Citations

Introduction Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common and remains the leading infectious cause of death worldwide. Antibiotics remain the mainstay of treatment, but organisms are often not identified, necessitating empirical treatment. Current treatment guidelines recommend combination therapy with beta-lactams and macrolides or monotherapy with fluoroquinolones for non-severe CAP. However, rising antibiotic resistance and safety concerns have led to increased doxycycline use, despite limited evidence supporting its efficacy. Our goal is to conduct a pragmatic, open-label, randomised clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of azithromycin with that of doxycycline in combination with beta-lactam therapy in adult patients hospitalised for CAP. Methods and analysis Patients presenting to the emergency department or directly referred to the hospital with a clinical presentation concerning for CAP and need for hospitalisation are eligible. We plan to enrol 1120 adults hospitalised at six hospitals across four states, including rural, suburban and urban settings and academic and community hospitals. Randomisation will be 1:1 using an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded screening and randomisation tool triggered by the treating clinician’s orders for azithromycin or doxycycline. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via EHR-based data retrieval and will not require additional study visits. Our primary outcome is days alive and out of the hospital through day 28. Secondary outcomes include oxygen-free days; a composite of a need for advanced respiratory support or in-hospital mortality with analyses of each component separately; an ordinal measure of clinical deterioration defined by a prespecified severity scale; and 60-day and 180-day mortality. Safety outcomes are the incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection and QT prolongation. Analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, with per-protocol analyses for sensitivity. The primary endpoint will be compared between groups using a stratified van Elteren test, with supportive analyses using proportional odds regression and analysis of covariance adjusted for key covariates. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this protocol with a waiver of written consent, requiring verbal consent to be obtained by the clinician initiating the antibiotics (IRB# 24–0 06 503). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT07164131 .

Abstract Rationale Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; current guidelines recommend either the use of β-lactam therapy with a macrolide (azithromycin; AZM) or monotherapy with a fluoroquinolone for treatment. Limited evidence exists on their comparative effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined the differences in outcomes among CAP patients treated with β-lactam therapy plus AZM or fluoroquinolone monotherapymethods: We emulated a randomized clinical trial that hypothetically assigned patients to β-lactam therapy plus AZM or fluoroquinolone. Eligible patients were all adults hospitalized for nonsevere community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) based on ATS/IDSA criteria; at Mayo Clinic hospitals (3 academic and 16 community) between May 2018 and September 2022 and received one of the two treatments within 12 hours of admission. Ensemble machine learning with augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) was used to evaluate “intention to treat” effects on hospital-free days (HFDs), 180-day mortality, use of advanced respiratory support, in-hospital mortality, and the composite of advanced respiratory support and/or in-hospital mortality. We used the E-value and post-discharge systolic blood pressure (SBP) (negative outcome) to evaluate effects of potential unmeasured confounding and alternative “doubly robust” inverse probably weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) to evaluate robustness of the findings. Results 2,451 patients (2,142 β-lactam therapy plus AZM and 309 fluoroquinolone) were eligible and included in the analyses: 53.9% were female, 86.8% were White, and mean age was 58.4 years (SD: 17.02). Compared with β-lactam therapy plus AZM, the fluoroquinolone group experienced significantly higher HFD (1.50 days; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.91), lower use of advanced respiratory support (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.54), lower in-hospital mortality (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.40), and composite of advanced respiratory support and/or in-hospital mortality (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.49). Moderate to large e-values (ranging from 3.50 to 4.74) and use of negative outcomes (post-discharge SBP) suggested that unmeasured confounding is unlikely to change the findings. Sensitivity analysis using IPWRA showed very similar results. Conclusion Among hospitalized patients with non-severe CAP, treatment with fluoroquinolone monotherapy was associated with more hospital-free days, lower in-hospital mortality, and reduced need for advanced respiratory support compared with AZM and β-lactam combination. The findings highlight the role of fluoroquinolone as a beneficial alternative CAP patients. However, further studies are needed to explore the underlying mechanisms driving these differences and assess whether specific patient subgroups may benefit most from quinolone-based therapy. This abstract is funded by: none

