Harriet Sommer

Accuracy of FENO for diagnosing asthma: a systematic review

Background Measurement of FENO might substitute bronchial provocation for diagnosing asthma. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of FENO measurement compared with established reference standard. Methods Systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Data sources were Medline, Embase and Scopus up to 29 November 2015. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate model. Additionally, summary receiver-operating characteristic curves were estimated. Results 26 studies with 4518 participants (median 113) were included. Risk of bias was considered low for six of seven items in five studies and for five items in seven studies. The overall sensitivity in the meta-analysis was 0.65 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.72), the overall specificity 0.82 (0.76 to 0.86), the diagnostic OR 9.23 (6.55 to 13.01) and the area under the curve 0.80 (0.77 to 0.85). In meta-regression analyses, higher cut-off values were associated with increasing specificity (OR 1.46 per 10 ppb increase in cut-off) while there was no association with sensitivity. Sensitivities varied significantly within the different FENO devices, but not specificities. Neither prevalence, age, use of bronchoprovocation in >90% of participants or as exclusive reference standard test, nor risk of bias were significantly associated with diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions There appears to be a fair accuracy of FENO for making the diagnosis of asthma. The overall specificity was higher than sensitivity, which indicates a higher diagnostic potential for ruling in than for ruling out the diagnosis of asthma.

The porcine valve type predicts obstructive thrombosis beyond the first three postoperative months in bioprostheses in the aortic position

BACKGROUND Obstructive thrombosis of bioprosthetic valves is considered rare but may have dramatic consequences for the individual patient including repeat valve replacement, thrombolysis, or long-term anticoagulation. Whether the risk of obstructive thrombosis is dependent on the type of bioprosthesis (porcine versus bovine pericardial) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS Between 2007 and 2012 a total of 1751 patients received a single stented bioprosthesis in the aortic valve position, 749 (43%) were porcine and 1002 (57%) bovine. During a mean follow-up of 3.4±1.9years, obstructive thrombosis (identified by an increase in mean pressure gradient≥20mm Hg or a decrease in velocity ratio≥0.05 and confirmed by either ECG-gated computer tomography, a return to baseline of stenosis parameters under treatment with a vitamin K antagonist, or histology in case of reoperation) was diagnosed in 17 patients with a porcine (2.3%) and none with a bovine valve (p<0.001). The cumulative probability of developing an obstructive thrombosis was significantly higher in patients with a porcine valve (p<0.001 log-rank test). Adjusting for differences in baseline variables and stratification by the estimated propensity score showed that strata with a high probability of receiving a bovine valve had the highest number of obstructive thrombosis in porcine valves. These findings were further confirmed in a Poisson model and a competing risk model including all-cause mortality. Treatment of obstructive thrombosis with a vitamin K antagonist was safe and effective in 15/17 patients. CONCLUSION The porcine valve type is an independent predictor of obstructive thrombosis in bioprostheses in the aortic position.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for acute Lyme neuroborreliosis - a systematic review.

Our aim was to evaluate the available evidence for pharmacological treatment of acute Lyme neuroborreliosis as a basis for evidence‐based clinical recommendations in a systematic review.

Appropriate endpoints for evaluation of new antibiotic therapies for severe infections: a perspective from COMBACTE’s STAT-Net

PurposeIn this era of rising antimicrobial resistance, slowly refilling antibiotic development pipelines, and an aging population, we need to ensure that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) determine the added benefit of new antibiotic agents effectively and in a valid way, especially for severely ill patients. Unfortunately, universally accepted endpoints for the evaluation of new drugs in severe infections are lacking.MethodsWe review and discuss the current practices and challenges regarding endpoints in RCTs in this field and propose novel approaches.ResultsUsual endpoints actually recommended for drug development suffer from important flaws. Mortality requires large sample size and only partly related to the infectious process. Clinical cure rate is highly subjective in critically ill patients where symptoms may be related to other intercurrent events. Currently, composite endpoints, hierarchical nested designs, and competing risks analysis seem to be the most promising new tools for designing and analyzing clinical trials in this area, although they require further validation.ConclusionRegulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and clinicians need to agree on the most appropriate clinical endpoints for severe infections to ensure efficient approval of new, effective antibiotic agents.

