Impact of a multifaceted prevention program on ventilator-associated pneumonia including selective oropharyngeal decontamination.

PURPOSE: We describe the impact of a multifaceted program for decreasing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) after implementing nine preventive measures, including selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD). METHODS: We compared VAP rates during an 8-month pre-intervention period, a 12-month intervention period, and an 11-month post-intervention period in a cohort of patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) for > 48 h. The primary objective was to assess the effect on first VAP occurrence, using a Cox cause-specific proportional hazards model. Secondary objectives included the impact on emergence of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotic consumption, duration of MV, and ICU mortality. RESULTS: Pre-intervention, intervention and post-intervention VAP rates were 24.0, 11.0 and 3.9 VAP episodes per 1000 ventilation-days, respectively. VAP rates decreased by 56% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.65; P < 0.001] in the intervention and by 85% (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.27; P < 0.001) in the post-intervention periods. During the intervention period, VAP rates decreased by 42% (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87; P < 0.001) after implementation of eight preventive measures without SOD, and by 70% after adding SOD (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13-0.72; P < 0.001) compared to the pre-intervention period. The incidence density of intrinsically resistant bacteria (to colistin or tobramycin) did not increase. We documented a significant reduction of days of therapy per 1000 patient-days of broad-spectrum antibiotic used to treat lower respiratory tract infection (P < 0.028), median duration of MV (from 7.1 to 6.4 days; P < 0.003) and ICU mortality (from 16.2 to 13.5%; P < 0.049) for patients ventilated > 48 h between the pre- and post-intervention periods. CONCLUSIONS: Our preventive program produced a sustained decrease in VAP incidence. SOD provides an additive value.

Study design, methodology and statistical analyses in the clinical development of sparfloxacin.

Many publications in the past 10 years have emphasised the difficulties of evaluating anti-infective drugs and the need for well-designed clinical trials in this therapeutic field. The clinical development of sparfloxacin in Europe, involving more than 4000 patients in ten countries, provided the opportunity to implement a methodology for evaluation and statistical analyses which would take into account actual requirements and past insufficiencies. This methodology focused on a rigorous and accurate patient classification for evaluability, subgroups of particular interest, efficacy assessment based on automation (algorithm) and individual case review by expert panel committees. In addition, the statistical analyses did not use significance testing but rather confidence intervals to determine whether sparfloxacin was therapeutically equivalent to the reference comparator antibacterial agents.

Phase II trial of docetaxel in advanced anthracycline-resistant or anthracenedione-resistant breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to doxorubicin or mitoxantrone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 was administered as a 1-hour intravenous (IV) infusion every 3 weeks to 42 patients registered at four centers. Patients must have received at least one but no more than two prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC (in addition to any prior adjuvant therapy). One of the regimens for metastatic breast cancer must have included an anthracycline or anthracenedione and the cancer must have progressed on that regimen. RESULTS: Objective responses were seen in 20 of 35 assessable patients (three complete responses [CRs] and 17 partial responses [PRs]), for an objective response rate of 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39% to 74%) and in 21 of 42 registered patients (50% response rate [RR]; 95% CI, 34% to 66%) entered onto the trial. The median response duration was 28 weeks. The most common toxicity in this study was grade 4 neutropenia, which occurred in 95% of patients. Other clinically significant nonhematologic side effects included stomatitis, skin reactions, neurosensory changes, asthenia, and fluid retention. Patients who received dexamethasone premedication had a later onset of fluid retention than those who did not receive dexamethasone (onset at a median cumulative docetaxel dose of 503 mg/m2 and 291 mg/m2, respectively). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel at this dose and schedule has a high level of antitumor activity in patients with treatment-refractory advanced breast cancer, and appears to be one of the most active agents for the treatment of this patient population.