Patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens, and prediction of mortality in hospitalized neonates and young infants with sepsis: A global neonatal sepsis observational cohort study (NeoOBS).
Journal
PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
15
06
2022
accepted:
19
01
2023
medline:
12
6
2023
pubmed:
8
6
2023
entrez:
8
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is limited data on antibiotic treatment in hospitalized neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to describe patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens, and clinical outcomes, and to develop a severity score predicting mortality in neonatal sepsis to inform future clinical trial design. Hospitalized infants <60 days with clinical sepsis were enrolled during 2018 to 2020 by 19 sites in 11 countries (mainly Asia and Africa). Prospective daily observational data was collected on clinical signs, supportive care, antibiotic treatment, microbiology, and 28-day mortality. Two prediction models were developed for (1) 28-day mortality from baseline variables (baseline NeoSep Severity Score); and (2) daily risk of death on IV antibiotics from daily updated assessments (NeoSep Recovery Score). Multivariable Cox regression models included a randomly selected 85% of infants, with 15% for validation. A total of 3,204 infants were enrolled, with median birth weight of 2,500 g (IQR 1,400 to 3,000) and postnatal age of 5 days (IQR 1 to 15). 206 different empiric antibiotic combinations were started in 3,141 infants, which were structured into 5 groups based on the World Health Organization (WHO) AWaRe classification. Approximately 25.9% (n = 814) of infants started WHO first line regimens (Group 1-Access) and 13.8% (n = 432) started WHO second-line cephalosporins (cefotaxime/ceftriaxone) (Group 2-"Low" Watch). The largest group (34.0%, n = 1,068) started a regimen providing partial extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/pseudomonal coverage (piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, or fluoroquinolone-based) (Group 3-"Medium" Watch), 18.0% (n = 566) started a carbapenem (Group 4-"High" Watch), and 1.8% (n = 57) a Reserve antibiotic (Group 5, largely colistin-based), and 728/2,880 (25.3%) of initial regimens in Groups 1 to 4 were escalated, mainly to carbapenems, usually for clinical deterioration (n = 480; 65.9%). A total of 564/3,195 infants (17.7%) were blood culture pathogen positive, of whom 62.9% (n = 355) had a gram-negative organism, predominantly Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 132) or Acinetobacter spp. (n = 72). Both were commonly resistant to WHO-recommended regimens and to carbapenems in 43 (32.6%) and 50 (71.4%) of cases, respectively. MRSA accounted for 33 (61.1%) of 54 Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Overall, 350/3,204 infants died (11.3%; 95% CI 10.2% to 12.5%), 17.7% if blood cultures were positive for pathogens (95% CI 14.7% to 21.1%, n = 99/564). A baseline NeoSep Severity Score had a C-index of 0.76 (0.69 to 0.82) in the validation sample, with mortality of 1.6% (3/189; 95% CI: 0.5% to 4.6%), 11.0% (27/245; 7.7% to 15.6%), and 27.3% (12/44; 16.3% to 41.8%) in low (score 0 to 4), medium (5 to 8), and high (9 to 16) risk groups, respectively, with similar performance across subgroups. A related NeoSep Recovery Score had an area under the receiver operating curve for predicting death the next day between 0.8 and 0.9 over the first week. There was significant variation in outcomes between sites and external validation would strengthen score applicability. Antibiotic regimens used in neonatal sepsis commonly diverge from WHO guidelines, and trials of novel empiric regimens are urgently needed in the context of increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The baseline NeoSep Severity Score identifies high mortality risk criteria for trial entry, while the NeoSep Recovery Score can help guide decisions on regimen change. NeoOBS data informed the NeoSep1 antibiotic trial (ISRCTN48721236), which aims to identify novel first- and second-line empiric antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis. ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT03721302).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is limited data on antibiotic treatment in hospitalized neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to describe patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens, and clinical outcomes, and to develop a severity score predicting mortality in neonatal sepsis to inform future clinical trial design.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