Treatment as Required versus Regular Monthly Treatment in the Management of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background To investigate whether treatment as required ‘pro re nata’ (PRN) versus regular monthly treatment regimens lead to differences in outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Regular monthly administration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors is an established gold standard treatment, but this approach is costly. Replacement of monthly by PRN treatment can only be justified if there is no difference in patient relevant outcomes. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis. The intervention was PRN treatment and the comparator was monthly treatment with VEGF-inhibitors. Four bibliographic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing both treatment regimens directly (head-to-head studies). The last literature search was conducted in December 2014. Risk of bias assessment was performed after the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Findings We included 3 head-to-head studies (6 reports) involving more than 2000 patients. After 2 years, the weighted mean difference in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 1.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 3.3) ETDRS letters in favour of monthly treatment. Systemic adverse events were higher in PRN treated patients, but these differences were not statistically significant. After 2 years, the total number of intravitreal injections required by the patients in the PRN arms were 8.4 (95% CI 7.9 to 8.9) fewer than those having monthly treatment. The studies were considered to have a moderate risk of bias. Conclusions PRN treatment resulted in minor but statistically significant decrease in mean BCVA which may not be clinically meaningful. There is a small increase in risk of systemic adverse events for PRN treated patients. Overall, the results indicate that an individualized treatment approach with anti-VEGF using visual acuity and OCT-guided re-treatment criteria may be appropriate for most patients with nAMD.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for neuroborreliosis—protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundNeuroborreliosis is a tick-borne infectious disease of the nervous system caused by Borrelia burgdorferi. Common clinical manifestations of neuroborreliosis are cranial nerve dysfunctions, polyradiculoneuritis, and meningitis. Diagnosis is usually based on clinical presentation, serologic testing, and analysis of cerebrospinal fluid. Many aspects of pharmacological treatment, such as choice of drug, dosage, and duration are subject of intense debate, leading to uncertainties in patients and healthcare providers alike. To approach the questions regarding pharmacological treatment of neuroborreliosis, we will perform a systematic review.MethodsWe will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search for potentially eligible studies that report outcomes after pharmacological interventions. To adequately consider the wealth of research that has been conducted so far, this review will evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies on treatment of neuroborreliosis. We will assess potential risk of bias for each RCT meeting our selection criteria using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. For non-randomized studies, we will use the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the recently piloted Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies. Our primary outcome of interest will be neurological symptoms and the secondary outcomes will be disability, patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, and, if reported separately from other neurological symptoms, pain, fatigue, depression, cognition, and sleep), adverse events, and cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis. Pooling of data and meta-analysis will only be deemed justified between studies with similar design (e.g., RCTs are only combined with other RCTs), characteristics (e.g., similar populations), and of acceptable heterogeneity (I2 < 80%). Pooled estimates will be calculated using RevMan software. Prespecified subgroup analyses will evaluate groups of antibiotics, length of antibiotic treatment, and different doses of doxycycline. We will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.DiscussionThis systematic review will summarize the available evidence from RCTs and non-randomized studies regarding pharmacological treatment of neuroborreliosis. The available evidence will be summarized and discussed to provide a basis for decision-making for patients and healthcare professionals.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42014008839

Surveillance for control of antimicrobial resistance

Antimicrobial resistance poses a growing threat to public health and the provision of health care. Its surveillance should provide up-to-date and relevant information to monitor the appropriateness of therapy guidelines, antibiotic formulary, antibiotic stewardship programmes, public health interventions, infection control policies, and antimicrobial development. In Europe, although the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network provides annual reports on monitored resistant bacteria, national surveillance efforts are still fragmented and heterogeneous, and have substantial structural problems and issues with laboratory data. Most incidence and prevalence data cannot be linked with relevant epidemiological, clinical, or outcome data. Genetic typing, to establish whether trends of antimicrobial resistance are caused by spread of resistant strains or by transfer of resistance determinants among different strains and species, is not routinely done. Furthermore, laboratory-based surveillance using only clinical samples is not likely to be useful as an early warning system for emerging pathogens and resistance mechanisms. Insufficient coordination of surveillance systems of human antimicrobial resistance with animal surveillance systems is even more concerning. Because results from food surveillance are considered commercially sensitive, they are rarely released publicly by regulators. Inaccurate or incomplete surveillance data delay a translational approach to the threat of antimicrobial resistance and inhibit the identification of relevant target microorganisms and populations for research and the revitalisation of dormant drug-discovery programmes. High-quality, comprehensive, and real-time surveillance data are essential to reduce the burden of antimicrobial resistance. Improvement of national antimicrobial resistance surveillance systems and better alignment between human and veterinary surveillance systems in Europe must become a scientific and political priority, coordinated with international stakeholders within a global approach to reduce the burden of antimicrobial resistance.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the treatment of erythema migrans in early Lyme borreliosis—systematic review protocol

