International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2026
A randomized controlled trial evaluating a novel individualized treatment strategy for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria infections.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Teo Jocelyn Qi-Min, Ong Zhi Wei, Ong Ying Ying, Hung Kai Chee, Lee Winnie, Chung Shimin Jasmine, Tan Yen Ee, Lye David Chien Boon, Iqbal Jabed, Lim Tze Peng, Kwa Andrea Lay-Hoon
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of in vitro antibiotic combination testing (iACT)-guided therapy compared to standard therapy on carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections.
METHODS: In this two-centre, open-label randomized trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to iACT-guided or standard therapy. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Exploratory analyses compared patients who received iACT-matched therapy with those who did not, irrespective of randomized assignment.
FINDINGS: 102 patients were randomized and 98 included in the ITT analysis (49 per arm). The study was discontinued early due to substantial crossover: 31 (63%) patients assigned to the control arm switched to iACT-guided therapy at physician request due to anticipated intolerance to standard therapy. The 30-day mortality was 33% in both groups (difference 0%; 95% CI -18 to 18). Drug-related adverse events were 37% (iACT arm) versus 27% (control arm). Exploratory analysis showed that receipt of iACT-matched therapy (n=91) was associated with a larger absolute risk difference for 30-day all-cause mortality (difference -42%; 95% CI, -64 to -5) compared to the non-matched arm (n=7) but should be interpreted with caution due to the imbalanced groups and other confounding risks.
CONCLUSIONS: Accrual in this trial was poor due to physicians' preference to adopt iACT-guided therapy. Randomized comparisons showed no mortality benefit, which was affected by significant treatment crossover. While exploratory analysis suggests potential utility of iACT-guided therapy for CRGNB infections, the findings is at most hypothesis-generating and needs to be validated with further investigations.
METHODS: In this two-centre, open-label randomized trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to iACT-guided or standard therapy. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Exploratory analyses compared patients who received iACT-matched therapy with those who did not, irrespective of randomized assignment.
FINDINGS: 102 patients were randomized and 98 included in the ITT analysis (49 per arm). The study was discontinued early due to substantial crossover: 31 (63%) patients assigned to the control arm switched to iACT-guided therapy at physician request due to anticipated intolerance to standard therapy. The 30-day mortality was 33% in both groups (difference 0%; 95% CI -18 to 18). Drug-related adverse events were 37% (iACT arm) versus 27% (control arm). Exploratory analysis showed that receipt of iACT-matched therapy (n=91) was associated with a larger absolute risk difference for 30-day all-cause mortality (difference -42%; 95% CI, -64 to -5) compared to the non-matched arm (n=7) but should be interpreted with caution due to the imbalanced groups and other confounding risks.
CONCLUSIONS: Accrual in this trial was poor due to physicians' preference to adopt iACT-guided therapy. Randomized comparisons showed no mortality benefit, which was affected by significant treatment crossover. While exploratory analysis suggests potential utility of iACT-guided therapy for CRGNB infections, the findings is at most hypothesis-generating and needs to be validated with further investigations.