Evidence-Based Study Design for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The US Food and Drug Administration solicited evidence-based recommendations to improve guidance for studies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP).Methods
We analyzed 7 HABP/VABP datasets to explore novel noninferiority study endpoints and designs, focusing on alternatives to all-cause mortality (ACM).Results
ACM at day 28 differed for ventilated HABP (27.8%), VABP (18.0%), and nonventilated HABP (14.5%). A "mortality-plus" (ACM+) composite endpoint was constructed by combining ACM with patient-relevant, infection-related adverse events from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities toxic/septic shock standardized query. The ACM+ rate was 3-10 percentage points above that of ACM across the studies and treatment groups. Predictors of higher ACM/ACM+ rates included older age and elevated acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score. Only patients in the nonventilated HABP group were able to report pneumonia symptom changes.Conclusions
If disease groups and patient characteristics in future studies produce an ACM rate so low (<10%-15%) that a fixed noninferiority margin of 10% cannot be justified (requiring an odds ratio analysis), an ACM+ endpoint could lower sample size. Enrichment of studies with patients with a higher severity of illness would increase ACM. Data on symptom resolution in nonventilated HABP support development of a patient-reported outcome instrument.
SUBMITTER: Talbot GH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6562159 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Studies indicate that the prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections, including hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP), has been rising. There are many challenges associated with these disease conditions and the ability to develop new treatments. Additionally, HABP/VABP clinical trials are very costly to conduct given their complex protocol designs and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining patients. Methods:With input from clinicians, representatives from industry, and the US Food and Drug Administration, we conducted a study to (1) evaluate the drivers of HABP/VABP phase 3 direct and indirect clinical trial costs; (2) to identify opportunities to lower these costs; and (3) to compare (1) and (2) to endocrine and oncology clinical trials. Benchmark data were gathered from proprietary and commercial databases and used to create a model that calculates the fully loaded (direct and indirect) cost of typical phase 3 HABP/VABP endocrine and oncology clinical trials. Results:Results indicate that the cost per patient for a 200-site, 1000-patient phase 3 HABP/VABP study is $89600 per patient. The cost of screen failures and screen failure rates are the main cost drivers. Conclusions:Results indicate that biopharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies should consider strategies to improve screening and recruitment to decrease HABP/VABP clinical trial costs.
| S-EPMC5848330 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ertapenem provides activity against many pathogens commonly associated with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumoniae (HABP and VABP, respectively), including methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and numerous Gram-negative pathogens with one major gap in coverage, Pseudomonas aeruginosa Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) target attainment analyses were conducted to evaluate ertapenem against the most prevalent Enterobacteriaceae causing HABP/VABP. The objective of these analyses was to provide dose selection support for and demonstrate the appropriateness of ertapenem to empirically treat patients with HABP/VABP when administered with murepavadin, a novel targeted antimicrobial exhibiting a highly specific spectrum of activity against P. aeruginosa A previously developed population pharmacokinetic model, a total-drug epithelial lining fluid (ELF) to free-drug serum penetration ratio, contemporary in vitro surveillance data for ertapenem against Enterobacteriaceae, and percentage of the dosing interval for which drug concentrations exceed the MIC value (%T>MIC) targets associated with efficacy were used to conduct Monte Carlo simulations for five ertapenem regimens administered over short or prolonged durations of infusion. Overall total-drug ELF percent probabilities of PK-PD target attainment based on a %T>MIC target of 35% among simulated patients with HABP/VABP arising from Enterobacteriaceae based on pathogen prevalence data for nosocomial pneumonia ranged from 89.1 to 92.7% for all five ertapenem regimens evaluated. Total-drug ELF percent probabilities of PK-PD target attainment ranged from 99.8 to 100%, 97.9 to 100%, 10.6 to 74.1%, and 0 to 1.50% at MIC values of 0.06, 0.12, 1, and 4 μg/ml, respectively (MIC90 values for Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Enterobacter species, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, respectively). Results of these analyses provide support for the evaluation of ertapenem in combination with murepavadin for the treatment of patients with HABP/VABP.
