Safe shortening of antibiotic treatment duration for complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAFE trial): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing 4 and 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment.

INTRODUCTION: A major knowledge gap in the treatment of complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) is the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy. Safe shortening of antibiotic therapy has the potential to reduce adverse drug events, length of hospital stay and costs. The objective of the SAFE trial is to evaluate whether 4 weeks of antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to 6 weeks in patients with complicated SAB. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SAFE-trial is a multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial evaluating 4 versus 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy for complicated SAB. The study is performed in 15 university hospitals and general hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients are adults with methicillin-susceptible SAB with evidence of deep-seated or metastatic infection and/or predictors of complicated SAB. Only patients with a satisfactory clinical response to initial antibiotic treatment are included. Patients with infected prosthetic material or an undrained abscess of 5 cm or more at day 14 of adequate antibiotic treatment are excluded. Primary outcome is success of therapy after 180 days, a combined endpoint of survival without evidence of microbiologically confirmed disease relapse. Assuming a primary endpoint occurrence of 90% in the 6 weeks group, a non-inferiority margin of 7.5% is used. Enrolment of 396 patients in total is required to demonstrate non-inferiority of shorter antibiotic therapy with a power of 80%. Currently, 152 patients are enrolled in the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating duration of antibiotic therapy for complicated SAB. Non-inferiority of 4 weeks of treatment would allow shortening of treatment duration in selected patients with complicated SAB. This study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee VUmc (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and registered under NL8347 (the Netherlands Trial Register). Results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8347 (the Netherlands Trial Register).

Comparative effectiveness of ß-lactams for empirical treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Standard once-daily dosing of ceftriaxone may not lead to adequate antibiotic exposure in all cases of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB). Therefore, we compared clinical effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatment with flucloxacillin, cefuroxime and ceftriaxone in adult patients with MSSA bacteraemia. METHODS: We analysed data from the Improved Diagnostic Strategies in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (IDISA) study, a multicentre prospective cohort study of adult patients with MSSA bacteraemia. Duration of bacteraemia and 30 day SAB-related mortality were compared between the three groups using multivariable mixed-effects Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 268 patients with MSSA bacteraemia were included in the analyses. Median duration of empirical antibiotic therapy was 3 (IQR 2-3) days in the total study population. Median duration of bacteraemia was 1.0 (IQR 1.0-3.0) day in the flucloxacillin, cefuroxime and ceftriaxone groups. In multivariable analyses, neither ceftriaxone nor cefuroxime was associated with increased duration of bacteraemia compared with flucloxacillin (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73-1.60 and HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88-1.71). In multivariable analysis, neither cefuroxime nor ceftriaxone was associated with higher 30 day SAB-related mortality compared with flucloxacillin [subdistribution HR (sHR) 1.37, 95% CI 0.42-4.52 and sHR 1.93, 95% CI 0.67-5.60]. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we could not demonstrate a difference in duration of bacteraemia and 30 day SAB-related mortality between patients with SAB empirically treated with flucloxacillin, cefuroxime or ceftriaxone. Since sample size was limited, it is possible the study was underpowered to find a clinically relevant effect.

[18F]FDG-PET/CT in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: [18F]FDG-PET/CT is used for diagnosing metastatic infections in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) and guidance of antibiotic treatment. The impact of [18F]FDG-PET/CT on outcomes remains to be determined. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the effects of [18F]FDG-PET/CT on all-cause mortality and new diagnostic findingsin SAB. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE.com, Web of Science, and Wiley's Cochrane library from inception to 29 January 2021. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials, clinically controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies investigating the effects of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in hospitalized adult patients with SAB. We excluded studies lacking a control group without [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 1956 studies, of which five were included in our qualitative synthesis, including a total of 880 SAB patients. All studies were non-randomized and at moderate or serious risk of bias. Four studies, including a total of 804 patients, reported lower mortality in SAB patients that underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT. One study including 102 patients reported more detected metastatic foci in the participants in whom [18F]FDG-PET/CT was performed. DISCUSSION: We found low certainty of evidence that [18F]FDG-PET/CT reduces mortality in patients with SAB. This effect is possibly explained by a higher frequency of findings guiding optimal antibiotic treatment and source control interventions.

