Barriers, Solutions, and Opportunities for Adapting Critical Care Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation. Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking. Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.

Evaluating the impact of a SIMPlified LaYered consent process on recruitment of potential participants to the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial: study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic nested randomised clinical trial (SIMPLY-SNAP trial).

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent forms (ICFs) for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) can be onerous and lengthy. The process has the potential to overwhelm patients with information, leading them to miss elements of the study that are critical for an informed decision. Specifically, overly long and complicated ICFs have the potential to increase barriers to trial participation for patients with mild cognitive impairment, those who do not speak English as a first language or among those with lower medical literacy. In turn, this can influence trial recruitment, completion and external validity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SIMPLY-SNAP is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel-group superiority RCT, nested within a larger trial, the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial. We will randomise potentially eligible participants of the SNAP trial 1:1 to a full-length ICF or a SIMPlified LaYered (SIMPLY) consent process where basic information is summarised with embedded hyperlinks to supplemental information and videos. The primary outcome is recruitment into the SNAP trial. Secondary outcomes include patient understanding of the clinical trial, patient and research staff satisfaction with the consent process, and time taken for consent. As an exploratory outcome, we will also compare measures of diversity (eg, gender, ethnicity), according to the consent process randomised to. The planned sample size will be 346 participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics review board (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Research Ethics Board) at sites in Ontario. We will disseminate study results via the SNAP trial group and other collaborating clinical trial networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT06168474; www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov).

Association of delayed adequate antimicrobial treatment and organ dysfunction in pediatric bloodstream infections.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, including multiple organ dysfunction. We explored if delayed adequate antimicrobial treatment for children with BSIs is associated with change in organ dysfunction as measured by PELOD-2 scores. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of critically ill children <18 years old with BSIs. The primary outcome was change in PELOD-2 score between days 1 (index blood culture) and 5. The exposure variable was delayed administration of adequate antimicrobial therapy by ≥3 h from blood culture collection. We compared PELOD-2 score changes between those who received early and delayed treatment. RESULTS: Among 202 children, the median (interquartile range) time to adequate antimicrobial therapy was 7 (0.8-20.1) hours; 124 (61%) received delayed antimicrobial therapy. Patients who received early and delayed treatment had similar baseline characteristics. There was no significant difference in PELOD-2 score changes from days 1 and 5 between groups (PELOD-2 score difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.79, p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an association between delayed adequate antimicrobial therapy and PELOD-2 score changes between days 1 and 5 from detection of BSI. PELOD-2 score was not sensitive for clinical effects of delayed antimicrobial treatment. IMPACT: In critically ill children with bloodstream infections, there was no significant change in organ dysfunction as measured by PELOD-2 scores between patients who received adequate antimicrobial therapy within 3 h of their initial positive blood culture and those who started after 3 h. Higher PELOD-2 scores on day 1 were associated with larger differences in PELOD-2 scores between days 1 and 5 from index positive blood cultures. Further study is required to determine if PELOD-2 or alternative measures of organ dysfunction could be used as primary outcome measures in trials of antimicrobial interventions in pediatric critical care research.

Time required to initiate a clinical trial in Canada at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational research-in-motion study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide essential evidence to inform practice, but the many necessary steps result in lengthy times to initiation, which is problematic in the case of rapidly emerging infections such as COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the start-up timelines for the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) RCT. METHODS: We surveyed hospitals participating in CATCO and ethics submission sites using a structured data abstraction form. We measured durations from protocol receipt to site activation and to first patient enrolment, as well as durations of administrative processes, including research ethics board (REB) approval, contract execution and lead times between approvals to site activation. RESULTS: All 48 hospitals (26 academic, 22 community) and 4 ethics submission sites responded. The median time from protocol receipt to trial initiation was 111 days (interquartile range [IQR] 39-189 d, range 15-412 d). The median time between protocol receipt and REB submission was 41 days (IQR 10-56 d, range 4-195 d), from REB submission to approval, 4.5 days (IQR 1-12 d, range 0-169 d), from REB approval to site activation, 35 days (IQR 22-103 d, range 0-169 d), from protocol receipt to contract submission, 42 days (IQR 20-51 d, range 4-237 d), from contract submission to full contract execution, 24 days (IQR 15-58 d, range 5-164 d) and from contract execution to site activation, 10 days (IQR 6-27 d, range 0-216 d). Processes took longer in community hospitals than in academic hospitals. INTERPRETATION: The time required to initiate RCTs in Canada was lengthy and varied among sites. Adoption of template clinical trial agreements, greater harmonization or central coordination of ethics submissions, and long-term funding of platform trials that engage academic and community hospitals are potential solutions to improve trial start-up efficiency.

