Dataset Information

Clinical Outcomes of Patient Subgroups in the TANGO II Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Meropenem-vaborbactam (M-V), a new approved antimicrobial, was developed specifically to be effective treatment for the increasingly prevalent and difficult to treat carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) infections. However, registration phase 3 clinical studies offer limited applicability to daily medical practice as they often focus on indications such as urinary tract infections or skin and soft tissue infections, which generally have patients with fewer comorbid conditions that the typical patients who develops infection with CRE. The more useful studies are pathogen-focused trials which do not exclude the more complicated subjects with conditions such as renal failure, immunocompromised status, or exposure to prior antibiotic therapy.

Methods

The TANGO II study was an open-label investigation of M-V compared with the best available treatment (BAT) in hospitalized adults with a confirmed infection that was known or suspected to be a CRE infection. TANGO II specifically included patients with comorbidities, prior antibiotic therapy, renal failure, and immunocompromised status that are typical in patients with a CRE infection. Interim data analysis indicated that a significant benefit was seen for those patients receiving M-V over BAT. This analysis reports on subsets of TANGO II study patients with multiple comorbidities and high severity of illness, specifically those with prior antibiotic therapy, renal failure, and immunocompromised status. A patient case that highlights particular complexities and challenges of treating patients with CRE infections in the real world is also presented.

Results

Subjects with comorbid conditions had better outcomes when given M-V rather than BAT.

Conclusion

M-V is a welcome addition to the antibiotic armamentarium for the treatment of severe CRE infections in complicated patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02168946.

SUBMITTER: Bhowmick T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7872113 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The DEFUSE 3 randomized clinical trial previously demonstrated benefit of endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke in the 6- to 16-hour time window. For treatment recommendations, it is important to know if the treatment benefit was universal. Objective:To determine the outcomes among patients who may have a reduced effect of thrombectomy, including those who are older, have milder symptoms, or present late. Design, Setting, and Participants:DEFUSE 3 was a randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial conducted from May 2016 to May 2017. This multicenter study included 38 sites in the United States. Of 296 patients who were enrolled in DEFUSE 3, 182 patients met all inclusion criteria and were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, which was conducted in August 2017. These patients had acute ischemic strokes due to an occlusion of the internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery and evidence of salvageable tissue on perfusion computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. The study was stopped early for efficacy. Interventions:Endovascular thrombectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone. Main Outcomes and Measures:Functional outcome at day 90, assessed on the modified Rankin Scale. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted proportional association between endovascular treatment and clinical outcome (shift in the distribution of modified Rankin Scale scores expressed as a common odds ratio) among patients of different ages, baseline stroke severities, onset-to-treatment times, locations of the arterial occlusion, and imaging modalities used to document the presence of salvageable tissue (computed tomography vs magnetic resonance imaging). Results:This study included 182 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 70 [59-80] years; median [interquartile range] National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 16 [11-21], and 92 women [51%]). In the overall cohort, independent predictors of better functional outcome were younger age, lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and lower serum glucose level. The common odds ratio for improved functional outcome with endovascular therapy, adjusted for these variables, was 3.1 (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). There was no significant interaction between this treatment effect and age (P = .93), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (P = .87), time to randomization (P = .56), imaging modality (P = .49), or location of the arterial occlusion (P = .54). Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular thrombectomy, initiated up to 16 hours after last known well time in patients with salvageable tissue on perfusion imaging, benefits patients with a broad range of clinical features. Owing to the small sample size of this study, a pooled analysis of late time window endovascular stroke trials is needed to confirm these results. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02586415.

Project description:Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to assess the effectiveness of elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, little is known about how PROMs scores change over time in these patients. The aim of this study was to identify the trajectories of quality of life and joint functioning, and their associated demographic and clinical features in patients undergoing elective TKA. Methods A prospective, cohort study was conducted, in which PROMs questionnaires (Euro Quality 5 Dimensions 3L, EQ-5D-3L, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Patient Satisfaction, KOOS-PS) were administered to patients at a single center undergoing elective TKA before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Latent class growth mixture models were used to analyze the patterns of change in PROMs scores over time. Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate the association between patient characteristics and PROMs trajectories. Results A total of 564 patients were included in the study. The analysis highlighted differential patterns of improvement after TKA. Three distinct PROMs trajectories were identified for each PROMs questionnaire, with one trajectory indicating the most favorable outcome. Female gender appears to be associated with a presentation to surgery with worse perceived quality of life and joint function than males, but also more rapid improvement after surgery. Having an ASA score greater than 3 is instead associated with a worse functional recovery after TKA. Conclusion The results suggest three main PROMs trajectories in patients undergoing elective TKA. Most patients reported improved quality of life and joint functioning at 6 months, which then stabilized. However, other subgroups showed more varied trajectories. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to explore the potential clinical implications of these results. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06373-2.

