福斯霉素治疗耐多药大肠杆菌引起的菌血症性尿路感染:FOREST 试验 DOOR 后期分析的启示。

Jesús Sojo-Dorado, Inmaculada López-Hernández, Belén Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Sandra De la Rosa-Riestra, Fernando Docobo-Pérez, Alicia Hernánez-Torres, Álvaro Pascual, Jesús Rodriguez-Baño
{"title":"福斯霉素治疗耐多药大肠杆菌引起的菌血症性尿路感染:FOREST 试验 DOOR 后期分析的启示。","authors":"Jesús Sojo-Dorado, Inmaculada López-Hernández, Belén Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Sandra De la Rosa-Riestra, Fernando Docobo-Pérez, Alicia Hernánez-Torres, Álvaro Pascual, Jesús Rodriguez-Baño","doi":"10.1080/23744235.2024.2435565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A <i>post hoc</i> analysis of data from a previously published clinical trial was conducted using the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) methodology with the aim provide additional information on the use of fosfomycin for the treatment of bacteraemic urinary tract infection (BUTI) caused by multi-drug-resistant (MDR) <i>E. coli</i>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three DOOR systems with five, six and seven categories, respectively were developed. Safety and efficacy were prioritised in all rankings, but step down to oral therapy and exposure to antibiotics with lower ecological impact were also considered in DOOR-6 and DOOR-7. The probability that a patients assigned to fosfomycin was classified into a more desirable outcome category was calculated for the three DOOR definitions. Subgroups analyses and an ordinal logistic regression model were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 143 participants were analysed. The probability of having a more desirable outcome after treatment with fosfomycin versus the comparators was 0.44 (95% CI 0.36 - 0.52) for DOOR-5; 0.50 (95% IC 0.42 - 0.58) using DOOR-6 and 0.61 (95% CI 0.53-0.69) with DOOR-7. In subgroups, the highest probability of having a better DOOR with fosfomycin was seen in the clinically evaluable population and among patients without chronic heart disease or renal insufficiency for the DOOR-7 definition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DOOR analysis could be applied to the FOREST trial data; the results were somehow different for the different DOOR systems used. Overall, fosfomycin was favoured when oral step-down treatment and use of antibiotics with lower ecological impact were included.</p>","PeriodicalId":73372,"journal":{"name":"Infectious diseases (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fosfomycin in bacteraemic urinary tract infection due to multidrug-resistant <i>Escherichia coli</i>: insights of <i>post hoc</i> DOOR analysis of the FOREST trial.\",\"authors\":\"Jesús Sojo-Dorado, Inmaculada López-Hernández, Belén Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Sandra De la Rosa-Riestra, Fernando Docobo-Pérez, Alicia Hernánez-Torres, Álvaro Pascual, Jesús Rodriguez-Baño\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23744235.2024.2435565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A <i>post hoc</i> analysis of data from a previously published clinical trial was conducted using the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) methodology with the aim provide additional information on the use of fosfomycin for the treatment of bacteraemic urinary tract infection (BUTI) caused by multi-drug-resistant (MDR) <i>E. coli</i>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three DOOR systems with five, six and seven categories, respectively were developed. Safety and efficacy were prioritised in all rankings, but step down to oral therapy and exposure to antibiotics with lower ecological impact were also considered in DOOR-6 and DOOR-7. The probability that a patients assigned to fosfomycin was classified into a more desirable outcome category was calculated for the three DOOR definitions. Subgroups analyses and an ordinal logistic regression model were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 143 participants were analysed. The probability of having a more desirable outcome after treatment with fosfomycin versus the comparators was 0.44 (95% CI 0.36 - 0.52) for DOOR-5; 0.50 (95% IC 0.42 - 0.58) using DOOR-6 and 0.61 (95% CI 0.53-0.69) with DOOR-7. In subgroups, the highest probability of having a better DOOR with fosfomycin was seen in the clinically evaluable population and among patients without chronic heart disease or renal insufficiency for the DOOR-7 definition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DOOR analysis could be applied to the FOREST trial data; the results were somehow different for the different DOOR systems used. Overall, fosfomycin was favoured when oral step-down treatment and use of antibiotics with lower ecological impact were included.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infectious diseases (London, England)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infectious diseases (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2024.2435565\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious diseases (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2024.2435565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对先前发表的一项临床试验数据进行事后分析,采用结果排序的可取性(DOOR)方法,目的是提供关于使用磷霉素治疗多药耐药(MDR)大肠杆菌引起的细菌性尿路感染(BUTI)的额外信息。方法:开发了5类、6类和7类DOOR系统。所有排名都优先考虑安全性和有效性,但在DOOR-6和DOOR-7中也考虑了降低到口服治疗和对生态影响较小的抗生素暴露。根据三个DOOR定义,计算分配给磷霉素治疗的患者被归为更理想的结果类别的概率。还进行了亚组分析和有序逻辑回归模型。结果:分析了143名参与者的数据。DOOR-5组与比较组相比,使用磷霉素治疗后获得更理想结果的概率为0.44 (95% CI 0.36 - 0.52);DOOR-6组0.50 (95% CI 0.42 - 0.58), DOOR-7组0.61 (95% CI 0.53-0.69)。在亚组中,使用磷霉素获得更好DOOR的概率最高的是临床可评估人群和没有慢性心脏病或肾功能不全的DOOR-7定义的患者。结论:DOOR分析可以应用于FOREST试验数据;使用不同的DOOR系统,结果会有所不同。总的来说,当包括口服降压治疗和使用对生态影响较小的抗生素时,磷霉素更受青睐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fosfomycin in bacteraemic urinary tract infection due to multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli: insights of post hoc DOOR analysis of the FOREST trial.

Purpose: A post hoc analysis of data from a previously published clinical trial was conducted using the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) methodology with the aim provide additional information on the use of fosfomycin for the treatment of bacteraemic urinary tract infection (BUTI) caused by multi-drug-resistant (MDR) E. coli.

Methods: Three DOOR systems with five, six and seven categories, respectively were developed. Safety and efficacy were prioritised in all rankings, but step down to oral therapy and exposure to antibiotics with lower ecological impact were also considered in DOOR-6 and DOOR-7. The probability that a patients assigned to fosfomycin was classified into a more desirable outcome category was calculated for the three DOOR definitions. Subgroups analyses and an ordinal logistic regression model were also performed.

Results: Data from 143 participants were analysed. The probability of having a more desirable outcome after treatment with fosfomycin versus the comparators was 0.44 (95% CI 0.36 - 0.52) for DOOR-5; 0.50 (95% IC 0.42 - 0.58) using DOOR-6 and 0.61 (95% CI 0.53-0.69) with DOOR-7. In subgroups, the highest probability of having a better DOOR with fosfomycin was seen in the clinically evaluable population and among patients without chronic heart disease or renal insufficiency for the DOOR-7 definition.

Conclusions: DOOR analysis could be applied to the FOREST trial data; the results were somehow different for the different DOOR systems used. Overall, fosfomycin was favoured when oral step-down treatment and use of antibiotics with lower ecological impact were included.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信