Empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for adult patients with sepsis (EMPRESS) trial: Protocol.
adaptive clinical trial
carbapenems
empirical antibiotics
meropenem
piperacillin/tazobactam
randomised clinical trial
sepsis
septic shock
Journal
Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1399-6576
Titre abrégé: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370270
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 May 2024
20 May 2024
Historique:
received:
16
04
2024
accepted:
30
04
2024
medline:
21
5
2024
pubmed:
21
5
2024
entrez:
20
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low. The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios. EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low.
METHODS
METHODS
The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Sygeforsikringen "danmark"
Organisme : Novo Nordisk Fonden
Organisme : Grosserer Jakob Ehrenreich og Hustru Grete Ehrenreichs Fond
Organisme : Læge Inger Goldmanns Fond
Organisme : Beckett Foundation
Organisme : Research Fund for Health Research of the Capital Region of Denmark
Organisme : Research Council at Rigshospitalet
Organisme : Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.
Références
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1181‐1247.
De Bus L, Depuydt P, Steen J, et al. Antimicrobial de‐escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure: the DIANA study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:1404‐1417.
Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic‐resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18:318‐327.
Eljaaly K, Enani MA, Al‐Tawfiq JA. Impact of carbapenem versus non‐carbapenem treatment on the rates of superinfection: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Infect Chemother. 2018;24:915‐920.
Harris PNA, Tambyah PA, Lye DC, et al. Effect of piperacillin‐tazobactam vs meropenem on 30‐day mortality for patients with E coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection and ceftriaxone resistance: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320:984.
Munch MW, Granholm A, Jonsson AB, et al. Piperacillin/tazobactam versus carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections: a systematic review with meta‐analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2023;67:853‐868.
Meier N, Munch MW, Granholm A, et al. Empirical carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam for infections in intensive care—an international retrospective cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2024. doi:10.1111/aas.14419
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200‐207.
Dimairo M, Pallmann P, Wason J, et al. The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design. Trials. 2020;21:528.
International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised guideline. Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1): guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2). Current Step 4 version. 2016 https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines Accessed February 28, 2024.
Granholm A, Kaas‐Hansen BS, Lange T, et al. An overview of methodological considerations regarding adaptive stopping, arm dropping, and randomization in clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;153:45‐54.
Danish Medicines Agency. Summary of product characteristics for piperacillin/tazobactam "Sandoz". 2023 https://www.produktresume.dk/AppBuilder/rich_preview?id=9dacf6468f6d80fb0a22efcda6e58d25&query=piperacillin%2Ftazobactam&type=productresume Accessed February 28, 2024.
Danish Medicines Agency. Summary of product characteristics for meropenem "SUN". 2022 https://www.produktresume.dk/AppBuilder/rich_preview?id=29d9a30daee757ebfb2d97af2dc94fa8&query=meropenem&type=productresume Accessed February 28, 2024.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis‐3). JAMA. 2016;315:801‐810.
European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Dosages used to define breakpoints. EUCAST Clinical Breakpoint Tables v. 14.0, Valid from 2024‐01‐01. 2023 https://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints Accessed February 28, 2024.
Dansk Selskab for Infektionsmedicin [Danish Society of Infectious Diseases]. Sepsis guidelines. 2021 https://www.infmed.dk/guidelines#sepsis_guidelines_(2021).pdf Accessed February 28, 2024.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five‐level version of EQ‐5D (EQ‐5D‐5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727‐1736.
Granholm A, Anthon CT, Kjær MN, et al. Patient‐important outcomes other than mortality in contemporary ICU trials: a scoping review. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:e759‐e771.
Granholm A, Kaas‐Hansen BS, Lange T, et al. Use of days alive without life support and similar count outcomes in randomised clinical trials—an overview and comparison of methodological choices and analysis methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23:139.
Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B. Methods for Analysing and Reporting EQ‐5D Data. Springer‐Cham; 2020.
Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173:489‐495.
Rockwood K, Theou O. Using the clinical frailty scale in allocating scarce health care resources. Can Geriatr J. 2020;23:210‐215.
