1 / 38

IH Pharmacy Live Rounds Journal Article Review

IH Pharmacy Live Rounds Journal Article Review. Jennifer Day, NHA Resident 2009-2010 Kelowna General Hospital October 7, 2009. Journal Article Review. Overview Title, journal, authors, funding Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Critique General interpretation

shirin
Download Presentation

IH Pharmacy Live Rounds Journal Article Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IH Pharmacy Live RoundsJournal Article Review Jennifer Day, NHA Resident 2009-2010 Kelowna General Hospital October 7, 2009

  2. Journal Article Review Overview • Title, journal, authors, funding • Abstract • Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion • Critique • General interpretation • Recommendation

  3. Background Title “Moxifloxacin is non-inferior to combination therapy with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole in patients with community-origin complicated intra-abdominal infections” Journal • International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents Publication Timeline • Submitted online March 26, 2009 • Accepted June 26, 2009

  4. Background Authors • Based on a PUBMED search, one of the authors have published similar work in this area Funding Sources • This study was supported by Bayer HealthCare AG

  5. Abstract Int J Antimicrob Ag 2009;39:439-445

  6. Introduction Summary • Rationale to undertake study • Tackle “on-going debate” about the call for changes in empirical antimicrobial therapy in community acquired complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) • Moxifloxacin has been shown safe and effective and is approved for use in cIAIs • Proven efficacy, once daily dosing, IV and PO, documented safety profile • Now to evaluate the clinical efficacy when compared to “standard” therapy

  7. Introduction Purpose “The current study was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin in usually non-life threatening infections… with that of a standard combination regimen of ceftriaxone plus metronidazole in patients with cIAI.” Int J Antimicrob Ag 2009;39:439-445

  8. Methods Research hypothesis • “Efficacy of moxifloxacin is not 15% less than the combination of ceftriaxone plus metronidazole for cIAIs”

  9. Methods Design • Multinational, multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-dummy, double blind parallel design clinical trial • Study was approved by the Ethic Committee of Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China Setting • Hospitalized patients in Mainland China, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia and Hong Kong between October 2005 and January 2007

  10. Methods Population a) Inclusion criteria – hospitalized patients 18 years of age and older; expected duration of treatment with IV ABX of at least 3 days but not longer than 14; confirmed or suspected cIAI with set criteria b) Exclusion criteria – known hypersensitivity to fluoroquinolones, quinolones, beta-lactams or metronidazole; pregnancy or lactation; history of quinolone-related tendon disease or clinically relevant cardiac conditions

  11. Methods Screening/recruitment • Patients were recruited from multi-centered hospitals across Asia • Sampling: Non-probability or probability? • Not mentioned • There was no screening log kept

  12. Methods Treatment allocation • Was the method of generating randomization number sequence appropriate? • Not mentioned • Was there any restrictions on randomization like ”blocking”, or ”stratification” • ...Not mentioned • Was there a method used to ensure concealment of random allocation to each study group? • ............Not mentioned • Who generated the allocation sequence, who enrolled the patients, who assigned patients to each group? • ..................Not mentioned

  13. Methods Blinding • No mention of blinding methods – only double-blinded Interventions • Moxifloxacin arm: moxifloxacin 400 mg IV once daily plus placebo IV • Combo arm: ceftriaxone 2 g IV once daily plus metronidazole 500 mg IV twice daily • Both treatments for a min three days (max 14 days) • No oral step down for either arm

  14. Methods Study definitions • Confirmed cIAI – either gross peritoneal inflammation with purulent exudate within abdominal cavity, intra-abdominal abcess or macroscopic intestinal perforation with diffuse peritonitis following a surgical or percutaneous procedure • Suspected cIAI – radiological evidence of GI perforation or localized collections of potentially infected material; patient scheduled for surgical procedure with in 24 hours of enrolment; presenting with one the following: symptoms (nausea, vomiting), tenderness & guarding, fever (depending on route), leukocytosis

  15. Methods Study definitions con’t • Clinical success – continued resolution or improvement of clinical signs and symptoms related to the infection, not requiring any antimicrobial therapy and without the occurence of wound infections (Per protocol population) • Bacteriological success – absence of the original causative organism on culture obtained from any site within the intra-abdominal cavity or from blood or absence of appropriate culture material for evaluation because the pt had clinically responded and invasive procedures were not needed

  16. Methods Outcome measures - a priori • Primary • To compare the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin monotherapy to that of a standard combination of ceftriaxone plus metronidazole in patients with cIAI • Secondary • To compare the bacteriological efficacy and safety of the two treament regimens

  17. Methods Study procedures • Two arms, receiving different interventions • Further sub-grouped into ITT, PP and MBV • End-of-therapy (EOT) assessment after the final dose of study medication • Test-of-cure (TOC) visit that took place 10-14 days after EOT assessment • primary efficacy parameter for clinical success • OR specimens taken, cultured, identified and susceptibility tested

  18. Methods Statistical considerations a) Sample size calculation - Based on true failure rate of 20% in the control group and an equivalence delta of 15%, plus adjustment of 10% for multicentre design - Assumed a patient validity rate of 70% - Estimated enrolment of 364 patients (182 pts per arm)

  19. Methods Statistical considerations b) Statistical tests - All statistical tests were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level - For success rates, 95% confidence interval of the difference of two clinical success rates was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weights based on strata and centre - If the lower limit of this CI was greater than -15, then treatment with moxi was less effective than the combo regimen

  20. Trial Flow Diagram Enrollment? Number Enrolled n = 374 Allocation Moxi n = 181 Combo n = 183 n = 364 13% not included in final analysis ITT n = 180 ITT n = 181 Safety pop’n n = 361 PP n = 171 PP n = 174 Efficacy pop’n n = 345 MBV n = 132 MBV n = 132 Microbiologically valid n = 255