Introduction Sepsis is a global health priority with nearly 50 million cases annually. Cardiovascular dysfunction is common, frequently manifesting as hypotension that persists despite fluid resuscitation. Most affected patients require the use of intravenous (IV) vasoactive agents, typically necessitating intensive care unit (ICU)-level monitoring, invasive interventions and contributing substantially to healthcare costs. Midodrine, an oral alpha-1 agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension, has increasingly been used off-label as a vasopressor-sparing (reducing IV vasopressor use) strategy in sepsis, despite limited and inconsistent evidence. This pragmatic, randomised, open-label trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of midodrine in patients with sepsis-associated hypotension. We hypothesise that, compared with standard care, midodrine administration will reduce the duration of IV vasopressor use. Methods and analysis A total of 308 adult patients with sepsis-associated hypotension will be enrolled (154 per arm). The intervention group will, in addition to standard of care, receive enteral midodrine 10 mg three times daily. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via electronic health record-based data retrieval and adjudicated by research coordinators blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time alive and off IV vasopressors in the first 28 days (in hours) after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include cumulative vasopressor exposure; use and duration of central venous access; cumulative fluid balance over the first 48 hours and up to 7 days of ICU stay; ICU and hospital length of stay; and ICU-, hospital-, and organ support-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes include adverse events potentially attributable to midodrine during hospitalisation including acute kidney injury. Primary analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, including all randomised participants according to their assigned treatment groups. Primary and secondary outcomes will be compared using a van Elteren test stratified by randomisation factors. A predefined secondary Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome will provide complementary estimates of treatment effect. Safety outcomes will be summarised descriptively without formal between-arm hypothesis testing. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this protocol and required written informed consent from all participants (IRB# 24–0 00 121). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT06319248 .

Background Adherence to evidence-based care processes and patient outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) can be influenced by staffing and resource availability. We aimed to evaluate if there is a weekend effect on adherence to evidence-based care processes, and hospitalization outcomes and whether a checklist implementation could mitigate potential differences. Methods Post hoc analysis of the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) study dataset collected before and after checklist implementation in 34 ICUs across 15 countries (2013-2017). Admission days were classified as ‘weekend/holidays’ or ‘weekdays’ according to local work schedules and public holidays. The primary outcome was the omission of 10 evidence-based care processes addressed in the checklist. Mortality and length of stay differences between weekend/holiday and weekday admissions were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results 4256 patients contributed 1141 weekend versus 3501 weekday observation days pre-intervention, and 2014 versus 6507 post-intervention. Pre-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than weekdays (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.58 [95%–confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.88), whereas head-of-bed elevation was omitted more often on weekdays than on weekends/holidays (aRR, 3.17 [1.14-8.86]). Post-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis omission rates became similar (aRR, 1.03 [0.68-1.56], but head-of-bed elevation became omitted more often on weekends than on weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.88]). Post-intervention, oral care was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than in weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.9]), and central catheter removal was more frequent on weekdays than in weekends/holidays (aRR, 1.11 [1.02-1.21]). No significant differences in mortality or length of stay were found. Conclusion A weekend effect influenced adherence to some care processes. While checklist implementation improved overall adherence, some disparities diminished, while new ones emerged. Organizational, cultural, and temporal factors should be further studied to optimize care delivery across all times and settings. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01973829

Background: Procalcitonin (PCT) is recognized as an inflammatory biomarker, often elevated in COVID-19 pneumonia alongside other biomarkers. Understanding its association with severe outcomes and comparing its predictive ability with other biomarkers is crucial for clinical management. Objectives: This retrospective multicenter observational study aimed to investigate the association between PCT levels and adverse outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Additionally, it sought to compare the predictive performance of various biomarkers. Design: The study analyzed data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) registry, comprising COVID-19 patients hospitalized across multiple Mayo Clinic sites between March 2020 and June 2022. Methods: A total of 7851 adult COVID-19 patients were included. Patients were categorized into 6 groups based on the worst WHO ordinal scale. Multivariate models were constructed using peak biomarker levels within 72 hours of admission, adjusted for confounders. Results: Elevated PCT levels were independently associated with increased odds of adverse outcomes, including ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.32, 95%CI 1.27-1.38), IMV requirement (aOR 1.35, 95%CI: 1.28-1.42), and in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.30, 95%CI: 1.22-1.37). A 3.48-fold increase in IMV requirement and 3.55 times increase in in-hospital mortality were noted with peak PCT ⩾ 0.25 ng/ml. Similar associations were observed with other biomarkers like NLR (AUC 0.730), CRP, IL-6, LDH (AUC 0.800), and D-dimer (AUC 0.719). Models incorporating NLR, LDH, D-dimer, and PCT demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy, with a combined model exhibiting an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.826 (95%CI 0.803-0.849). Conclusions: Higher PCT levels were significantly linked to worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, emphasizing its potential as a prognostic marker. Biomarker-based predictive models, particularly those including PCT, showed promising utility for risk assessment and clinical decision-making. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings on a larger scale.

