Biology subjects

Oosterheert, J. J.

Publications and source records attributed to Oosterheert, J. J..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2019

Confounding by indication of the safety of de-escalation in community-acquired pneumonia: a simulation study embedded in a prospective cohort.

BackgroundObservational studies have demonstrated that de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is independently associated with lower mortality. This most probably results from confounding by indication. Reaching clinical stability is associated with the decision to de-escalate and with survival. However, studies rarely adjust for this confounder. We quantified the potential confounding effect of clinical stability on the estimated impact of de-escalation on mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.\n\nMethodsData were used from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed Cox proportional-hazards regression with de-escalation as time-dependent variable and adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. The potential impact of unmeasured confounding was quantified through simulating a variable representing clinical stability on day three, using data on prevalence and associations with mortality from the literature.\n\nResultsOf 1,536 included patients, 257 (16.7%) were de-escalated, 123 (8.0%) were escalated and in 1156 (75.3%) the antibiotic spectrum remained unchanged. The adjusted hazard ratio of de-escalation for 30-day mortality (compared to patients with unchanged coverage), without adjustment for clinical stability, was 0.36 (95%CI: 0.18-0.73). If 90% to 100% of de-escalated patients were clinically stable on day three, the fully adjusted hazard ratio would be 0.53 (95%CI: 0.26-1.08) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.42-1.91), respectively. The simulated confounder was substantially stronger than any of the baseline confounders in our dataset.\n\nConclusionsWith plausible, literature-based assumptions, clinical stability is a very strong confounder for the effects of de-escalation. Quantification of effects of de-escalation on patient outcomes without proper adjustment for clinical stability results in strong negative bias. As a result, the safety of de-escalation remains to be determined.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2017

Cardiac events after macrolides or fluoroquinolones in patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia: post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized trial

BackgroundGuidelines recommend macrolides and fluoroquinolones in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), but their use has been associated with cardiac events.\n\nObjectiveTo quantify associations between macrolide and fluoroquinolone use and cardiac events in patients hospitalized with CAP in non-ICU wards.\n\nDesignPost-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized trial\n\nSettingSix hospitals in the Netherlands\n\nPatientsCAP patients admitted to non-ICU wards and without a cardiac event on admission\n\nMeasurementsCause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for effects of time-dependent macrolide and fluoroquinolone exposure on cardiac events, defined as occurrence of new or worsening heart failure, arrhythmia, or myocardial ischemia during hospitalization.\n\nResultsCardiac events occurred in 146 (6.9%) of 2,107 patients and included episodes of heart failure (n=101, 4.8%), arrhythmia (n=53, 2.5%), and myocardial ischemia (n=14, 0.7%). Cardiac events occurred in 11 of 207 (5.3%), 18 of 250 (7.2%), and 31 of 277 (11.2%) patients exposed to azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin for at least one day, respectively, and in 9 of 234 (3.8%), 5 of 194 (2.6%), and 23 of 566 (4.1%) patients exposed to ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin, respectively. Hazard ratios for any cardiac event, adjusted for confounding, were 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.67), 1.06 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.83) and 1.68 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.62) for azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin, respectively, and adjusted hazard ratios were 0.86 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.57), 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.99) for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin, respectively. Erythromycin was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.08 (95% CI 1.25 to 3.46) for heart failure.\n\nLimitationsPossibility of confounding by indication and observational bias\n\nConclusionsAmong patients with CAP hospitalized to non-ICU wards, erythromycin use was associated with a 68% increased risk of hospital-acquired cardiac events, mainly heart failure. Levofloxacin and moxifloxacin were associated with a lower risk of heart failure.\n\nRegistrationThe original trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01660204\n\nFunding SourceThe Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZONmw, Health care efficiency research, project id: 171202002).

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2017

Response Adjusted for Days of Antibiotic Risk (RADAR): evaluation of a novel method to analyze antibiotic stewardship interventions

OBJECTIVESThe Response Adjusted for Days of Antibiotic Risk (RADAR)-statistic was proposed to improve efficiency of antibiotic stewardship trials. We studied the behavior of RADAR in a non-inferiority trial in which a beta-lactam monotherapy strategy (BL, n=656) was non-inferior to fluoroquinolone monotherapy (FQL, n=888) for moderately-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients.\n\nMETHODSPatients were ranked according to clinical outcome, using five or eight categories, and antibiotic use. RADAR was calculated as the probability that the BL group had a more favorable ranking than the FQL group. To investigate the sensitivity of RADAR to detrimental clinical outcome we simulated increasing rates of 90-day mortality in the BL group and performed the RADAR and non-inferiority analysis.\n\nRESULTSThe RADAR of the BL-group compared to the FQL group was 60.3% (95% confidence interval 57.9%-62.7%) using five and 58.4% (95% CI 56.0%-60.9%) using eight clinical outcome categories, all in favor of BL. Sample sizes for RADAR were 250 and 580 patients per study arm using five or eight clinical outcome categories, respectively, reflecting 38% and 89% of the original non-inferiority sample size calculation. With simulated mortality rates, loss of non-inferiority of the BL-group occurred at a relative risk of 1.125 in the conventional analysis, whereas using RADAR the BL-group lost superiority at a relative risk of mortality of 1.25 and 1.5, with eight and five clinical outcome categories, respectively.\n\nCONCLUSIONSRADAR favored BL over FQL therapy for CAP. Although RADAR required fewer patients than conventional non-inferiority analysis, the statistic was less sensitive to detrimental outcomes.

epidemiology↗