Non-inferiority trial of a shorter (7 days) compared with a longer (14 days) duration of antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of bacteraemic urinary sepsis, measured by microbiological success after the completion of therapy: a substudy protocol for the Bacteraemia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The BALANCE study is a randomised clinical trial (3626 participants) designed to assess the non-inferiority of 7 days (short-course) antibiotic therapy compared with 14 days of therapy for bacteraemia using the pragmatic endpoint of 90-day survival. Based on pilot study data, approximately 30% of enrolees will have a urinary tract infection (UTI) as the source of bacteraemia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to assess the non-inferiority of short-course antibiotic therapy for patients with bacteraemia UTIs.Participating sites in four countries will be invited to join this substudy. All participants of this substudy will be enrolled in the main BALANCE study. The intervention will be assigned and treatment administered as specified in the main protocol.We will include participants in this substudy if the probable source of their infection is a UTI, as judged by the site principal investigator, and they have a urine microscopy and culture indicative of a UTI. Participants will be excluded if they have an ileal loop, vesicoureteric reflux or suspected or confirmed prostatitis.The primary outcome is the absence of a positive culture on a test-of-cure urine sample collected 6-12 days after cessation of antimicrobials, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. Secondary outcomes include the clinical resolution of infection symptoms at test-of-cure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved in conjunction with the main BALANCE study through the relevant ethics review process at each participating site. We will disseminate the results through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, the Association for Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Canada Clinical Research Network (AMMI Canada CRN) and other collaborators. UNIVERSAL TRIAL NUMBER: U1111-1256-0874. MAIN BALANCE TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03005145. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian Clinical Trial Register: ACTRN12620001108909.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients.

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. Funding: Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Antibiotic treatment duration for bloodstream infections in critically ill children-A survey of pediatric infectious diseases and critical care clinicians for clinical equipoise.

OBJECTIVE: To describe antibiotic treatment durations that pediatric infectious diseases (ID) and critical care clinicians usually recommend for bloodstream infections in critically ill children. DESIGN: Anonymous, online practice survey using five common pediatric-based case scenarios of bloodstream infections. SETTING: Pediatric intensive care units in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Pediatric intensivists, nurse practitioners, ID physicians and pharmacists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recommended treatment durations for common infectious syndromes associated with bloodstream infections and willingness to enrol patients into a trial to study treatment duration. RESULTS: Among 136 survey respondents, most recommended at least 10 days antibiotics for bloodstream infections associated with: pneumonia (65%), skin/soft tissue (74%), urinary tract (64%) and intra-abdominal infections (drained: 90%; undrained: 99%). For central vascular catheter-associated infections without catheter removal, over 90% clinicians recommended at least 10 days antibiotics, except for infections caused by coagulase negative staphylococci (79%). Recommendations for at least 10 days antibiotics were less common with catheter removal. In multivariable linear regression analyses, lack of source control was significantly associated with longer treatment durations (+5.2 days [95% CI: 4.4-6.1 days] for intra-abdominal infections and +4.1 days [95% CI: 3.8-4.4 days] for central vascular catheter-associated infections). Most clinicians (73-95%, depending on the source of bloodstream infection) would be willing to enrol patients into a trial of shorter versus longer antibiotic treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clinicians currently recommend at least 10 days of antibiotics for most scenarios of bloodstream infections in critically ill children. There is practice heterogeneity in self-reported treatment duration recommendations among clinicians. Treatment durations were similar across different infectious syndromes. Under appropriate clinical conditions, most clinicians would be willing to enrol patients into a trial of shorter versus longer treatment for common syndromes associated with bloodstream infections.

Noninferiority Margin Size and Acceptance of Trial Results: Contingent Valuation Survey of Clinician Preferences for Noninferior Mortality.

