Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30722013›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2019

Elaboration of Consensus Clinical Endpoints to Evaluate Antimicrobial Treatment Efficacy in Future Hospital-acquired/Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia Clinical Trials.

Emmanuel Weiss, Jean-Ralph Zahar, Jeff Alder, Karim Asehnoune, Matteo Bassetti, Marc J M Bonten, Jean Chastre, Jan De Waele, George Dimopoulos, Philippe Eggimann and 19 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Association of Arterial PaCODiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

29 authors.

Emmanuel WeissDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Beaujon Hospital, Clichy.
Jean-Ralph ZaharDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infection Control Unit, Avicennes Hospital, AP-HP, Bobigny.
Jeff AlderBayer US LLC, Parsippany, New Jersey.
Karim AsehnouneUniversity Hospital of Nantes, Intensive Care Unit, Anesthesia and Critical Care Department, Hôtel Dieu, Nantes, France.
Matteo BassettiInfectious Diseases Division, Department of Medicine, University of Udine and Santa Maria Misericordia University Hospital, Italy.
Marc J M BontenDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Julius Center for Health Science and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jean ChastreService de Réanimation Médicale, Institut de Cardiologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Jan De WaeleDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.
George DimopoulosDepartment of Critical Care, University Hospital Attikon, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.
Philippe EggimannDepartment of Critical Care, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne.
Marc EngelhardtBasilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Santiago EwigDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Evangelic Hospital in Herne and Augusta Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
Marin KollefDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Jeffrey LipmanRoyal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, Australia.
Carlos LunaDepartment of Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases Division, Hospital de Clínicas, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ignacio Martin-LoechesDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization, St James's Hospital, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Leonardo PaganiInfectious Diseases Unit, Bolzano Central Hospital, Italy.
Lucy B PalmerPulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Division, State University of New York at Stony Brook, France.
Laurent PapazianMédecine Intensive-Réanimation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital Nord, France.
Garyphallia PoulakouThird Department of Medicine, Sotiria General Hospital, Greece.
Philippe ProkocimerMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Jordi RelloCentro Investigacion Biomedica En Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Spain.
John H RexF2G, Ltd, Eccles, United Kingdom.
Andrew F ShorrMedstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia.
George H TalbotTalbot Advisors LLC, Anna Maria, Florida.
Visanu ThamlikitkulFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Antoni TorresServei de Pneumologia, Hospital Clinic, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut De Investigacio Biomedica Agusti Pi i Sunyer, CIBERES, Spain.
Richard G WunderinkFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Jean-François TimsitAP-HP, Medical and Infectious Diseases Intensive Care Unit, Bichat Hospital, Paris.

Funding

Technology CoreU19AI135964 · NIAID · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI LUIS A. Nunes AMARAL · 2018 to 2026
$24.7M
NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI135964
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) in hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP and VABP, respectively) are important for the evaluation of new antimicrobials. However, the heterogeneity in endpoints used in RCTs evaluating treatment of HABP/VABP may puzzle clinicians. The aim of this work was to reach a consensus on clinical endpoints to consider in future clinical trials evaluating antimicrobial treatment efficacy for HABP/VABP.

methodsTwenty-six international experts from intensive care, infectious diseases, and the pharmaceutical industry were polled using the Delphi method.

resultsThe panel recommended a hierarchical composite endpoint including, by priority order, (1) survival at day 28, (2) mechanical ventilation-free days through day 28, and (3) clinical cure between study days 7 and 10 for VABP; and (1) survival (day 28) and (2) clinical cure (days 7-10) for HABP. Clinical cure was defined as the combination of resolution of signs and symptoms present at enrollment and improvement or lack of progression of radiological signs. More than 70% of the experts agreed to assess survival and mechanical ventilation-free days though day 28, and clinical cure between day 7 and day 10 after treatment initiation. Finally, the hierarchical order of endpoint components was reached after 3 Delphi rounds (72% agreement).

conclusionsWe provide a multinational expert consensus on separate hierarchical composite endpoints for VABP and HABP, and on a definition of clinical cure that could be considered for use in future HABP/VABP clinical trials.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsConsensusCritical CareCross InfectionHumansPneumonia, BacterialPneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial Agentsclinical cureDelphi methodhierarchical composite endpointhospital-acquired bacterial pneumoniamultinational consensus

Identifiers

PMID30722013
PMCPMC9431655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.