Granholm A, Perner A, Krag M, et al. Development and internal validation of the simplified mortality score for the intensive care unit (SMS‐ICU). Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62:336‐346.
Granholm A, Munch MW, Myatra SN, et al. Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre‐planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:45‐55.
International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials E9. Current step 4 version. 1998 https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines Accessed February 28, 2024.
Sung L, Hayden J, Greenberg ML, Koren G, Feldman BM, Tomlinson GA. Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:261‐268.
Granholm A, Lange T, Harhay MO, Perner A, Møller MH, Kaas‐Hansen BS. Effects of sceptical priors on the performance of adaptive clinical trials with binary outcomes. Pharm Stat. 2024. doi:10.1002/pst.2387
Chatton A, Le Borgne F, Leyrat C, et al. G‐computation, propensity score‐based methods, and targeted maximum likelihood estimator for causal inference with different covariates sets: a comparative simulation study. Sci Rep. 2020;10:9219.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Adjusting for covariates in randomized clinical trials for drugs and biological products—guidance for industry. 2023 https://www.fda.gov/regulatory‐information/search‐fda‐guidance‐documents/adjusting‐covariates‐randomized‐clinical‐trials‐drugs‐and‐biological‐products Accessed February 28, 2024.
Granholm A, Marker S, Krag M, et al. Heterogeneity of treatment effect of prophylactic pantoprazole in adult ICU patients: a post hoc analysis of the SUP‐ICU trial. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:717‐726.
Klitgaard TL, Schjørring OL, Lange T, et al. Lower versus higher oxygenation targets in critically ill patients with severe hypoxaemia: secondary Bayesian analysis to explore heterogeneous treatment effects in the handling oxygenation targets in the intensive care unit (HOT‐ICU) trial. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128:55‐64.
Jensen CE, Sørensen SS, Gudex C, Jensen MB, Pedersen KM, Ehlers LH. The Danish EQ‐5D‐5L value set: a hybrid model using cTTO and DCE data. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19:579‐591.
van Buuren S, Groothuis‐Oudshoorn K. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1‐67.
Vesin A, Azoulay E, Ruckly S, et al. Reporting and handling missing values in clinical studies in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1396‐1404.
Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Winkel P. When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials—a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:162.
van Ginkel JR, Linting M, Rippe RCA, van der Voort A. Rebutting existing misconceptions about multiple imputation as a method for handling missing data. J Pers Assess. 2020;102:297‐308.
European Medicines Agency. Complex clinical trials—Questions and answers. Version 2022‐05‐23. 2022 https://health.ec.europa.eu/latest‐updates/questions‐and‐answers‐complex‐clinical‐trials‐2022‐06‐02_en Accessed February 28, 2024.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive designs for clinical trials of drugs and biologics—guidance for industry. 2019 https://www.fda.gov/regulatory‐information/search‐fda‐guidance‐documents/adaptive‐design‐clinical‐trials‐drugs‐and‐biologics‐guidance‐industry Accessed February 28, 2024.
Granholm A, Jensen AKG, Lange T, Kaas‐Hansen BS. Adaptr: an R package for simulating and comparing adaptive clinical trials. J Open Source Softw. 2022;7:4284.
Granholm A, Lange T, Harhay MO, et al. Effects of duration of follow‐up and lag in data collection on the performance of adaptive clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2024;23:138‐150.
Granholm A, Alhazzani W, Derde LPG, et al. Randomised clinical trials in critical care: past, present and future. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:164‐178.
Martin GL, Trioux T, Gaudry S, Tubach F, Hajage D, Dechartres A. Association between lack of blinding and mortality results in critical care randomized controlled trials: a meta‐epidemiological study. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:1800‐1811.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
Anthon CT, Granholm A, Perner A, Laake JH, Møller MH. No firm evidence that lack of blinding affects estimates of mortality in randomized clinical trials of intensive care interventions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:71‐81.
Moustgaard H, Clayton GL, Jones HE, et al. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ. 2020;368:l6802.