Abstract Background Doxycycline is a frequently used alternative treatment for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in hospitalized patients; however, the evidence base is limited. We aimed to compare outcomes in CAP patients treated with doxycycline or azithromycin in combination with beta-lactams. Methods We evaluated patients with CAP admitted to Mayo Clinic hospitals from May 2018 to September 2022 and treated with either azithromycin or doxycycline in combination with a beta-lactam. Patients who received both antibiotics or were on either antibiotic as chronic therapy prior to admission were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality. Patients were 1-to-1 matched according to the presence of congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection, recent immunosuppressant use, and pneumonia severity index class. Results Among 8492 patients (5810 for azithromycin, 2682 for doxycycline), 2671 doxycycline-treated patients were matched with azithromycin-treated patients. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the azithromycin group than in the doxycycline group (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], .56–.9), as was 90-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, .73–.95). Patients on azithromycin also had significantly more hospital-free days (HFDs) than those on doxycycline (estimate, 1.37; 95% CI, .99–1.74). Conclusions Among hospitalized patients with CAP, azithromycin was associated with lower mortality and more HFDs compared with doxycycline in combination with beta-lactams. Randomized, controlled trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of each regimen and to compare their potential side effects.

IMPORTANCE: Patients admitted to the ICU often experience gastrointestinal complications. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have become increasingly prevalent in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity, and there is evidence that their use may be associated with an increased risk of clinically significant gastrointestinal events. However, their impact on critically ill patients admitted to the medical ICU is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether pre-ICU use of GLP-1RAs was associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal complications and hospitalization outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients admitted to academic and community hospitals of Mayo Clinic Health System from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2023. Patients who were admitted to surgical ICUs and those who were exposed to GLP-1RA medications before but did not have an active prescription within 30 days of admission were excluded. Patients exposed to GLP-1RA were matched with those nonexposed in a 1:1 fashion based on demographic factors, factors affecting gastrointestinal motility, overall illness burden, and clinical acuity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were the development of gastrointestinal dysfunction, ICU- and hospital-free days, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 31,327 patients with diabetes or obesity were identified of whom these, 631 were exposed to GLP-1RA before admission. In the matched cohort of 1262 patients, baseline variables were evenly distributed between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the odds of developing nausea/vomiting, constipation, ileus, obstruction, impaction, or aspiration pneumonia between the GLP-1RA exposed and unexposed groups. Similarly, ICU and hospital mortality rates were comparable across the two groups. However, GLP-1RA exposed patients had significantly more hospital-free days compared with unexposed patients (estimate, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.38–2.0; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: GLP-1RA exposure was not associated with increased odds of clinically significant gastrointestinal complications in nonsurgical critically ill patients. Increased hospital-free days observed among GLP-1RA exposed patients requires further study.

Abstract RATIONALE: Critical illness has been shown to disrupt gastrointestinal function, and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) often experience constipation, aspiration, ileus, and small bowel obstruction. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) have become increasingly prevalent in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. Pharmacovigilance studies suggest that use of GLP-1RAs may be associated with increased risk of clinically significant gastrointestinal effects. In this study, we assessed whether pre-ICU use of GLP-1RA for either diabetes or obesity was associated with adverse gastrointestinal outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective matched cohort study of patients with underlying obesity or diabetes admitted to a Mayo Clinic Medical ICU from 9/1/2018-12/31/2023. Patients who started GLP-1RA within <30 days or stopped them >30 days before admission were excluded. Out of 33,104 eligible patients, we identified 1,549 GLP-1RA exposed patients and matched these to three controls each based on age (±10), sex, body mass index (±5), presence of obesity, diabetes and complications, comorbidities associated with decreased motility, smoking status, alcoholism, abdominal surgeries, Apache score (±20), and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Development of gastrointestinal dysfunction (determined by ICD codes) and hospital- and ICU- free days were the outcomes. Conditional logistic regression and mixed linear models were used for the analyses. RESULTS: The final, matched cohort included 6,196 patients. Most patients were male (56.3%), the median age was 66 years (IQR 58-74), 69.9% had a diagnosis of obesity, and 97.5% had a diagnosis of diabetes. Of the patients, 22.9% had a history of abdominal surgery during their lifetime and 30% had surgery within 30 days of admission. When comparing GLP-1RA exposed and non-exposed patients, significant differences were noted in use of motility altering medications (p=0.001, OR 6.75, CI 2.11-21.56), BMI (p<0.001, estimate=0.6, CI 0.47-0.72), and APACHE score (p<0.001, estimate=14.75, CI14.45 – 15.06). Univariable analysis showed that rates of constipation, impaction, and nausea/vomiting were significantly higher among GLP-1RA exposed patients admitted to the ICU, while rates of obstruction were significantly lower (Table 1). After adjusting for APACHE score, only nausea/vomiting remained statistically significant. After controlling for APACHE, GLP-1RA use was associated with an increased number of hospital free days (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that in the medical ICU population, GLP-1RA use is unlikely to be associated with adverse GI outcomes. Furthermore, GLP-1RA may be associated with overall hospital length of stay but not ICU length of stay.