  21. Results Baseline Characteristics • Dates of recruitment: October 2005 – January 2007 • Duration of follow-up: 10-14 days after last ABX • Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of each group given (next slide) Co-interventions • Did not describe any controlled or uncontrolled co-interventions that may have affected the results • Other medications, conditions, previous antibiotic use

  22. Baseline Characteristics Int J Antimicrob Ag 2009;39:439-445

  23. Results Analysis • Main analysis performed on primary endpoint was “per protocol, efficacy” analysis • “Per protocol”: Patients only analyzed if they were receiving study drug at the end of the trial • Efficacy population (primary outcome) n = 345 • “Intention-to-treat”: Patients analyzed based on the group they were originally randomized into • Safety population (secondary outcome) n = 361

  24. Results Analysis • Primary diagnosis of complicated appendicitis (279/374 – 74.5%) • Primary organism E.coli (155/255 – 60.7%) • B. fragilis, K. pneuomoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa • Based primary outcome (efficacy) on PP population • PP patients: meet inclusion criteria, receive study medication for at least 3 days and had an evaluation of clinical response at TOC other than “missing” or “indeterminate” • Not included if clinical assessment not possible due to early withdrawal (AE, protocol violation, withdrawn consent)

  25. Results Int J Antimicrob Ag 2009;39:439-445

  26. Results Safety • Overall incidence of treatment-emergent AE = NS • Moxi: 57/180 (31.7%) • Combo: 44/181 (24.3%) • Discontinuation due to AE = NS • Moxi: 4/180 (2%) • Combo: 3/181 (1.6%) • Non-compliance • Not mentioned • Mortality • No deaths reported during treatment phase • One death due to Candida infection and multi-organ failure in combo group (p=NS)

  27. Discussion Summary (from authors) • Authors reviewed previous trials in this area • Acknowledge that the infections encountered were managed by surgery • Limited role for ABX as mainly preventing surgical site infection • Do discuss E.coli resistance with moxifloxacin • Contribute success rates to surgery interventions and polymicrobial infections where E.coli may not be main pathogenic agent • But don’t ever assess all aspects of study…

  28. Discussion Summary • Authors conclude that moxifloxacin is non-inferior to combination ceftriaxone and metronidazole in treating cIAIs based on one-sided CI not exceeding -15 (15%)

  29. Critique Title and Abstract • Title should state that this is an RCT • Abstract is not structured into headings but provides enough detail for an initial screen Introduction • Limited scientific background provided on epidemiology, morbidity, impact of disease • Needed to provide more rationale for the study to be conducted, and potential significance • No null hypothesis clearly stated, besides in title

  30. Critique Methods • Super study design: P, R, DD, DB trial • Ethical (approved, patient consent) • Data collected over two years (change in resistance patterns?) • May not be representative of Canadians (Asia) • Did not clarify any aspects of patient enrollment • Was sampling consecutive or based on convenience? • Did not clarify any aspects of treatment allocation • Randomization? Sequence? Concealment? • No “loss to follow up” etc. information ever given • Trial may be subject to bias

  31. Critique Methods • Appropriate “double-dummy” blinding sincestudy drugs had different dosing regimens • But did not provide information on what placebo was • Did not provide data that blinding worked • No rationale for duration (max 14 days) or comparisons between arms • No duration means given or comparison of durations • Safety population (ITT) mean was moxi: 5.8; combo: 5.7 days (1-15 day range) • Use of pre-treatment APACHE II score for “non-life-threatening condition”

  32. Critique Methods • No IV to PO step down • Not standard practice • IDSA cIAI guidelines recommend addition of metronidazole to FQ due to increasing resistance of B.fragilis • Especially if previous FQ exposure • Ceftriaxone plus metronidazole indicated for high severity infections • Trial assessed mild to moderate infections • Numbers used for power calculation not referenced

  33. Critique Results • Trial flow diagram provided, but no information on lost patients • 29 patients unaccounted for (29/374, 7.7%) • EOT and TOC never clearly defined • What was assessed at these visits? • F/U WBC? Neuts? Temp? • Important omissions in baseline characteristics • Previous ABX? Medical conditions? Concurrent meds? • Very high cure rates for both arms • Such broad spectrum necessary?

  34. Critique Results • No data on concurrent use of potential confounding co-interventions • Primary analysis was based on an per-protocol analysis of patients receiving drug at end of study, not based on intention-to-treat analysis

  35. Critique Discussion • Fail to discuss important study limitations, which are a threat to the internal validity of study • Fail to discuss concerns around external validity (generalizability) of results to real world or Canadian practice • No assessment of secondary outcomes and very sparse discussion of primary outcome

  36. Critique Discussion • No discussion of cost comparisons between two arms • Justify blinding as it eliminated physician bias as “were physicians allowed to know treatment… and susceptibility data, many patients might have had therapy changed” • Compared results to other non-inferiority studies which involved IV to PO step down

  37. General Interpretation Summary • Funded by manufacturer of moxifloxacin (Bayer) • Significant methodological limitations make this study hypothesis-generating • Results are not made relevant to Canadian practice • In BC in 2008, E.coli reported to have 25% resistance to ciprofloxacin • A larger, well-designed study is required to confirm a benefit on clinically-important endpoints before a widespread change in practice to an agent that may promote microbial resistance, and is more costly

  38. Recommendation Summary • Based this current study, there is insufficient evidence to recommend moxifloxacin as monotherapy in cIAI • This is supported by the IDSA Guidelines for IAI • Hypotheses generated from this study should be tested in larger, well-designed studies • Superiority trial? • Consider moxifloxacin as an alternative option (in combo with metronidazole) when sample C&S are reported back from lab or when first-line treatment fails

More Related