RESULTS
Hospitalized infants <60 days with clinical sepsis were enrolled during 2018 to 2020 by 19 sites in 11 countries (mainly Asia and Africa). Prospective daily observational data was collected on clinical signs, supportive care, antibiotic treatment, microbiology, and 28-day mortality. Two prediction models were developed for (1) 28-day mortality from baseline variables (baseline NeoSep Severity Score); and (2) daily risk of death on IV antibiotics from daily updated assessments (NeoSep Recovery Score). Multivariable Cox regression models included a randomly selected 85% of infants, with 15% for validation. A total of 3,204 infants were enrolled, with median birth weight of 2,500 g (IQR 1,400 to 3,000) and postnatal age of 5 days (IQR 1 to 15). 206 different empiric antibiotic combinations were started in 3,141 infants, which were structured into 5 groups based on the World Health Organization (WHO) AWaRe classification. Approximately 25.9% (n = 814) of infants started WHO first line regimens (Group 1-Access) and 13.8% (n = 432) started WHO second-line cephalosporins (cefotaxime/ceftriaxone) (Group 2-"Low" Watch). The largest group (34.0%, n = 1,068) started a regimen providing partial extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/pseudomonal coverage (piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, or fluoroquinolone-based) (Group 3-"Medium" Watch), 18.0% (n = 566) started a carbapenem (Group 4-"High" Watch), and 1.8% (n = 57) a Reserve antibiotic (Group 5, largely colistin-based), and 728/2,880 (25.3%) of initial regimens in Groups 1 to 4 were escalated, mainly to carbapenems, usually for clinical deterioration (n = 480; 65.9%). A total of 564/3,195 infants (17.7%) were blood culture pathogen positive, of whom 62.9% (n = 355) had a gram-negative organism, predominantly Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 132) or Acinetobacter spp. (n = 72). Both were commonly resistant to WHO-recommended regimens and to carbapenems in 43 (32.6%) and 50 (71.4%) of cases, respectively. MRSA accounted for 33 (61.1%) of 54 Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Overall, 350/3,204 infants died (11.3%; 95% CI 10.2% to 12.5%), 17.7% if blood cultures were positive for pathogens (95% CI 14.7% to 21.1%, n = 99/564). A baseline NeoSep Severity Score had a C-index of 0.76 (0.69 to 0.82) in the validation sample, with mortality of 1.6% (3/189; 95% CI: 0.5% to 4.6%), 11.0% (27/245; 7.7% to 15.6%), and 27.3% (12/44; 16.3% to 41.8%) in low (score 0 to 4), medium (5 to 8), and high (9 to 16) risk groups, respectively, with similar performance across subgroups. A related NeoSep Recovery Score had an area under the receiver operating curve for predicting death the next day between 0.8 and 0.9 over the first week. There was significant variation in outcomes between sites and external validation would strengthen score applicability.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic regimens used in neonatal sepsis commonly diverge from WHO guidelines, and trials of novel empiric regimens are urgently needed in the context of increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The baseline NeoSep Severity Score identifies high mortality risk criteria for trial entry, while the NeoSep Recovery Score can help guide decisions on regimen change. NeoOBS data informed the NeoSep1 antibiotic trial (ISRCTN48721236), which aims to identify novel first- and second-line empiric antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT03721302).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37289666
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004179
pii: PMEDICINE-D-22-02036
pmc: PMC10249878
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Carbapenems
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03721302']
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1004179Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Russell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Members of the funder (MB, NK, SE) participated as authors on the study, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. All other authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014 Sep;33(9):929-32
pubmed: 24642515