| S-EPMC6535521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMultiple randomized controlled trials exploring the outcomes of patients with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia have noted that hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients who require subsequent ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia suffered higher mortality than either those who did not (nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia) or had ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. We examined the epidemiology and outcomes of all three conditions in a large U.S. database.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingTwo hundred fifty-three acute-care hospitals, United States, contributing data (including microbiology) to Premier database, 2012-2019.PatientsPatients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia identified based on a slightly modified previously published International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition/International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition-Clinical Modification algorithm.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAmong 17,819 patients who met enrollment criteria, 26.5% had nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, 25.6% vHAPB, and 47.9% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia predominated in the Northeastern United States and in large urban teaching hospitals. Patients with nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia were oldest (mean 66.7 ± 15.1 yr) and most likely White (76.9%), whereas those with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were youngest (59.7 ± 16.6 yr) and least likely White (70.3%). Ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia was associated with the highest comorbidity burden (mean Charlson score 4.1 ± 2.8) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia with the lowest (3.2 ± 2.5). Similarly, hospital mortality was highest among patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (29.2%) and lowest in nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (11.7%), with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in-between (21.3%). Among survivors, 24.5% of nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia required a rehospitalization within 30 days of discharge, compared with 22.5% among ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and 18.8% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Unadjusted hospital length of stay after infection onset was longest among ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and shortest among nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients. Median total hospital costs mirrored length of stay: ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia $77,657, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $62,464, and nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $39,911.ConclusionsBoth hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remain associated with significant mortality and cost in the United States. Our analyses confirm that of all three conditions, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia carries the highest risk of death. In contrast, ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remains most costly. Nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia survivors were most likely to require a readmission within 30 days of discharge.
| S-EPMC8855942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResistant bacterial infections, particularly those caused by gram-negative pathogens, are associated with high mortality and economic burdens. Ceftolozane/tazobactam demonstrated efficacy comparable to meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the ASPECT-NP study. One cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States revealed that ceftolozane/tazobactam was cost effective, but no Japanese studies have been conducted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem for patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia from a health care payer perspective.MethodsA hybrid decision-tree Markov decision-analytic model with a 5-year time horizon were developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years and to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clinical outcomes were based on the ASPECT-NP study, costs were based on the national fee schedule of 2022, and utilities were based on published data. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also conducted to assess the robustness of our modeled estimates.ResultsAccording to our base-case analysis, compared with meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam increased the total costs by 424,731.22 yen (£2,626.96) and increased the quality-adjusted life-years by 0.17, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2,548,738 yen (£15,763.94) per quality-adjusted life-year gained for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained below 5,000,000 yen (£30,925) for most of the parameters, the incremental net monetary benefit may have been less than 0 depending on the treatment efficacy outcome, especially the cure rate and mortality rate for MEPM and mortality rate for CTZ/TAZ. 53.4% of the PSA simulations demonstrated that CTZ/TAZ was more cost-effective than MEPM was.ConclusionAlthough incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below ￥5,000,000 in base-case analysis, whether ceftolozane/tazobactam is a cost-effective alternative to meropenem for ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in Japan remains uncertain. Future research should examine the unobserved heterogeneity across patient subgroups and decision-making settings, to characterise decision uncertainty and its consequences so as to assess whether additional research is required.
| S-EPMC10976789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trials for antibiotics designed to treat hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonias (HABP/VABP) are hampered by making these diagnoses in a way that is acceptable to the United States Food and Drug Administration and consistent with standards of care. We examined laboratory and clinical features that might improve pediatric HABP/VABP trial efficiency by identifying risk factors predisposing children to HABP/VABP and describing the epidemiology of pediatric HABP/VABP.MethodsWe prospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of patients <18 years of age admitted to intensive and intermediate care units (ICUs) if they received qualifying respiratory support or were started on antibiotics for a lower respiratory tract infection or undifferentiated sepsis. Subjects were followed until HABP/VABP was diagnosed or they were discharged from the ICU. Clinical, laboratory and imaging data were abstracted using structured chart review. We calculated HABP/VABP incidence and used a stepwise backward selection multivariable model to identify risk factors associated with development of HABP/VABP.ResultsA total of 862 neonates, infants and children were evaluated for development of HABP/VABP; 10% (82/800) of those receiving respiratory support and 12% (103/862) overall developed HABP/VABP. Increasing age, shorter height/length, longer ICU length of stay, aspiration risk, blood product transfusion in the prior 7 days and frequent suctioning were associated with increased odds of HABP/VABP. The use of noninvasive ventilation and gastric acid suppression were both associated with decreased odds of HABP/VABP.ConclusionsFood and Drug Administration-defined HABP/VABP occurred in 10%-12% of pediatric patients admitted to ICUs. Risk factors vary by age group.
