Dataset Information

Is European Medicines Agency (EMA) sepsis criteria accurate for neonatal sepsis diagnosis or do we need new criteria?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, there is a lack of clear definition for neonatal sepsis. The Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) developed consensus criteria to ensure a standardization for neonatal sepsis definition. However, there is no evidence supporting the accuracy of the EMA sepsis criteria in neonatal sepsis diagnosis. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMA sepsis criteria for proven neonatal sepsis.

Methods

A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted from October 2015 to November 2018. Infants with a gestational age over 34th weeks, diagnosed with clinical sepsis and received antibiotics according to the EMA criteria or experienced neonatologists' opinion were included. Blood culture or multiplex real time-PCR or 16S-rRNA positive infants were accepted as "proven sepsis". The predictive performance of EMA criteria for proven sepsis was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve measures of receiver operator characteristic curves. Data-mining methods were used for further analysis.

Results

Among the 245 included infants, the EMA criteria were positive in 97 infants (39.6%), while proven sepsis was diagnosed in 113 infants (46.1%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the EMA criteria for proven sepsis were 44.2% (95%CI: 34.9-53.9), 64.4% (95%CI: 55.6-72.5), 55.1% (95%CI: 46.6-59.4) respectively. None of the clinical and laboratory parameters had sufficient performance individually in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy measures. The diagnostic performance was similar when different clinical findings were added to the EMA sepsis criteria or assessment of the score was interpreted in different ways.

Conclusions

Results highlighted that clinician opinion and standard laboratory tests are limited in the neonatal sepsis diagnosis. The EMA criteria also did not efficiently meet the diagnostic accuracy measures for neonatal sepsis. A predictive sepsis definition and rapid bedside point-of care tests are urgently needed.

SUBMITTER: Tuzun F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6553766 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is European Medicines Agency (EMA) sepsis criteria accurate for neonatal sepsis diagnosis or do we need new criteria?

Tuzun Funda F Ozkan Hasan H Ozkan Hasan H Cetinkaya Merih M Yucesoy Ebru E Kurum Ozge O Cebeci Burcu B Cakmak Ertan E Ozkutuk Aydan A Keskinoglu Pembe P Baysal Bora B Kumral Abdullah A Duman Nuray N

PloS one 20190606 6

<h4>Background</h4>Currently, there is a lack of clear definition for neonatal sepsis. The Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) developed consensus criteria to ensure a standardization for neonatal sepsis definition. However, there is no evidence supporting the accuracy of the EMA sepsis criteria in neonatal sepsis diagnosis. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMA sepsis criteria for proven neonatal sepsis.<h4>Methods</h4>A multicent ...[more]

PMID: 31170237

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesStratified medicine is often heralded as the future of clinical practice. Key part of stratified medicine is the use of predictive biomarkers, which identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit (or least likely to experience harm) from an intervention. We investigated how many and what predictive biomarkers are currently included in European Medicines Agency (EMA) licensing.SettingEMA licensing.ParticipantsIndications and contraindications of all drugs considered by the EMA and published in 883 European Public Assessment Reports and Pending Decisions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresData were collected on: the type of the biomarker, whether it selected a subgroup of patients based on efficacy or toxicity, therapeutic area, marketing status, date of licensing decision, date of inclusion of the biomarker in the indication or contraindication and on orphan designation.Results49 biomarker-indication-drug (B-I-D) combinations were identified over 16 years, which included 37 biomarkers and 41 different drugs. All identified biomarkers were molecular. Six drugs (relating to 10 B-I-D combinations) had an orphan designation at the time of licensing. The identified B-I-D combinations were mainly used in cancer and HIV treatment, and also in hepatitis C and three other indications (cystic fibrosis, hyperlipoproteinaemia type I and methemoglobinaemia). In 45 B-I-D combinations, biomarkers were used as predictive of drug efficacy and in four of drug toxicity. It appeared that there was an increase in the number of B-I-D combinations introduced each year; however, the numbers were too small to identify any trends.ConclusionsGiven the large body of literature documenting research into potential predictive biomarkers and extensive investment into stratified medicine, we identified relatively few predictive biomarkers included in licensing. These were also limited to a small number of clinical areas. This might suggest a need for improvement in methods of translation from laboratory findings to clinical practice.

