Dataset Information

Posaconazole for prevention of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill influenza patients (POSA-FLU): a randomised, open-label, proof-of-concept trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) is a frequent complication in critically ill influenza patients, associated with significant mortality. We investigated whether antifungal prophylaxis reduces the incidence of IAPA.

Methods

We compared 7 days of intravenous posaconazole (POS) prophylaxis with no prophylaxis (standard-of-care only, SOC) in a randomised, open-label, proof-of-concept trial in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with respiratory failure due to influenza (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03378479). Adult patients with PCR-confirmed influenza were block randomised (1:1) within 10 days of symptoms onset and 48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was the incidence of IAPA during ICU stay in patients who did not have IAPA within 48 h of ICU admission (modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population).

Results

Eighty-eight critically ill influenza patients were randomly allocated to POS or SOC. IAPA occurred in 21 cases (24%), the majority of which (71%, 15/21) were diagnosed within 48 h of ICU admission, excluding them from the MITT population. The incidence of IAPA was not significantly reduced in the POS arm (5.4%, 2/37) compared with SOC (11.1%, 4/36; between-group difference 5.7%; 95% CI - 10.8 to 21.7; p = 0.32). ICU mortality of early IAPA was high (53%), despite rapid antifungal treatment.

Conclusion

The higher than expected incidence of early IAPA precludes any definite conclusion on POS prophylaxis. High mortality of early IAPA, despite timely antifungal therapy, indicates that alternative management strategies are required. After 48 h, still 11% of patients developed IAPA. As these could benefit from prophylaxis, differentiated strategies are likely needed to manage IAPA in the ICU.

SUBMITTER: Vanderbeke L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8164057 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The underlying pathophysiology in intellectual disability (ID) involves abnormalities in dendritic branching and connectivity of the neuronal network. This limits the ability of the brain to process information. Conceptually, cellular therapy through its neurorestorative and neuroregenerative properties can counteract these pathogenetic mechanisms and improve neuronal connectivity. This improved networking should exhibit as clinical efficacy in patients with ID. METHODS:To assess the safety and efficacy of cellular therapy in patients with ID, we conducted an open-label proof-of-concept study from October 2011 to December 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: intervention group (n?=?29) and rehabilitation group (n?=?29). The intervention group underwent cellular transplantation consisting of intrathecal administration of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells and standard neurorehabilitation. The rehabilitation group underwent only standard neurorehabilitation. The results of the symptomatic outcomes were compared between the two groups. In the intervention group analysis, the outcome measures used were the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the Wee Functional Independence Measure (Wee-FIM). To compare the pre-intervention and post-intervention results, statistical analysis was done using Wilcoxon's matched-pairs test for Wee-FIM scores and McNemar's test for symptomatic improvements and IQ. The effect of age and severity of the disorder were assessed for their impact on the outcome of intervention. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) brain scan was used as a monitoring tool to study effects of the intervention. Adverse events were monitored for the safety of cellular therapy. RESULTS:On symptomatic analysis, greater improvements were seen in the intervention group as compared to the rehabilitation group. In the intervention group, the symptomatic improvements, IQ and Wee-FIM were statistically significant. A significantly better outcome of the intervention was found in the paediatric age group (<18 years) and patients with milder severity of ID. Repeat PET-CT scan in three patients of the intervention group showed improved metabolism in the frontal, parietal cortex, thalamus, mesial temporal structures and cerebellum. No major adverse events were witnessed. CONCLUSIONS:Cellular transplantation with neurorehabilitation is safe and effective for the treatment of underlying brain deficits in ID. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02245724. Registered 12 September 2014.

Project description:IntroductionDeep sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes. We recently described a novel sedation-monitoring technology, the Responsiveness Index (RI), which quantifies patient arousal using processed frontal facial EMG data. We explored the potential effectiveness and safety of continuous RI monitoring during early intensive care unit (ICU) care as a nurse decision-support tool.MethodsIn a parallel-group controlled single centre proof of concept trial, patients requiring mechanical ventilation and sedation were randomized via sequential sealed envelopes following ICU admission. Control group patients received hourly clinical sedation assessment and daily sedation holds; the RI monitor was connected but data were concealed from clinical staff. The intervention group received control group care, but RI monitoring was visible and nurses were asked to adjust sedation to maintain patients with an RI>20 whenever possible. Traffic-light colour coding (RI<20, Red; 20-40, Amber; >40, Green) simplified decision-making. The intervention lasted up to 48 hours. Sixteen nurses were interviewed to explore their views of the novel technology.ResultsWe analysed 74 patients treated per protocol (36 intervention; 38 control). The proportion of patients with RI<20 was identical at the start of monitoring (54% both groups). Overall, the proportion of time with RI<20 trended to lower values for the intervention group (median 16% (1-3rd quartile 8-30%) versus 33% (10-54%); P = 0.08); sedation and analgesic use was similar. A post hoc analysis restricted to patients with RI<20 when monitoring started, found intervention patients spent less time with low RI value (16% (11-45%) versus 51% (33-72%); P = 0.02), cumulative propofol use trended to lower values (median 1090 mg versus 2390 mg; P = 0.14), and cumulative alfentanil use was lower (21.2 mg versus 32.3 mg; P = 0.01). RASS scores were similar for both groups. Sedation related adverse event rates were similar (7/36 versus 5/38). Similar proportions of patients had sedation holds (83% versus 87 %) and were extubated (47% versus 44%) during the intervention period. Nurses valued the objective visible data trends and simple colour prompts, and found RI monitoring a useful adjunct to existing practice.ConclusionsRI monitoring was safe and acceptable. Data suggested potential to modify sedation decision-making. Larger trials are justified to explore effects on patient-centred outcomes.Trial registrationNCT01361230 (registered April 19, 2010).