Reply to Hassoun et al
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hassoun and colleagues question whether the hospital-acquired (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) guidelines recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases were “fair and balanced” in their review of telavancin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia [1, 2]. Our guideline panelists had substantial concerns about the evidence supporting the use of telavancin for MRSA HAP/VAP. The use of telavancin was based on 2 randomized, double-blind, industry-sponsored studies, the Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (ATTAIN studies). These studies compared telavancin versus vancomycin for treatment of HAP/VAP. Despite enrolling 1532 patients overall, only 221 patients had MRSA HAP and only 69 patients had MRSA VAP [3, 4]. There was no difference between the telavancin and vancomycin groups in clinical cure, but there was a discrepancy in all-cause mortality between the 2 ATTAIN studies. The first study found higher mortality rates in patients randomized to telavancin (21.5% vs 16.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference, −.7% to 10.6%) whereas the second study did not (18.5% vs 20.6%; 95% CI for difference, −7.8% to 3.5%). Further analysis of both ATTAIN studies revealed a trend toward increased renal adverse events with discontinuation of therapy in the telavancin group (14 telavancin-treated patients [1.9%] and 7 vancomycin-treated patients [0.9%]), as well as higher mortality (14% [95% CI, −29.2 to 1]) among patients with creatinine clearance <30 mL/min who received telavancin. Our concerns echo those of the Food and Drug Administration panel that reviewed telavancin. The panel voted 9 − 6 against recommending telavancin as a first-line treatment and ultimately approved telavancin only “when alternative treatments are not suitable” [5]. Hassoun and colleagues cited a subgroup post hoc analysis suggesting that the increased mortality signal in patients randomized to telavancin was driven exclusively by inadequate treatment of Gram-negative pneumonias [6]. These types of subanalyses are at best hypothesis generating and should not be used to guide first-line clinical practice. It is not appropriate to overturn the primary analysis of randomized controlled trials in favor of a manufacturer-sponsored post hoc analysis of a small subset of the studies. To ensure that the guidelines are fair and balanced, we embraced current best practices when putting together our recommendations including the use of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The GRADE methodology explicitly encourages guideline writers to downgrade evidence for risk of imprecision, inconsistency, bias, and indirectness. The small number of patients with MRSA infections (especially MRSA VAP), the inconsistency in mortality signals between the 2 registration studies, the recourse to a subgroup post hoc analysis to explain the higher mortality rates in the telavancin group, and the availability of better studied alternatives such as vancomycin and linezolid are the reasons we did not recommend telavancin as first-line therapy for MRSA pneumonia. Potential conflicts of interest. As reported in the 2016 Guideline, M. L. M. reports that he has participated as an investigator in clinical trials related to bronchiectasis sponsored by Aradigm and Gilead. His employer has received remuneration for this work. Prior to beginning work on this Guideline, he served as a consultant and speaker for Pfizer. J. M. reports grants from Bayer Pharma, outside the submitted work. All other authors: no reported conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,052 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,115 | 0,058 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».