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... Show moreIntroduction 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. Show less
Engels, N.; Graav, G.N. de; Nat, P. van der; Dorpel, M. van den; Stiggelbout, A.M.; Bos, W.J. 2022
Objectives To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised... Show moreObjectives To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised information on their content, use and reported results. To provide an overview of interventions currently under development or investigation. Design The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed. This review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO, PROSPERO and Academic Search Premier for peer-reviewed literature. Other online databases (eg, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey) for grey literature. Eligibility for inclusion Records in English with a study population of patients >18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Records had to be on the subject of SDM, or explicitly mention that the intervention reported on could be used to support SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened and selected records for data extraction. Interventions were categorised as prognostic tools (PTs), educational programmes (EPs), patient decision aids (PtDAs) or multicomponent initiatives (MIs). Interventions were subsequently categorised based on the decisions they were developed to support. Results One hundred forty-five interventions were identified in a total of 158 included records: 52 PTs, 51 EPs, 29 PtDAs and 13 MIs. Sixteen (n=16, 11%) were novel interventions currently under investigation. Forty-six (n=46, 35.7%) were reported to have been implemented in clinical practice. Sixty-seven (n=67, 51.9%) were evaluated for their effects on outcomes in the intended users. Conclusion There is no conclusive evidence on which intervention is the most efficacious in supporting SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. There is a lot of variation in selected outcomes, and the body of evidence is largely based on observational research. In addition, the effects of these interventions on SDM are under-reported. Show less
Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific... Show moreObjectives The COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific life-sustaining treatments are in place), both in the medical field and in public media. However, it is unknown whether the increased awareness changed the prevalence and content of code status documentation for COVID-19 patients. We aim to describe differences in code status documentation between infectious patients before the pandemic and COVID-19 patients. Setting University Medical Centre of Utrecht, a tertiary care teaching academic hospital in the Netherlands. Participants A total of 1715 patients were included, 129 in the COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of COVID-19 patients, admitted from March 2020 to June 2020) and 1586 in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of patients with (suspected) infections admitted between September 2016 to September 2018). Primary and secondary outcome measures We described frequency of code status documentation, frequency of discussion of this code status with patient and/or family, and content of code status. Results Frequencies of code status documentation (69.8% vs 72.7%, respectively) and discussion (75.6% vs 73.3%, respectively) were similar in both cohorts. More patients in the COVID-19 cohort than in the before COVID-19 cohort had any treatment limitation as opposed to full code (40% vs 25%). Within the treatment limitations, 'no intensive care admission' (81% vs 51%) and 'no intubation' (69% vs 40%) were more frequently documented in the COVID-19 cohort. A smaller difference was seen in 'other limitation' (17% vs 9%), while 'no resuscitation' (96% vs 92%) was comparable between both periods. Conclusion We observed no difference in the frequency of code status documentation or discussion in COVID-19 patients opposed to a pre-COVID-19 cohort. However, treatment limitations were more prevalent in patients with COVID-19, especially 'no intubation' and 'no intensive care admission'. Show less
Background: Acutely hospitalised older patients with indications related to internal medicine have high risks of adverse outcomes. We investigated whether risk stratification using the Acutely... Show moreBackground: Acutely hospitalised older patients with indications related to internal medicine have high risks of adverse outcomes. We investigated whether risk stratification using the Acutely Presenting Older Patient (APOP) screening tool associates with clinical outcomes in this patient group.Methods: Patients aged >= 70 years who visited the Emergency Department (ED) and were acutely hospitalised for internal medicine were followed prospectively. The APOP screener assesses demographics, physical and cognitive function at ED presentation, and predicts 3-month mortality and functional decline in the older ED population. Patients with a predicted risk >= 45% were considered 'high risk'. Clinical outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS), and adverse outcomes were mortality and functional decline, 3 and 12 months after hospitalisation.Results: We included 319 patients, with a median age of 80 (IQR 74-85) years, of whom 94 (29.5%) were categorised as 'high risk' by the APOP screener. These patients had a longer hospital LOS compared to 'low risk' patients (5 (IQR 3-10) vs. 3 (IQR 1-7) days, respectively; p = 0.006). At 3 months, adverse outcomes were more frequent in 'high risk' patients compared to 'low risk' patients (59.6% vs. 34.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 12 months, adverse outcomes (67.0% vs. 46.2%, respectively; p = 0.001) and mortality (48.9% vs. 28.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) were greater in 'high risk' compared to 'low risk' patients.Conclusion: The APOP screener identifies acutely hospitalised internal medicine patients at high risk for poor short and long-term outcomes. Early risk stratification at admission could aid in individualised treatment decisions to optimise outcomes for older patients. Show less