OBJECTIVES: We used modified contingent valuation methodology to determine how noninferiority margin sizes influence clinicians' willingness to accept clinical trial results that compare mortality in critically ill children. METHODS: We surveyed pediatric infectious diseases and critical care clinicians in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and randomized respondents to review 1 of 9 mock abstracts describing a noninferiority trial of bacteremic critically ill children assigned to 7 or 14 d of antibiotics. Each scenario showed higher mortality in the 7-d group but met noninferiority criterion. We explored how noninferiority margins and baseline mortality rates influenced respondent acceptance of results. RESULTS: There were 106 survey respondents: 65 (61%) critical care clinicians, 28 (26%) infectious diseases physicians, and 13 (12%) pharmacists. When noninferiority margins were 5% and 10%, 73% (24/33) and 79% (27/33) respondents would accept shorter treatment, compared with 44% (17/39) when the margin was 20% (P = 0.003). Logistic regression adjusted for baseline mortality showed 5% and 10% noninferiority margins were more likely to be associated with acceptance of shorter treatment compared with 20% margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-9.6, P = 0.013; OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.8-14.6, P = 0.002). Baseline mortality was not a significant predictor of acceptance of shorter treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment when noninferiority margins are ≤10%. However, nearly half of respondents who reviewed abstracts with 20% margins were still willing to accept shorter treatment. This is a novel application of contingent valuation methodology to elicit acceptance of research results among end users of the medical literature. HIGHLIGHTS: Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment durations based on noninferior mortality results when the noninferiority margin is 5% or 10% than if the margin is 20%.However, nearly half of clinicians would still accept shorter-duration treatment as noninferior with margins of 20%.Baseline mortality does not independently predict acceptance of shorter-duration treatment.Contingent valuation is a novel approach to elicit the acceptance of research design parameters from the perspective of endusers of the medical literature.

Antimicrobial treatment duration for uncomplicated bloodstream infections in critically ill children: a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) cause significant morbidity and mortality in critically ill children but treatment duration is understudied. We describe the durations of antimicrobial treatment that critically ill children receive and explore factors associated with treatment duration. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study in six pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) across Canada. Associations between treatment duration and patient-, infection- and pathogen-related characteristics were explored using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: Among 187 critically ill children with BSIs, the median duration of antimicrobial treatment was 15 (IQR 11-25) days. Median treatment durations were longer than two weeks for all subjects with known sources of infection: catheter-related 16 (IQR 11-24), respiratory 15 (IQR 11-26), intra-abdominal 20 (IQR 14-26), skin/soft tissue 17 (IQR 15-33), urinary 17 (IQR 15-35), central nervous system 33 (IQR 15-46) and other sources 29.5 (IQR 15-55) days. When sources of infection were unclear, the median duration was 13 (IQR 10-16) days. Treatment durations varied widely within and across PICUs. In multivariable linear regression, longer treatment durations were associated with severity of illness (+ 0.4 days longer [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.1 to 0.7, p = 0.007] per unit increase in PRISM-IV) and central nervous system infection (+ 17 days [95% CI, 6.7 to 27.4], p = 0.001). Age and pathogen type were not associated with treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Most critically ill children with BSIs received at least two weeks of antimicrobial treatment. Further study is needed to determine whether shorter duration therapy would be effective for selected critically ill children.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care in the first phase of the pandemic in Canada: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay. RESULTS: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09). INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital.

Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) randomised clinical trial: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Bloodstream infections are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity; the duration of treatment for these infections is understudied. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct an international, multicentre randomised clinical trial of shorter (7 days) versus longer (14 days) antibiotic treatment among hospitalised patients with bloodstream infections. The trial will include 3626 patients across 60 hospitals and 6 countries. We will include patients with blood cultures confirming a pathogenic bacterium after hospital admission. Exclusion criteria will include patient factors (severe immunosuppression), infection site factors (endocarditis, osteomyelitis, undrained abscesses, infected prosthetic material) and pathogen factors (Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, Candida and contaminant organisms). We will leave the selection of specific antibiotics, doses and route of delivery to the discretion of treating physicians; no placebo control will be used given the diversity of pathogens and sources of bacteraemia. The intervention will be assignment of treatment duration to be 7 versus 14 days. We will minimise selection bias via central randomisation with variable block sizes, with concealed allocation until day 7 of adequate antibiotic treatment. The primary outcome is 90-day survival; we will test whether 7 days is non-inferior to 14 days of treatment, with a non-inferiority margin of 4% absolute mortality. Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, relapse rates of bacteraemia, hospital and ICU length of stay, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor duration, antibiotic-free days, Clostridium difficile infection, antibiotic allergy and adverse events and colonisation/infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics review board at each participating site. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre is the central ethics committee. We will disseminate study results via the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and other collaborating networks to set the global paradigm for antibiotic treatment duration for non-staphylococcal Gram-positive, Gram-negative and anaerobic bacteraemia, among patients admitted to hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The BALANCE (Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness) trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT03005145).

