Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28466147›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2017

Appropriate endpoints for evaluation of new antibiotic therapies for severe infections: a perspective from COMBACTE's STAT-Net.

Jean-François Timsit, Marlieke E A de Kraker, Harriet Sommer, Emmanuel Weiss, Esther Bettiol, Martin Wolkewitz, Stavros Nikolakopoulos, David Wilson, Stephan Harbarth, COMBACTE-NET consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Ultrasound-Mediated Antibiotic Delivery to In Vivo Biofilm Infections: A Review.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Composite end points and competing risks analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jean-François TimsitUMR 1137 IAME Inserm/Université Paris Diderot, 75018, Paris, France. jean-francois.timsit@bch.aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0903-8614
Marlieke E A de KrakerInfection Control Program, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. marlieke.dekraker@hcuge.ch.
Harriet SommerInstitute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Emmanuel WeissUniversité Paris Diderot, 75018, Paris, France.
Esther BettiolInfection Control Program, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Martin WolkewitzInstitute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Stavros NikolakopoulosDepartment of Biostatistics and Research Support, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
David WilsonAstraZeneca, Macclesfield, SK10 4TG, UK.
Stephan HarbarthInfection Control Program, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
COMBACTE-NET consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this era of rising antimicrobial resistance, slowly refilling antibiotic development pipelines, and an aging population, we need to ensure that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) determine the added benefit of new antibiotic agents effectively and in a valid way, especially for severely ill patients. Unfortunately, universally accepted endpoints for the evaluation of new drugs in severe infections are lacking.

methodsWe review and discuss the current practices and challenges regarding endpoints in RCTs in this field and propose novel approaches.

resultsUsual endpoints actually recommended for drug development suffer from important flaws. Mortality requires large sample size and only partly related to the infectious process. Clinical cure rate is highly subjective in critically ill patients where symptoms may be related to other intercurrent events. Currently, composite endpoints, hierarchical nested designs, and competing risks analysis seem to be the most promising new tools for designing and analyzing clinical trials in this area, although they require further validation.

conclusionRegulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and clinicians need to agree on the most appropriate clinical endpoints for severe infections to ensure efficient approval of new, effective antibiotic agents.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsCritical IllnessDrug ApprovalDrug ResistanceEndpoint DeterminationHumansMortalityResearch DesignRisk AssessmentAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic therapyConsensusEndpointsRandomized clinical trialsSevere infections

Identifiers

PMID28466147
PMCPMC5487537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.