Crit Care Res Pract. 2019 May 9;2019:9059073
pubmed: 31210987
PLoS Curr. 2018 Mar 21;10:
pubmed: 29637010
J Infect Chemother. 2016 Jul;22(7):444-9
pubmed: 27229539
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Nov;38(11):1107-1112
pubmed: 31469781
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012 Jul;31(7):667-72
pubmed: 22481421
Lancet. 2016 Jan 9;387(10014):168-75
pubmed: 26603918
J Trop Pediatr. 2020 Aug 1;66(4):377-384
pubmed: 31682271
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Nov;5(11):e1066-e1068
pubmed: 29025624
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Nov;38(11):1104-1106
pubmed: 31425329
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Aug;14(8):731-741
pubmed: 24974250
Front Pediatr. 2018 Oct 04;6:277
pubmed: 30356806
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Apr;4(4):299-311
pubmed: 32119841
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005 Jan;90(1):F11-6
pubmed: 15613564
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Reprod Health. 2016 Jun 17;13(1):77
pubmed: 27316970
Arch Dis Child. 2020 Jan;105(1):26-31
pubmed: 31446393
J Trop Pediatr. 2010 Apr;56(2):82-9
pubmed: 19622712
PLoS One. 2019 May 8;14(5):e0215666
pubmed: 31067232
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 4;15(3):e0229380
pubmed: 32130261
Paediatr Int Child Health. 2018 Nov;38(sup1):S3-S15
pubmed: 29790842
J Pediatr. 2008 Oct;153(4):519-24
pubmed: 18539298
Pediatr Int. 2012 Feb;54(1):60-3
pubmed: 21883691
Lancet. 2022 Feb 12;399(10325):629-655
pubmed: 35065702
JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021 Jan 19;3(1):dlaa130
pubmed: 34223079
Int J Infect Dis. 2017 Apr;57:79-85
pubmed: 28161461
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 Sep;28(9):1193-1202
pubmed: 35339675
J Infect Dev Ctries. 2009 Nov 05;4(1):30-7
pubmed: 20130376
BMC Med. 2015 Jan 06;13:1
pubmed: 25563062
Pediatr Res. 2020 Jul;88(1):85-90
pubmed: 31394566
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 8;5:CD013836
pubmed: 33998665
BMJ. 2019 Jan 22;364:k5314
pubmed: 30670451
J Perinatol. 2017 Aug;37(8):911-921
pubmed: 28492525
PLoS Med. 2021 Sep 30;18(9):e1003814
pubmed: 34591862
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013 Feb;32(2):140-5
pubmed: 22935872
Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Nov 2;190(11):2395-2404
pubmed: 34048554
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 6;14(6):e0218002
pubmed: 31170237
Int J Infect Dis. 2012 Nov;16(11):e811-5
pubmed: 22898148
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Nov;19(11):1219-1234
pubmed: 31522858
Pediatrics. 2005 Apr;115(4):942-9
pubmed: 15805368
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jul;7(7):e861-e871
pubmed: 31200888
PLoS Med. 2021 Sep 28;18(9):e1003787
pubmed: 34582466
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 May;31(10):1373-1380
pubmed: 28372507
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Aug;7(8):e1074-e1087
pubmed: 31303295
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 20;16(1):e0241899
pubmed: 33471786
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Oct;4(10):e752-60
pubmed: 27633433
Lancet. 2015 Oct 3;386(10001):1337-1338
pubmed: 26460772
J Perinatol. 2008 Oct;28(10):685-90
pubmed: 18580881
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Dec;21(12):1677-1688
pubmed: 34384533
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Feb;5(2):e177-e185
pubmed: 27988146
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 10;16:275
pubmed: 27287441
Infection. 2016 Jun;44(3):309-21
pubmed: 26546372
BMC Pediatr. 2010 Jun 04;10:39
pubmed: 20525358
Lancet. 2018 Jul 14;392(10142):145-159
pubmed: 30025808
Int J Infect Dis. 2000;4(1):21-5
pubmed: 10689210
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 May;3(5):e279-87
pubmed: 25841891
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2021 Feb 1;40(2):137-143
pubmed: 33395208
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Jun;19(6):601-610
pubmed: 31047852
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 07;6(1):248
pubmed: 29212522
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Jun;21(6):e175-e181
pubmed: 33894130
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Oct;16(10):e202-e213
pubmed: 27633910
Lancet. 2015 May 2;385(9979):1758-1766
pubmed: 25842223
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007 Mar;28(3):299-306
pubmed: 17326020
Nat Microbiol. 2021 Apr;6(4):512-523
pubmed: 33782558