A pilot randomized controlled trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infection on non-intensive care versus intensive care wards.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment duration for patients with bloodstream infection is understudied. The Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) determined that it was feasible to enroll and randomize intensive care unit (ICU) patients with bloodstream infection to 7 versus 14 days of treatment, and served as the vanguard for the ongoing BALANCE main RCT. We performed this BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT to examine the feasibility and impact of potentially extending the BALANCE main RCT to include patients hospitalized on non-ICU wards. METHODS: We conducted an open pilot RCT among a subset of six sites participating in the ongoing BALANCE RCT, randomizing patients with positive non-Staphylococcus aureus blood cultures on non-ICU wards to 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. We compared feasibility outcomes, patient/pathogen characteristics, and overall outcomes among those enrolled in this BALANCE-Ward and prior BALANCE-ICU pilot RCTs. We estimated the sample size and non-inferiority margin impacts of expanding the BALANCE main RCT to include non-ICU patients. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were recruited over 47 site-months (mean 2.9 patients/site-month, median 1.0, range 0.1-4.4 patients/site-month). The overall recruitment rate exceeded the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (mean 1.10 patients/site-month, p < 0.0001). Overall protocol adherence also exceeded the adherence in the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (125/134, 93% vs 89/115, 77%, p = 0.0003). BALANCE-Ward patients were older, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, and higher proportions of infections caused by Escherichia coli and genito-urinary sources of bloodstream infection. The BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT patients had an overall 90-day mortality rate of 17/133 (12.8%), which was comparable to the 90-day mortality rate in the ICU pilot RCT (17/115, 14.8%) (p = 0.65). Simulation models indicated there would be minimal sample size and non-inferiority margin implications of expanding enrolment to increasing proportions of non-ICU versus ICU patients. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to enroll non-ICU patients in a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotics for bloodstream infection, and expanding the BALANCE RCT hospital-wide has the potential to improve the timeliness and generalizability of trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02917551. Registered on September 28, 2016.

Case conferences for infective endocarditis: A quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary approach has been recommended for the management of patients with infective endocarditis. We evaluated the impact of multidisciplinary case conferences on morbidity, mortality, and quality of care for these patients. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study of consecutive patients admitted for infective endocarditis before (2013/10/1-2015/10/12, n = 97) and after (2015/10/13-2017/11/30, n = 80) implementation of case conferences to discuss medical and surgical management. These occurred as face-to-face discussions or electronically (for non-complex patients), and included physicians from cardiac surgery, cardiology, critical care, infectious diseases and neurology. We assessed process-of-care and clinical outcomes, with the primary outcome being complications up to 90 days after hospital discharge. RESULTS: A case conference was held for 80/80 (100%) of patients in the post-intervention group. After the intervention, more patients received inpatient cardiology assessment (81.3% [post-intervention] vs. 63.9% [pre-intervention], p = 0.01), and more patients with definite infective endocarditis underwent cardiac surgery treatment (44.6% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.007). All pre-intervention and post-intervention patients received guideline-concordant antimicrobial therapy. There was no difference in rates of complications (40.0% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.13) or mortality up to 90 days after hospital discharge (26.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.20). In multivariable analyses, the intervention was not associated with differences in mortality (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 0.88-3.99) or a composite measure of complications and mortality (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.46-1.58). CONCLUSION: We successfully implemented a standardized multidisciplinary case conference protocol for patients with infective endocarditis. This intervention had no detectable effect on complications or mortality.

