4.7 Article

Mortality, Attributable Mortality, and Clinical Events as End Points for Clinical Trials of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 S120-S125

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/653060

关键词

-

资金

  1. Astra-Zeneca
  2. Bayer
  3. Covidien
  4. US Food and Drug Administration
  5. Infectious Diseases Society of America
  6. American College of Chest Physicians
  7. American Thoracic Society
  8. Society of Critical Care Medicine
  9. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
  10. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
  11. Forest Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Appropriate end points are crucial for the successful interpretation of clinical trials. Choosing end points for therapeutic trials of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) requires careful consideration, because they are complications of critical illness. It may be difficult to distinguish the consequences of VAP and HAP from manifestations of the underlying illnesses, and it is important to determine their incremental magnitude, to plan for possible treatment effects and, thus, sample size calculations. In this article, we discuss mortality, attributable mortality, and time to clinical events as possible end points for HAP and/or VAP trials. Because of the paucity of evidence on HAP, we focus predominantly on VAP. In a systematic review of applicable trials, VAP appears to have slight intensive care unit and low hospital-attributable mortality. VAP is associated with prolonged durations of intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and mechanical ventilation. Because of these findings, superiority trials of VAP treatment that use mortality as a primary end point are not possible. Equivalency studies are possible, but there are sample size implications. The use of time to clinical event end points, especially when combined with mortality, may be the best option for trial in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据