BackgroundErythema migrans represents an early cutaneous and most common manifestation of Lyme borreliosis. Recommendations regarding pharmacological agents, dose and duration of treatment are subject of intense debate. This review aims to explore differences in efficacy and safety between pharmacological treatments and control treatment.MethodsTo identify relevant studies, we will conduct a systematic literature search. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Eligible comparative studies need to (1) consider patients with a diagnosis of erythema migrans resulting from Lyme borreliosis and (2) compare different pharmacological agents against each other, against any other non-pharmacological treatment, placebo or no treatment. Two review authors will independently assess included studies for risk of bias according to the methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and related to specific study designs. We will address patient-relevant outcomes including clinical remission of cutaneous symptoms, any treatment-related adverse events, quality of life and progressive symptoms such as neuroborreliosis or Lyme carditis and flu-like symptoms. Provided that the identified trials are comparable in terms of clinical issues, combined estimates will be provided. Estimations of treatment effects will be calculated based on a random effects model. Heterogeneity will be evaluated based on I2 and chi-square test. In case of significant heterogeneity, a pooled estimate will not be provided, but heterogeneity will be investigated on the basis of methodological and clinical study aspects. We plan subgroup analysis to reveal potential differences in the effect estimates between patient populations and treatment specifications. We will consider risk of bias using sensitivity analyses to decide whether to rely on the pooled estimates. The quality of a body of evidence for individual outcomes will be assessed using the GRADE approach.DiscussionBenefits and harms of pharmacological treatment in erythema migrans have not yet been adequately assessed. This systematic review will evaluate and summarise available evidence addressing benefits and harms of different pharmacological treatments. In addition, this summary of clinical evidence will inform decision-making between clinicians and patients and will play an important part in patient care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42016037932

The time‐dependent “cure‐death” model investigating two equally important endpoints simultaneously in trials treating high‐risk patients with resistant pathogens

A variety of primary endpoints are used in clinical trials treating patients with severe infectious diseases, and existing guidelines do not provide a consistent recommendation. We propose to study simultaneously two primary endpoints, cure and death, in a comprehensive multistate cure-death model as starting point for a treatment comparison. This technique enables us to study the temporal dynamic of the patient-relevant probability to be cured and alive. We describe and compare traditional and innovative methods suitable for a treatment comparison based on this model. Traditional analyses using risk differences focus on one prespecified timepoint only. A restricted logrank-based test of treatment effect is sensitive to ordered categories of responses and integrates information on duration of response. The pseudo-value regression provides a direct regression model for examination of treatment effect via difference in transition probabilities. Applied to a topical real data example and simulation scenarios, we demonstrate advantages and limitations and provide an insight into how these methods can handle different kinds of treatment imbalances. The cure-death model provides a suitable framework to gain a better understanding of how a new treatment influences the time-dynamic cure and death process. This might help the future planning of randomised clinical trials, sample size calculations, and data analyses.

Evaluating mortality in an intensive care unit requires extended survival models

In a recent issue of Critical Care, we read with great interest that admission at nighttime is associated with poor outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) [1]. However, Ju and colleagues showed cumulative survival plots predicting a poor survival in the ICU of less than 20% after 2,000 ICU-hours for patients for both groups (nighttime or office time) despite the fact that 148 out of 175 patients (84.6%) survived the ICU (nighttime group) and patients admitted during office time have even an ICU survival of 96.4%. These large discrepancies are very confusing for the reader. We argue that this result is subject to a common type of survival bias [2], which we explain as follows. A fundamental assumption for calculating Kaplan-Meier survival curves is that censoring is non-informative in the sense that the hazard of death remains unchanged when a censoring event occurs. Presumably, the authors treated discharged patients as censored (displayed as crosses in their figures [1]). It is obvious that this assumption does not hold since discharged patients are usually in a better health condition than patients who stay in the ICU. This wrong assumption led to artificially reduced survival plots. The statistical solution for this is to treat discharge as a competing event for death in the ICU [2], [3] since the cumulative probability of death in the ICU depends not only on the ICU death hazard rate but also on the discharge rate. Evaluating ICU mortality requires advanced statistical methods. Incorrect results may lead to wrong conclusions for clinicians and finally impact patient care. For that reason, it is crucial to have adequate and valid predictions for this important clinical outcome in hospital epidemiology.