Recommendations for antibacterial therapy in adults with COVID-19 e an evidence based guideline

The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendation for the use of antibacterial therapy in hospitalized adults with a respiratory infection and suspected or proven 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We performed a literature search to answer four key questions. The committee graded the evidence and developed recommendations by using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We assessed evidence on the risk of bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the associated bacterial pathogens, how to diagnose bacterial infections and how to treat bacterial infections. Bacterial co-infection upon admission was reported in 3.5% of COVID-19 patients, while bacterial secondary infections during hospitalization occurred up to 15%. No or very low quality evidence was found to answer the other key clinical questions. Although the evidence base on bacterial infections in COVID-19 is currently limited, available evidence supports restrictive antibiotic use from an antibiotic stewardship perspective, especially upon admission. To support restrictive antibiotic use, maximum efforts should be undertaken to obtain sputum and blood culture samples as well as pneumococcal urinary antigen testing. We suggest to stop antibiotics in patients who started antibiotic treatment upon admission when representative cultures as well as urinary antigen tests show no signs of involvement of bacterial pathogens after 48 hours. For patients with secondary bacterial respiratory infection we recommend to follow other guideline recommendations on antibacterial treatment for patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. An antibiotic treatment duration of five days in patients with COVID-19 and suspected bacterial respiratory infection is recommended upon improvement of signs, symptoms and inflammatory markers. Larger, prospective studies about the epidemiology of bacterial infections in COVID-19 are urgently needed to confirm our conclusions and ultimately prevent unnecessary antibiotic use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The EKZ/AMC childhood cancer survivor cohort: methodology, clinical characteristics, and data availability.

PURPOSE: Childhood cancer survivors are at high risk of late adverse effects of cancer treatment, but there are still many gaps in evidence about these late effects. We described the methodology, clinical characteristics, data availability, and outcomes of our cohort study of childhood cancer survivors. METHODS: The Emma Children's Hospital/Academic Medical Center (EKZ/AMC) childhood cancer survivor cohort is an ongoing single-center cohort study of ≥5-year childhood cancer survivors, which started in 1996 simultaneously with regular structured medical outcome assessments at our outpatient clinic. RESULTS: From 1966 to 2003, 3,183 eligible children received primary cancer treatment in the EKZ/AMC, of which 1,822 (57.2 %) survived ≥5 years since diagnosis. Follow-up time ranged from 5.0 to 42.5 years (median, 17.7). Baseline primary cancer treatment characteristics were complete for 1,781 (97.7 %) survivors, and 1,452 (79.7 %) survivors visited our outpatient clinic. Baseline characteristics of survivors who visited the clinic did not differ from those without follow-up. Within our cohort, 54 studies have been conducted studying a wide range of late treatment-related effects. CONCLUSIONS: The EKZ/AMC childhood cancer survivor cohort provides a strong structure for ongoing research on the late effects of childhood cancer treatment and will continuously contribute in reducing evidence gaps concerning risks and risk groups within this vulnerable population. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our large cohort study of childhood cancer survivors with complete baseline characteristics and unique, long-term medical follow-up decreases gaps in evidence about specific risks of late effects and high-risk groups, with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of care for childhood cancer survivors.

The Dutch Childhood Oncology Group guideline for follow-up of asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: The Late Effects of Childhood Cancer task force of the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group (DCOG LATER) developed a guideline for follow-up of asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). In this paper, we present the methods, available evidence and final recommendations of our guideline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group specified clinical questions that should be answered to get to recommendations for the guideline. We carried out short or extensive evidence summaries and determined methodological quality of studies and levels of evidence in order to answer all clinical questions. When evidence was lacking for CCS, we carefully extrapolated evidence from other populations. Final recommendations were based on evidence and consensus. RESULTS: There was high-level evidence for the increased risk of cardiac dysfunction in CCS and its main risk factors. Evidence was lacking regarding the prognosis, diagnosis and treatment of cardiac dysfunction in CCS. We recommended echocardiographic screening for asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction in CCS treated with cardiotoxic treatments and counseling about potential advantages and disadvantages of our screening recommendations. CONCLUSION: The DCOG LATER guideline recommends risk-based screening for asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction in CCS, but it should be noted that recommendations are not completely supported by evidence in CCS.

The use of liposomal anthracycline analogues for childhood malignancies: A systematic review.

In an effort to prevent or reduce anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity, liposomal anthracyclines have been developed. The objective of this systematic review was to summarise all available evidence on the benefits and risks of liposomal anthracyclines in children with cancer. We searched databases (MEDLINE (1966-September 2009), EMBASE (1980-September 2009) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, issue 3 2009)), reference lists of relevant articles and ongoing trial databases for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were found. Fifteen observational studies described the use of liposomal anthracyclines in children with cancer. Most patients had been treated extensively in the past. Some patients developed cardiotoxicity, serious allergic reactions, mucositis, infections, hematotoxicities and/or hepatotoxicity after single agent treatment. However, due to the low quality of the currently available research, it is unclear what the exact risks are. In conclusion, there is no evidence available from RCTs or CCTs about the benefits and risks of liposomal anthracyclines in children with cancer. Limited data from observational studies suggest that children treated with liposomal anthracyclines are at risk for developing cardiotoxicity and other serious toxicities. There is an urgent need for results of well-designed studies which accurately evaluate the benefits and risks of liposomal anthracyclines in children with cancer. Until high quality evidence is available, we recommend monitoring of cardiac function in childhood cancer patients treated with a liposomal anthracycline and awareness of other serious toxicities.