7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for critically ill patients with bloodstream infection: a pilot randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Shorter-duration antibiotic treatment is sufficient for a range of bacterial infections, but has not been adequately studied for bloodstream infections. Our systematic review, survey, and observational study indicated equipoise for a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infections; a pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) was a necessary next step to assess feasibility of a larger trial. METHODS: We conducted an open, pilot RCT of antibiotic treatment duration among critically ill patients with bloodstream infection across 11 intensive care units (ICUs). Antibiotic selection, dosing and route were at the discretion of the treating team; patients were randomized 1:1 to intervention arms consisting of two fixed durations of treatment - 7 versus 14 days. We recruited adults with a positive blood culture yielding pathogenic bacteria identified while in ICU. We excluded patients with severe immunosuppression, foci of infection with an established requirement for prolonged treatment, single cultures with potential contaminants, or cultures yielding Staphylococcus aureus or fungi. The primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. Secondary outcomes included 90-day, ICU and hospital mortality, relapse of bacteremia, lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor duration, antibiotic-free days, Clostridium difficile, antibiotic adverse events, and secondary infection with antimicrobial-resistant organisms. RESULTS: We successfully achieved our target sample size (n = 115) and average recruitment rate of 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.3-1.5) patient/ICU/month. Adherence to treatment duration was achieved in 89/115 (77%) patients. Adherence differed by underlying source of infection: 26/31 (84%) lung; 18/29 (62%) intra-abdominal; 20/26 (77%) urinary tract; 8/9 (89%) vascular-catheter; 4/4 (100%) skin/soft tissue; 2/4 (50%) other; and 11/12 (92%) unknown sources. Patients experienced a median (IQR) 14 (8-17) antibiotic-free days (of the 28 days after blood culture collection). Antimicrobial-related adverse events included hepatitis in 1 (1%) patient, Clostridium difficile infection in 4 (4%), and secondary infection with highly resistant microorganisms in 10 (9%). Ascertainment was complete for all study outcomes in ICU, in hospital and at 90 days. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to conduct a RCT to determine whether 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment is associated with comparable 90-day survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT02261506 . Registered on 26 September 2014.

Time required to initiate outbreak and pandemic observational research.

PURPOSE: Observational research focused upon emerging infectious diseases such as Ebola virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and Zika virus has been challenging to quickly initiate. We aimed to determine the duration of start-up procedures and barriers encountered for an observational study focused upon such infectious outbreaks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At 1 pediatric and 5 adult intensive care units, we measured durations from protocol receipt to a variety of outbreak research milestones, including research ethics board (REB) approval, data sharing agreement (DSA) execution, and patient study screening initiation. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) time from site receipt of the protocol to REB submission was 73 (30-126) days; to REB approval, 158 (42-188) days; to DSA completion, 276 (186-312) days; and to study screening initiation, 293 (269-391) days. The median time from REB submission to REB approval was 43 (13-85) days. The median time for all start-up procedures was 335 (188-335) days. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lengthy start-up period required for outbreak-focused research. Completing DSAs was the most time-consuming step. A reactive approach to newly emerging threats such as Ebola virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and Zika virus will likely not allow sufficient time to initiate research before most outbreaks are advanced.

Pathogens and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles in critically ill patients with bloodstream infections: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance is vital to guiding empirical treatment of infections. Collating and reporting routine data on clinical isolate testing may offer more timely information about resistance patterns than traditional surveillance network methods. METHODS: Using routine microbiology testing data collected from the Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness retrospective cohort study, we conducted a descriptive secondary analysis among critically ill patients in whom bloodstream infections had been diagnosed in 14 intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada. The participating sites were located within tertiary care teaching hospitals and represented 6 provinces and 10 cities. More than 80% of the study population was accrued from 2011-2013. We assessed the epidemiologic features of the infections and corresponding antimicrobial susceptibility profiles. Susceptibility testing was done according to Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines at accredited laboratories. RESULTS: A total of 1416 pathogens were isolated from 1202 patients. The most common organisms were Escherichia coli (217 isolates [15.3%]), Staphylococcus aureus (175 [12.4%]), coagulase-negative staphylococci (117 [8.3%]), Klebsiella pneumoniae (86 [6.1%]) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (85 [6.0%]). The contribution of individual pathogens varied by site. For 13 ICUs, gram-negative susceptibility rates were high for carbapenems (95.4%), tobramycin (91.2%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (90.0%); however, the proportion of specimens susceptible to these agents ranged from 75.0%-100%, 66.7%-100% and 75.0%-100%, respectively, across sites. Fewer gram-negative bacteria were susceptible to fluoroquinolones (84.5% [range 64.1%-97.2%]). A total of 145 patients (12.1%) had infections caused by highly resistant microorganisms, with significant intersite variation (range 2.6%-24.0%, χ2 = 57.50, p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: We assessed the epidemiologic features of bloodstream infections in a geographically diverse cohort of critically ill Canadian patients using routine pathogen and susceptibility data extracted from readily available microbiology testing databases. Expanding data sharing across more ICUs, with serial measurement and prompt reporting, could provide much-needed guidance for empiric treatment for patients as well as system-wide prevention methods to limit antimicrobial resistance.