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical practice, the bodily distribution of chronic pain is often used in conjunction with other signs and symptoms to support a diagnosis or treatment plan. For example, the diagnosis of fibromyalgia involves tallying the areas of pain that a patient reports using a drawn body map. It remains unclear whether patterns of pain distribution independently inform aspects of the pain experience and influence patient outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of patterns of pain distribution using an algorithmic approach agnostic to diagnosis or patient-reported facets of the pain experience.Methods and findingsA large cohort of patients (N = 21,658) completed pain body maps and a multi-dimensional pain assessment. Using hierarchical clustering of patients by body map selection alone, nine distinct subgroups emerged with different patterns of body region selection. Clinician review of cluster body maps recapitulated some clinically-relevant patterns of pain distribution, such as low back pain with radiation below the knee and widespread pain, as well as some unique patterns. Demographic and medical characteristics, pain intensity, pain impact, and neuropathic pain quality all varied significantly across cluster subgroups. Multivariate modeling demonstrated that cluster membership independently predicted pain intensity and neuropathic pain quality. In a subset of patients who completed 3-month follow-up questionnaires (N = 7,138), cluster membership independently predicted the likelihood of improvement in pain, physical function, and a positive overall impression of change related to multidisciplinary pain care.ConclusionsThis study reports a novel method of grouping patients by pain distribution using an algorithmic approach. Pain distribution subgroup was significantly associated with differences in pain intensity, impact, and clinically relevant outcomes. In the future, algorithmic clustering by pain distribution may be an important facet in chronic pain biosignatures developed for the personalization of pain management.

Project description:BackgroundA medication review is a possibility to assess and optimise a patient's medicine. A model that includes a medication review and a follow-up seem to provide the best results. However, it is not known whether specific subgroups of patients benefit more from a medication review than others.ObjectiveThis literature review summarises the evidence that is available on which patient subgroups exist positive outcomes from a medication review carried out in a primary care setting.MethodsWe performed a PICO analysis to identify keywords for setting, medication review and effect. We then conducted a search using the PubMed database (2004 to 2019) to identify studies relevant for our investigation. A screening process was carried out based on either title or abstract, and any study that matched the aim and inclusion criteria was included. All matching studies were obtained and read, and were included if they met predefined criteria such as study design, medication review and primary care. The studies were divided into subgroups. First, each subgroup was divided according to the studies' own definition. Secondly, each subgroup was allocated as either risk patients if the subgroup described a specific patient subgroup or risk medication, if the subgroup was defined as using a specific type of medication. This was done after discussion in the author group.Results28 studies from a total of 935 studies were included. Identified studies were divided into either risk patients; frail, recently discharged or multimorbid patients, or risk medication; heart medication, antithrombotic medication, blood pressure lowering medication, antidiabetic medication, anti-Parkinson medication or medication increasing the risk of falls. The subgroups identified from a medication review in primary care were defined as being frail, recently discharged from hospital or multimorbid (risk patients), or defined as patients using anticoagulant or blood pressure lowering medication (risk medication). Most of the medication reviews in the studies that showed an economic effect included at least one follow-up and were delivered by a pharmacist.ConclusionsThe literature review demonstrates that medication reviews delivered by pharmacists to specific subgroups of patients are a way of optimising the economic effect of medication reviews in primary care. This is obtained by reducing health-related costs or the number of contacts with primary or secondary health care services.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial investigators may need to evaluate treatment effects in a specific subgroup (or subgroups) of participants in addition to reporting results of the entire study population. Such subgroups lack power to detect a treatment effect, but there may be strong justification for borrowing information from a larger patient group within the same trial, while allowing for differences between populations. Our aim was to develop methods for eliciting expert opinions about differences in treatment effect between patient populations, and to incorporate these opinions into a Bayesian analysis.MethodsWe used an interaction parameter to model the relationship between underlying treatment effects in two subgroups. Elicitation was used to obtain clinical opinions on the likely values of the interaction parameter, since this parameter is poorly informed by the data. Feedback was provided to experts to communicate how uncertainty about the interaction parameter corresponds with relative weights allocated to subgroups in the Bayesian analysis. The impact on the planned analysis was then determined.ResultsThe methods were applied to an ongoing non-inferiority trial designed to compare antiretroviral therapy regimens in 707 children living with HIV and weighing ≥ 14 kg, with an additional group of 85 younger children weighing < 14 kg in whom the treatment effect will be estimated separately. Expert clinical opinion was elicited and demonstrated that substantial borrowing is supported. Clinical experts chose on average to allocate a relative weight of 78% (reduced from 90% based on sample size) to data from children weighing ≥ 14 kg in a Bayesian analysis of the children weighing < 14 kg. The total effective sample size in the Bayesian analysis was 386 children, providing 84% predictive power to exclude a difference of more than 10% between arms, whereas the 85 younger children weighing < 14 kg provided only 20% power in a standalone frequentist analysis.ConclusionsBorrowing information from a larger subgroup or subgroups can facilitate estimation of treatment effects in small subgroups within a clinical trial, leading to improved power and precision. Informative prior distributions for interaction parameters are required to inform the degree of borrowing and can be informed by expert opinion. We demonstrated accessible methods for obtaining opinions.