Search

Background: The use of inhaled antibiotics for treating pneumonia in invasively ventilated patients offers a direct approach, allowing for high local concentrations of the drug in the lower respiratory tract while simultaneously reducing systemic toxicity. However, the real efficacy and safety of nebulized antibiotics remain unclear. The aim of the present is to assess among critically adult patients with pneumonia and invasive ventilation, whether receiving adjuvant inhaled antibiotics improves the rate of microbiological eradication. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted (from inception until September 20, 2024, PROSPERO-CRD592906) across Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials, enrolling intensive care units (ICU) patients with pneumonia and comparing nebulized antimicrobial therapy (inhaled group) with intravenous antimicrobial treatment or intravenous antimicrobial therapy plus inhaled placebo (control group), were included. The primary outcome was the rate of microbiological eradication after treatment. Secondary outcomes were the rate of clinical recovery, the incidence of drug-related adverse events, ICU and hospital mortality. A qualitative analysis was conducted according to the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using an odds-ratio analysis. The heterogeneity and reliability of our results were evaluated using the I2-statistic and trial sequential analysis (TSA), respectively. Results: A total of 11 RCTs (1472 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared to controls, the use of adjuvant inhaled antibiotics determined a greater rate of microbiological eradication (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.36–5.09; low certainty of evidence). The TSA confirmed the reliability of our primary outcome. Moreover, nebulized antibiotics increased the risk of bronchospasm (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.33–7.47; high evidence), while nephrotoxicity, clinical recovery, ICU and hospital survival (either in the case of pneumonia caused by MDR bacteria or not) were not different between groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, compared to the sole intravenous therapy, the use of adjuvant inhaled antibiotics for treatment of pneumonia in invasively ventilated critically ill patients was associated with a greater incidence of microbiological eradication (low GRADE and high risk of publication bias), but not with clinical recovery and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Less invasive methods of surfactant administration, along with the use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), have improved outcomes of preterm infants. Aerosolized surfactant can be given without the need for airway instrumentation and may be employed in areas where these skills are scarce. Recent trials from high-resourced countries utilising aerosolized surfactant have had a low quality of evidence and varying outcomes. Methods and analysis: The Neo-INSPIRe trial is an unblinded, multicentre, randomised trial of a novel aerosolized surfactant drug/device combination. Inclusion criteria include preterm infants of 27–34+6 weeks' gestational age who weigh 900-1999g and who require CPAP with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of 0.25–0.35 in the first 2–24 h of age. Infants are randomised 1:1 to control (CPAP alone) or intervention (CPAP with aerosolized surfactant). The primary outcome is the need for intratracheal bolus surfactant instillation within 72 h of age. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of reaching failure criteria (persistent FiO2 of > 0.40, severe apnoea or severe work of breathing), the need for and duration of ventilation and respiratory support, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and selected co-morbidities of prematurity. Assuming a 40% relative risk reduction to reduce the proportion of infants requiring intratracheal bolus surfactant from 45 to 27%, the study will aim to enrol 232 infants for the study to have a power of 80% to detect a significant difference with a type 1 error of 0.05. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the relevant human research ethics committees at University of Cape Town (HREC 681/2022), University of the Witwatersrand HREC (221112) and Stellenbosch University (M23/02/004). Trial registration: PACTR202307490670785 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intravenous morphine titration (IVMT) is the French gold standard for opioid treatment in the emergency department (ED). Nebulized morphine titration (NMT) may represent an alternative without venous access, but it has not been adequately studied in adults. We test the hypothesis that NMT is at least as effective as IVMT to initially manage severe acute pain in the ED.Methods/design: We designed a multicenter (10 French EDs), single-blind, randomized and controlled trial. Adults between 18 and 75 years with visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 70/100 or numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 7/10 will be enrolled. We will randomize 850 patients into two groups to compare two routes of MT as long as VAS >  30 or NRS >  3. In group A (425), patients will receive an initial NMT for 5-25 min associated with titration of an intravenously (IV) administered placebo of physiologic serum (PS). In group B (425), patients will receive IVMT plus nebulized PS placebo. NMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 5-min nebulized boluses of 10 mg or 15 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 10-min fixed intervals. IVMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6 boluses of 2 mg or 3 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 5-min fixed intervals. Nebulized placebo titration will be performed every 10 min. IV titration of PS will be performed every 5 min. In both groups, after 25 min, if VAS > 30/100 or NRS > 3/10, routine IVMT will be continued until pain relief. Pain severity, vital signs, bronchospasm, and Ramsay score will be recorded every 5 min. The primary outcome is the rate of relief obtained 1 h from the start of drug administration. Complete pain relief in both groups will be compared with a non-inferiority design. Secondary outcomes are pain relief at 30 min (the end of NMT) and at 2 h and median pain relief. We will compare final doses, and study the feasibility and tolerance of NMT (protocol deviations, respiratory or hemodynamic depression, sedation, and minor vegetative side effects). Co-analgesia will be recorded. Discharge criteria from the ED and hospital are defined.Discussion: This trial is the first multicenter randomized and controlled NMT protocol for severe pain in the ED using the titration concept. We propose an original approach of combined titration with an endpoint at 1 h and a non-inferiority design.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03257319 . Registered on 22 August 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]