A weakness measure for GR(1) formulae

In spite of the theoretical and algorithmic developments for system synthesis in recent years, little effort has been dedicated to quantifying the quality of the specifications used for synthesis. When dealing with unrealizable specifications, finding the weakest environment assumptions that would ensure realizability is typically a desirable property; in such context the weakness of the assumptions is a major quality parameter. The question of whether one assumption is weaker than another is commonly interpreted using implication or, equivalently, language inclusion. However, this interpretation does not provide any further insight into the weakness of assumptions when implication does not hold. To our knowledge, the only measure that is capable of comparing two formulae in this case is entropy, but even it fails to provide a sufficiently refined notion of weakness in case of GR(1) formulae, a subset of linear temporal logic formulae which is of particular interest in controller synthesis. In this paper we propose a more refined measure of weakness based on the Hausdorff dimension, a concept that captures the notion of size of the omega-language satisfying a linear temporal logic formula. We identify the conditions under which this measure is guaranteed to distinguish between weaker and stronger GR(1) formulae. We evaluate our proposed weakness measure in the context of computing GR(1) assumptions refinements

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria : relevance to external validity

Background: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study's population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10-16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0-15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice

Combining VITEK ® 2 with colistin agar dilution screening assist timely reporting of colistin susceptibility

Objectives: The rise in carbapenem resistance among Gram-negative bacteria has renewed interest in colistin. Recently, the EUCAST-CLSI Polymyxin Breakpoints Working Group declared that broth microdilution (BMD) is the only valid method for colistin susceptibility testing. BMD is not easily incorporated into the routine work of clinical laboratories, and usually this test is incorporated serially, resulting in delayed susceptibility reporting. We tested a strategy of combining VITEK ® 2 with a 2 μg/mL colistin agar dilution (VITEK ® 2/AD) screening plate to improve performance and time to reporting of colistin susceptibility. Methods: Colistin susceptibility for 364 clinical isolates was determined by VITEK ® 2/AD and compared with the reference standard BMD according to the ISO 20776-1:2007 and CLSI guidelines. The EUCAST colistin susceptibility breakpoint of ≤2 μg/mL was used. Escherichia coli NCTC 13846 served as quality control strain. Agreement, very major error (VME) and major error rates were determined using ISO 20776-2:2007. Results: The VME rate for VITEK ® 2 alone was 30.6% (15/49, 95% CI 18.3–45.4%), and was reduced to 10.2% (5/49, 95% CI 3.4–22.2%) using the VITEK ® 2/AD combined testing. The combined testing had categorical agreement with BMD of 97% (354/364, 95% CI 95.0–98.7%), and a major error (ME) rate of 1.6% (5/315, 95% CI 0.5–3.7%). Using the combined testing, even against challenging strains, 349 (95.8%, 95% CI 93.3–97.7%) colistin susceptibility results could be reported, and only 15 isolates required further analysis by BMD. Discussion: Our method is simple to apply and allows rapid reporting of colistin susceptibility

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity

Abstract Background Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study’s population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for &gt; 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10–16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0–15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. Trial registration The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012. </jats:sec

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity

Background: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study’s population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for &gt; 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10–16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0–15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. Trial registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity

Background: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study’s population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10–16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0–15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. Trial registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012

Colistin Resistance Development Following Colistin-Meropenem Combination Therapy Versus Colistin Monotherapy in Patients With Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Organisms

Abstract Background We evaluated whether carbapenem-colistin combination therapy reduces the emergence of colistin resistance, compared to colistin monotherapy, when given to patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms. Methods This is a pre-planned analysis of a secondary outcome from a randomized, controlled trial comparing colistin monotherapy with colistin-meropenem combination for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant, colistin-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. We evaluated rectal swabs taken on Day 7 or later for the presence of new colistin-resistant (ColR) isolates. We evaluated the emergence of any ColR isolate and the emergence of ColR Enterobacteriaceae (ColR-E). Results Data were available for 214 patients for the primary analysis; emergent ColR organisms were detected in 22 (10.3%). No difference was observed between patients randomized to treatment with colistin monotherapy (10/106, 9.4%) versus patients randomized to colistin-meropenem combination therapy (12/108, 11.1%; P = .669). ColR-E organisms were detected in 18/249 (7.2%) patients available for analysis. No difference was observed between the 2 treatment arms (colistin monotherapy 6/128 [4.7%] vs combination therapy 12/121 [9.9%]; P = .111). Enterobacteriaceae, as the index isolate, was found to be associated with development of ColR-E (hazard ratio, 3.875; 95% confidence interval, 1.475–10.184; P = .006). Conclusions Carbapenem-colistin combination therapy did not reduce the incidence of colistin resistance emergence in patients with infections due to carbapenem-resistant organisms. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the development of colistin resistance and methods for its prevention. </jats:sec

Colistin plus meropenem for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections: in vitro synergism is not associated with better clinical outcomes

Objectives: In vitro models showing synergism between polymyxins and carbapenems support combination treatment for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative (CRGN) infections. We tested the association between the presence of in vitro synergism and clinical outcomes in patients treated with colistin plus meropenem. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of AIDA, a randomized controlled trial comparing colistin with colistin–meropenem for severe CRGN infections. We tested in vitro synergism using a checkerboard assay. Based on the fractional inhibitory concentration (ΣFIC) index for each colistin–meropenem combination, we categorized results as synergistic, antagonistic or additive/indifferent. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days. Secondary outcomes were 14- and 28-day mortality and microbiological failure. Results: The sample included 171 patients with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 131), Enterobacteriaceae (n = 37) and Pseudomonas aeuruginosa (n = 3). In vitro testing showed synergism for 73 isolates, antagonism for 20 and additivism/indifference for 78. In patients who received any colistin plus meropenem, clinical failure at 14 days was 59/78 (75.6%) in the additivism/indifference group (reference category), 54/73 (74.0%) in the synergism group (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.31–1.83), and 11/20 (55%) in the antagonism group (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.22–2.73). There was no significant difference between groups for any secondary outcome. Comparing the synergism group to patients treated with colistin monotherapy, synergism was not protective against 14-day clinical failure (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26–1.04) or 14-day mortality (aOR1.09, 95% CI 0.60–1.96). Discussion: In vitro synergism between colistin and meropenem via checkerboard method did not translate into clinical benefit