Project description:AimsWe have previously described the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration's guidelines, each for a specific psychiatric indication, on how to design pivotal drug trials used in new drug applications. Here, we report on our efforts over 3 years to retrieve conflicts of interest declarations from EMA. We wanted to assess potential internal industry influence judged as the proportion of guideline committee members with industry conflicts of interest.MethodsWe submitted Freedom of Information requests in February 2020 to access EMA's lists of committee members (and their declared conflicts of interest) involved in drafting the 13 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines available on EMA's website pertaining to psychiatric indications. In our request, we did not specify the exact EMA committees. Here, we describe the received documents and report the proportion of members with industry interests (i.e. defined as any financial industry relationship). It is a follow-up paper to our first report (http://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000147).ResultsAfter 2 years and 9 months (November 2022), the EMA sent us member lists and corresponding conflicts of interest declarations from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP) from 2012, 2013 and 2017. These member lists pertained to 3 of the 13 requested guidelines (schizophrenia, depression and autism spectrum disorder). The 10 remaining guidelines were published before 2011 and EMA stated that they needed to require permission from their expert members (with unknown retrieval rate) and foresaw excessive workload and long wait. Therefore, we withdrew our request. The CHMPs from 2012, 2013 and 2017 had from 34 to 36 members; 39%-44% declared any interests and we judged 14%-18% as having industry interests. For the schizophrenia guideline, we identified two members with industry interests to companies who submitted feedback on the guideline. We did not receive declarations from the Central Nervous System (CNS) Working Party, the CHMP appointed expert group responsible for drafting and incorporating feedback into the guidelines.ConclusionsAfter almost 3 years, we received information, which only partly addressed our request. We recommend EMA to improve transparency by publishing the author names and their corresponding conflicts of interest declarations directly in the 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines and to not remove conflicts of interest declarations after 1 year from their website to reduce the risk of stealth corporate influence during the development of these influential guidelines.

Project description:What’s known on this subjectNeonates are at increased risk for developing sepsis, but this population often exhibits ambiguous clinical signs that complicate the diagnosis of infection. No biomarker has yet shown enough diagnostic accuracy to rule out sepsis at the time of clinical suspicion.What this study addsWe show that a gene-expression-based signature is an accurate objective measure of the risk of sepsis in a neonate or preterm infant, and it substantially improves diagnostic accuracy over that of commonly used laboratory-based testing. Implementation might decrease inappropriate antibiotic use.BackgroundNeonatal sepsis can have devastating consequences, but accurate diagnosis is difficult. As a result, up to 200 neonates with suspected sepsis are treated with empiric antibiotics for every 1 case of microbiologically confirmed sepsis. These unnecessary antibiotics enhance bacterial antibiotic resistance, increase economic costs, and alter gut microbiota composition. We recently reported an 11-gene diagnostic test for sepsis (Sepsis MetaScore) based on host whole-blood gene expression in children and adults, but this test has not been evaluated in neonates.MethodsWe identified existing gene expression microarray-based cohorts of neonates with sepsis. We then tested the accuracy of the Sepsis MetaScore both alone and in combination with standard diagnostic laboratory tests in diagnosing sepsis.ResultsWe found 3 cohorts with a total of 213 samples from control neonates and neonates with sepsis. The Sepsis MetaScore had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92-0.93 in all 3 cohorts. We also found that, as a diagnostic test for sepsis, it outperformed standard laboratory measurements alone and, when used in combination with another test(s), resulted in a significant net reclassification index (0.3-0.69) in 5 of 6 comparisons. The mean point estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 60%, respectively, which, if confirmed prospectively and applied in a high-risk cohort, could reduce inappropriate antibiotic usage substantially.ConclusionsThe Sepsis MetaScore had excellent diagnostic accuracy across 3 separate cohorts of neonates from 3 different countries. Further prospective targeted study will be needed before clinical application.

Dataset Information

Is European Medicines Agency (EMA) sepsis criteria accurate for neonatal sepsis diagnosis or do we need new criteria?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Is European Medicines Agency (EMA) sepsis criteria accurate for neonatal sepsis diagnosis or do we need new criteria?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets