Suppr超能文献

在 ICU 人群中建立选择性消化道去污染的安全性:桥梁修得太远了吗?

Establishing the safety of selective digestive decontamination within the ICU population: a bridge too far?

机构信息

Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Division of Internal Medicine, Grampians Health Services, Ballarat, VIC, Australia.

出版信息

Trials. 2023 May 17;24(1):337. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07356-3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention interventions within the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, whether studied within quality improvement projects or cluster randomized trials (CRT), are seen as low risk and grounded in an ethical imperative. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) appears highly effective at preventing ICU infections within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCTs) prompting mega-CRTs with mortality as the primary endpoint.

FINDINGS

Surprisingly, the summary results of RCCTs versus CRTs differ strikingly, being respectively, a 15-percentage-point versus a zero-percentage-point ICU mortality difference between control versus SDD intervention groups. Multiple other discrepancies are equally puzzling and contrary to both prior expectations and the experience within population-based studies of infection prevention interventions using vaccines. Could spillover effects from SDD conflate the RCCT control group event rate differences and represent population harm? Evidence that SDD is fundamentally safe to concurrent non-recipients in ICU populations is absent. A postulated CRT to realize this, the SDD Herd Effects Estimation Trial (SHEET), would require > 100 ICUs to achieve sufficient statistical power to find a two-percentage-point mortality spillover effect. Moreover, as a potentially harmful population-based intervention, SHEET would pose novel and insurmountable ethical issues including who is the research subject; whether informed consent is required and from whom; whether there is equipoise; the benefit versus the risk; considerations of vulnerable groups; and who should be the gatekeeper?

CONCLUSION

The basis for the mortality difference between control and intervention groups of SDD studies remains unclear. Several paradoxical results are consistent with a spillover effect that would conflate the inference of benefit originating from RCCTs. Moreover, this spillover effect would constitute to herd peril.

摘要

背景

重症监护病房(ICU)环境中的感染预防干预措施,无论是在质量改进项目还是集群随机试验(CRT)中进行研究,都被视为低风险的,并基于伦理必要性。选择性消化道去污染(SDD)在随机同期对照试验(RCCT)中被证明在预防 ICU 感染方面非常有效,这促使以死亡率为主要终点的 mega-CRT 进行。

发现

令人惊讶的是,RCCT 与 CRT 的汇总结果差异显著,对照组与 SDD 干预组之间的 ICU 死亡率差异分别为 15 个百分点和 0 个百分点。其他多个差异同样令人费解,与基于人群的感染预防干预措施(使用疫苗)的研究中的先前预期和经验相悖。SDD 的溢出效应是否会混淆 RCCT 对照组的事件发生率差异并代表人群危害?缺乏 SDD 对 ICU 人群中非接受者基本安全的证据。假设 CRT 可以实现这一点,即 SDD 群体效应估计试验(SHEET),需要超过 100 个 ICU 才能获得足够的统计能力来发现死亡率溢出效应为两个百分点。此外,作为一种潜在有害的基于人群的干预措施,SHEET 将带来新的和无法克服的伦理问题,包括研究对象是谁;是否需要知情同意以及从谁那里获得;是否存在平衡;效益与风险;弱势群体的考虑因素;以及谁应该是守门员?

结论

SDD 研究中对照组和干预组之间死亡率差异的基础仍不清楚。一些矛盾的结果与会混淆 RCCT 得出的受益推断的溢出效应一致。此外,这种溢出效应将构成群体危害。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ea5/10189947/610224268d33/13063_2023_7356_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验