Influenza A (H1N1pdm09)-Related Critical Illness and Mortality in Mexico and Canada, 2014.

OBJECTIVES: The 2009-2010 influenza A (H1N1pdm09) pandemic caused substantial morbidity and mortality among young patients; however, mortality estimates have been confounded by regional differences in eligibility criteria and inclusion of selected populations. In 2013-2014, H1N1pdm09 became North America's dominant seasonal influenza strain. Our objective was to compare the baseline characteristics, resources, and treatments with outcomes among critically ill patients with influenza A (H1N1pdm09) in Mexican and Canadian hospitals in 2014 using consistent eligibility criteria. DESIGN: Observational study and a survey of available healthcare setting resources. SETTING: Twenty-one hospitals, 13 in Mexico and eight in Canada. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients with confirmed H1N1pdm09 during 2013-2014 influenza season. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measures were 90-day mortality and independent predictors of mortality. Among 165 adult patients with H1N1pdm09-related critical illness between September 2013 and March 2014, mean age was 48.3 years, 64% were males, and nearly all influenza was community acquired. Patients were severely hypoxic (median PaO2-to-FIO2 ratio, 83 mm Hg), 97% received mechanical ventilation, with mean positive end-expiratory pressure of 14 cm H2O at the onset of critical illness and 26.7% received rescue oxygenation therapy with prone ventilation, extracorporeal life support, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, or inhaled nitric oxide. At 90 days, mortality was 34.6% (13.9% in Canada vs 50.5% in Mexico, p < 0.0001). Independent predictors of mortality included lower presenting PaO2-to-FIO2 ratio (odds ratio, 0.89 per 10-point increase [95% CI, 0.80-0.99]), age (odds ratio, 1.49 per 10 yr increment [95% CI, 1.10-2.02]), and requiring critical care in Mexico (odds ratio, 7.76 [95% CI, 2.02-27.35]). ICUs in Canada generally had more beds, ventilators, healthcare personnel, and rescue oxygenation therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza A (H1N1pdm09)-related critical illness still predominantly affects relatively young to middle-aged patients and is associated with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The local critical care system and available resources may be influential determinants of patient outcome.

The Effect of Inadequate Initial Empiric Antimicrobial Treatment on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Bloodstream Infections: A Multi-Centre Retrospective Cohort Study.

Hospital mortality rates are elevated in critically ill patients with bloodstream infections. Given that mortality may be even higher if appropriate treatment is delayed, we sought to determine the effect of inadequate initial empiric treatment on mortality in these patients. A retrospective cohort study was conducted across 13 intensive care units in Canada. We defined inadequate initial empiric treatment as not receiving at least one dose of an antimicrobial to which the causative pathogen(s) was susceptible within one day of initial blood culture. We evaluated the association between inadequate initial treatment and hospital mortality using a random effects multivariable logistic regression model. Among 1,190 patients (1,097 had bacteremia and 93 had candidemia), 476 (40%) died and 266 (22%) received inadequate initial treatment. Candidemic patients more often had inadequate initial empiric therapy (64.5% versus 18.8%), as well as longer delays to final culture results (4 vs 3 days) and appropriate therapy (2 vs 0 days). After adjustment, there was no detectable association between inadequate initial treatment and mortality among bacteremic patients (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.70-1.48); however, candidemic patients receiving inadequate treatment had nearly three times the odds of death (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.05-7.99). Inadequate initial empiric antimicrobial treatment was not associated with increased mortality in bacteremic patients, but was an important risk factor in the subgroup of candidemic patients. Further research is warranted to improve early diagnostic and risk prediction methods in candidemic patients.