| S-EPMC8293907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the phase III RESTORE-IMI 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02493764), the combination antibacterial agent imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) demonstrated noninferiority to piperacillin/tazobactam for the end points of all-cause mortality at day 28 and favorable clinical response at the early follow-up visit in adult participants with gram-negative hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Existing population pharmacokinetic models for imipenem (IPM) and REL were updated using data from patients with HABP/VABP from RESTORE-IMI 2. Creatinine clearance (CrCl), body weight, infection type, and ventilation status were significant covariates in the updated model. The following simulations were performed to calculate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic joint probability of target attainment among patients with HABP/VABP and varying degrees of renal function: augmented renal clearance (CrCl ≥150 ml/min), normal renal function (CrCl ≥90 to <150 ml/min), renal impairment (mild, CrCl ≥60 to <90 ml/min; moderate, CrCl ≥30 to <60 ml/min; or severe, CrCl ≥15 to <30 ml/min), and end-stage renal disease (CrCl <15 ml/min). At the recommended IMI/REL dosing regimens across renal categories, greater than 90% of patients in all renal function groups were predicted to achieve joint pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets at a minimum inhibitory concentration breakpoint of ≤2 μg/ml, regardless of ventilation status. This modeling and simulation analysis supports use of the recommended IMI/REL dosing regimens, adjusted based on renal function, in patients with HABP/VABP.
| S-EPMC8841461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDesirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach to clinical trial design and analysis that uses an ordinal ranking system to incorporate the overall risks and benefits of a therapeutic intervention into a single measurement. Here we derived and evaluated a disease-specific DOOR endpoint for registrational trials for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP).MethodsThrough comprehensive examination of data from nearly 4000 participants enrolled in six registrational trials for HABP/VABP submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2005 and 2022, we derived and applied a HABP/VABP specific endpoint. We estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment arm would have a more favorable overall DOOR or component outcome than a participant assigned to comparator.ResultsDOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 48.3% to 52.9% and were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the component analyses. Although infectious complications and serious adverse events occurred more frequently in ventilated participants compared to non-ventilated participants, the types of events were similar.ConclusionsThrough a data-driven approach, we constructed and applied a potential DOOR endpoint for HABP/VABP trials. The inclusion of syndrome-specific events may help to better delineate and evaluate participant experiences and outcomes in future HABP/VABP trials and could help inform data collection and trial design.
| S-EPMC11259224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe clinical efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) has been demonstrated in the phase III randomised controlled trial ASPECT-NP. However, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam for vHABP/VABP. These nosocomial infections are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, and are increasingly complicated by growing rates of resistance and the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. This study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem for the treatment of vHABP/VABP in a US hospital setting.MethodsA short-term decision tree followed by a long-term Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with vHABP/VABP. Pathogen susceptibility and clinical efficacy were informed by the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database and ASPECT-NP, respectively. A US healthcare sector perspective was adopted, capturing direct costs borne by third-party payers or integrated health systems, and direct health effects for patients.ResultsIn the confirmed treatment setting (post-susceptibility results), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem was US$12,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); this reduced when used in the early treatment setting (before susceptibility results) at $4775/QALY.ConclusionCeftolozane/tazobactam represents a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with vHABP/VABP versus meropenem when used in either the confirmed or early treatment setting; with increased cost-effectiveness shown in the early setting.
| S-EPMC8034281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is the most common health care-associated infection contributing to death. Studies have indicated that there may be differences in the causative pathogens and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and non-ventilator-associated pneumonia (NV-HAP). However, with limited NV-HAP-specific data available, treatment is generally based on data from studies of VAP. The Phase 3 Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (ATTAIN) studies were two double-blind randomized controlled trials that demonstrated the non-inferiority of telavancin to vancomycin for treatment of Gram-positive HAP. We conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in the ATTAIN studies who had NV-HAP.MethodsData from the two ATTAIN studies were pooled, and patients with NV-HAP were analyzed. The all-treated (AT) population consisted of all randomized patients who received ≥1 dose of study medication, and the clinically evaluable (CE) population consisted of AT patients who were protocol-adherent or who died on or after study day 3, where death was attributable to the HAP episode under study. The primary endpoint was clinical response (cure, failure, or indeterminate) at the follow-up/test of cure visit, conducted 7-14 days after the end of therapy.ResultsA total of 1,076 patients (71.6% of overall ATTAIN AT population) had NV-HAP (533 and 543 patients in the telavancin and vancomycin treatment groups, respectively). Clinical cure rates in the CE population were similar for patients with NV-HAP treated with telavancin and vancomycin (83.1% [201/242] and 84.1% [233/277], respectively). In patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated at baseline, cure rates in the CE population were 74.8% (77/103) for telavancin and 79.3% (96/121) for vancomycin. The incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths in patients with NV-HAP was similar whether patients received telavancin or vancomycin.ConclusionThis post hoc subgroup analysis of the ATTAIN studies demonstrated similar cure rates for telavancin and vancomycin for treatment of NV-HAP.
| S-EPMC4035308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP.MethodsIn this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsOverall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, -1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, -7.6%; 97.5% CI: -15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively.ConclusionsTedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated.Clinical trials registrationNCT02019420.
| S-EPMC8326538 | biostudies-literature