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:What’s Known on This Subject:Neonates 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 Adds:We 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. Background:Neonatal 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. Methods:We 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. Results:We 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. Conclusions:The 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.

Project description:AimsTo systematically assess the level of evidence for psychotropic drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).MethodsCross-sectional analysis of all European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and meta-analyses of the many studies reported in these EPARs. Eligible EPARs were identified from the EMA's website and individual study reports were requested from the Agency when necessary. All marketing authorisation applications (defined by the drug, the route of administration and given indications) for psychotropic medications for adults (including drugs used in psychiatry and addictology) were considered. EPARs solely based on bioequivalence studies were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was the presence of robust evidence of comparative effectiveness, defined as at least two 'positive' superiority studies against an active comparator. Various other features of the approvals were assessed, such as evidence of non-inferiority v. active comparator and superiority v. placebo. For studies with available data, effect sizes were computed and pooled using a random effect meta-analysis for each dose of each drug in each indication.ResultsTwenty-seven marketing authorisations were identified. For one, comparative effectiveness was explicitly considered as not needed in the EPAR. Of those remaining, 21/26 (81%) did not provide any evidence of superiority against an active comparator, 2/26 (8%) were based on at least two trials showing superiority against active comparator and three (11%) were based on one positive trial; 1/26 provided evidence for two positive non-inferiority analyses v. active comparator and seven (26%) provided evidence for one. In total, 20/27 (74%) evaluations reported evidence of superiority v. placebo with two or more trials. Among the meta-analyses of initiation studies against active comparator (57 available comparisons), the median effect size was 0.051 (range -0.503; 0.318). Twenty approved evaluations (74%) reported evidence of superiority v. placebo on the basis of two or more initiation trials and seven based on a single trial. Among meta-analyses of initiation studies against placebo (125 available comparisons), the median effect size was -0.283 (range -0.820; 0.091). Importantly, among the 89 study reports requested on the EMA website, only 19 were made available 1 year after our requests.ConclusionsThe evidence for psychiatric drug approved by the EMA was in general poor. Small to modest effects v. placebo were considered sufficient in indications where an earlier drug exists. Data retrieval was incomplete after 1 year despite EMA's commitment to transparency. Improvements are needed.

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