several countries each. The most widespread were ST66, ST78, ST108 and ST114, each having at least 10 isolates from three to five countries, diversified into multiple pulsotypes, with clusters of related isolates in one or more centres. Analysis of the STs against the MLST database revealed several epidemic clonal complexes, such as those with central genotypes ST74 (including ST78) or ST114 (including ST66). ESC resistance was equally related to overexpression of the AmpC cephalosporinase and to ESBL production. Among ESBL producers some spreading subclones were identified, including specific ST66, ST78 and ST114 pulsotypes, associated with CTX-M-15 production. Several isolates produced carbapenemase VIM-1 or KPC-2. Conclusions Together with the information available in the MLST database, our results suggest that, like Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, E. cloacae harbours clonal lineages of increased epidemic potential that may be associated with resistance spread.

Knowledge of local MRSA epidemiology at both facility and ward level helps target control measures. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for MRSA colonisation on admission to different healthcare sectors in two European countries.

The complete nucleotide sequences of three multidrug resistance (MDR) IncA/C-like plasmids from Enterobacteriaceae isolates carrying the VIM-type carbapenemase-encoding integrons In4863 (blaVIM-19-aacA7-dfrA1-ΔaadA1-smr2) or In4873 (blaVIM-1-aacA7-dfrA1-ΔaadA1-smr2) were determined, which are the first In416-like elements identified in Greece. Plasmids pKP-Gr642 and pKP-Gr8143 were from Klebsiella pneumoniae ST383 isolates, whereas plasmid pEcl-Gr4873 was from an Enterobacter cloacae ST88 isolate. Sequencing showed that pKP-Gr642 (162787bp) and pKP-Gr8143 (154395bp) consisted of the type 1 IncA/C2 conserved backbone, the blaCMY-2-like gene-containing region, and the ARI-B (with the sul2 gene) and ARI-A (with a class 1 integron) resistance islands, like the plasmid pUMNK88_161 from the USA. The third plasmid, pEcl-Gr4873 (153958bp), exhibited extensive similarity with the type 2 IncA/C2 plasmid pR55 from France. pEcl-Gr4873 carried only one resistance island of a hybrid transposon structure inserted in a different location to ARI-A in type 1 A/C2 plasmids. In all three plasmids, the In416-like integrons In4863 or In4873 were identified within non-identical class II transposon structures. All three In416-like-carrying regions presented significant similarities with the MDR region of the IncA/C2 plasmid pCC416 from Italy, carrying the prototype In416 integron (blaVIM-4-aacA7-dfrA1-ΔaadA1-smr2). These findings provided the basis for speculations regarding the evolution of IncA/C2 plasmids with In416-like integrons, and confirmed the rapid evolution of some IncA/C2 plasmid lineages. Considering the broad host range of IncA/C2 molecules, it seems that pKP-Gr642, pKP-Gr8143 and pEcl-Gr4873 plasmids might support the diffusion of In416-like integrons among Enterobacteriaceae.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common cause of morbidity, antibiotic use, increased length of stay and, possibly, increased mortality in ICU patients. Colonization of the oropharyngeal cavity with potentially pathogenic micro-organisms is instrumental in the pathogenesis of VAP, and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) with antibiotics (AB-SOD) or antiseptics, such as chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX-SOD), has been associated with reduced incidences of VAP. In a recent issue of Critical Care Scannapieco and colleagues investigated differences in oropharyngeal colonization between mechanically ventilated patients receiving oropharyngeal decontamination with 0.12% CHX-SOD either once or twice daily compared to placebo. CHX-SOD was associated with a reduction in Staphylococcus aureus colonization, but the study was underpowered to demonstrate a reduction in VAP incidence. We urgently need well-designed and adequately powered studies to evaluate the potential benefits of CHX-SOD on patient outcome in ICUs.

Purpose Infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (AMRB) are increasing worldwide, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). Chlorhexidine body washing (CHG-BW) has been proposed as a measure to limit the spread of AMRB. We have systematically assessed the evidence on the effectiveness of CHG-BW in reducing colonization and infection with AMRB in adult ICU patients. Methods PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and OpenSigle databases were searched using synonyms for “intensive care unit,” “hospital,” and “chlorhexidine.” All potentially relevant articles were examined by two independent reviewers. Inclusion was limited to studies with ICU patients as domain, providing outcomes related to colonization or infection with AMRB. Data from 16 studies were extracted; 9 were excluded because of assessed high risk of bias or inadequate analyses. The remaining studies differed markedly in (co-)interventions and case mix, which precluded pooling of data in a formal meta-analysis. Results Incidences of MRSA acquisition were reduced significantly in three studies in which this was the primary endpoint. Significant reduction in MRSA infection rates was observed in only one of five studies. Carriage and bacteremia rates of VRE were assessed in one study, and both significantly declined. There were hardly any data on the effects of CHG-BW on antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria (ARGNB). Conclusions CHG-BW may be effective in preventing carriage, and possibly bloodstream infections, with MRSA and VRE in different ICU settings. As CHG-BW protocols, co-interventions and case mix varied widely, attribution of these effects to CHG-BW alone should be done with care. Evidence that CHG-BW reduces carriage of or infections with ARGNB is lacking.