Search

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a novel approach to clinical trial design that incorporates safety and efficacy assessments into an ordinal ranking system to evaluate overall outcomes of clinical trial participants. Here, we derived and applied a disease-specific DOOR endpoint to registrational trials for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI). METHODS: Initially, we applied an a priori DOOR prototype to electronic patient-level data from 9 phase 3 noninferiority trials for cIAI submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2005 and 2019. We derived a cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint based on clinically meaningful events that trial participants experienced. Next, we applied the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint to the same datasets and, for each trial, estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment would have a more desirable DOOR or component outcome than if assigned to the comparator. RESULTS: Three key findings informed the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint: (1) a significant proportion of participants underwent additional surgical procedures related to their baseline infection; (2) infectious complications of cIAI were diverse; and (3) participants with worse outcomes experienced more infectious complications, more serious adverse events, and underwent more procedures. DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 47.4% to 50.3% and were not significantly different. Component analyses depicted risk-benefit assessments of study treatment versus comparator. CONCLUSIONS: We designed and evaluated a potential DOOR endpoint for cIAI trials to further characterize overall clinical experiences of participants. Similar data-driven approaches can be utilized to create other infectious disease-specific DOOR endpoints.

BackgroundPersons who use drugs (PWUD) face substantial risk of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Limited data exist describing clinical and substance use characteristics of PWUD with invasive S. aureus infections or comparing treatment and mortality outcomes in PWUD vs non-PWUD. These are needed to inform optimal care for this marginalized population.MethodsWe identified adults hospitalized from 2013 to 2018 at 2 medical centers in San Francisco with S. aureus bacteremia or International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses of endocarditis, epidural abscess, or vertebral osteomyelitis with compatible culture. In addition to demographic and clinical characteristic comparison, we constructed multivariate Cox proportional hazards models for 1-year infection-related readmission and mortality, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, housing, comorbidities, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).ResultsOf 963 hospitalizations for S. aureus infections in 946 patients, 372 of 963 (39%) occurred in PWUD. Among PWUD, heroin (198/372 [53%]) and methamphetamine use (185/372 [50%]) were common. Among 214 individuals using opioids, 98 of 214 (46%) did not receive methadone or buprenorphine. PWUD had lower antibiotic completion than non-PWUD (70% vs 87%; P

Infectious disease management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) was surveyed through the Emerging Infections Network. Although there were areas of consensus, we found substantial practice variation in diagnostic evaluation and management of adult patients with SAB. These findings highlight opportunities for further research and guidance to define best practices.

BackgroundOvercoming β-lactam resistance in pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a major clinical challenge. Rapid molecular diagnostics (RMDs) have the potential to inform selection of empiric therapy in patients infected by P. aeruginosa.MethodsIn this study, we used a heterogeneous collection of 197 P. aeruginosa that included multidrug-resistant isolates to determine whether 2 representative RMDs (Acuitas Resistome test and VERIGENE gram-negative blood culture test) could identify susceptibility to 2 newer β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL-BLI) combinations, ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane/tazobactam (TOL/TAZO).ResultsWe found that the studied RMD platforms were able to correctly identify BL-BLI susceptibility (susceptibility sensitivity, 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 97%, 100%) for both BLs-BLIs. However, their ability to detect resistance to these BLs-BLIs was lower (resistance sensitivity, 66%; 95% CI, 52%, 78% for TOL/TAZO and 33%; 95% CI, 20%, 49% for CZA).ConclusionsThe diagnostic platforms studied showed the most potential in scenarios where a resistance gene was detected or in scenarios where a resistance gene was not detected and the prevalence of resistance to TOL/TAZO or CZA is known to be low. Clinicians need to be mindful of the benefits and risks that result from empiric treatment decisions that are based on resistance gene detection in P. aeruginosa, acknowledging that such decisions are impacted by the prevalence of resistance, which varies temporally and geographically.

Patient management is not based on a single decision. Rather, it is dynamic: based on a sequence of decisions, with therapeutic adjustments made over time. Adjustments are personalized: tailored to individual patients as new information becomes available. However, strategies allowing for such adjustments are infrequently studied. Traditional antibiotic trials are often nonpragmatic, comparing drugs for definitive therapy when drug susceptibilities are known. COMparing Personalized Antibiotic StrategieS (COMPASS) is a trial design that compares strategies consistent with clinical practice. Strategies are decision rules that guide empiric and definitive therapy decisions. Sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized (SMART) COMPASS allows evaluation when there are multiple, definitive therapy options. SMART COMPASS is pragmatic, mirroring clinical, antibiotic-treatment decision-making and addressing the most relevant issue for treating patients: identification of the patient-management strategy that optimizes the ultimate patient outcomes. SMART COMPASS is valuable in the setting of antibiotic resistance, when therapeutic adjustments may be necessary due to resistance.

BackgroundDesirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach in clinical trials to evaluate the global benefits and risks of an intervention. We developed and validated a DOOR endpoint for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (BSI) through a survey to infectious diseases clinicians and secondary analysis of trial data.MethodsWe administered a survey of 20 cases of S. aureus BSI, asking respondents to rank outcomes by global desirability. Correlations and percentage of pairwise agreement among rankings were estimated to inform development of a DOOR endpoint, which was applied to 2 prior S. aureus BSI trials. The probability that a patient randomly assigned to experimental treatment would have a better DOOR ranking than if assigned to control was estimated. Results were also analyzed using partial credit, which is analogous to scoring an academic test, assigning 100% to the most desirable outcome, 0% to the least, and "partial credit" to intermediate ranks.ResultsForty-two recipients (97%) completed the survey. The DOOR endpoint fitting these rankings (r = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.94) incorporated survival plus cumulative occurrence of adverse events, cure, infectious complications, and ongoing symptoms. Tailored versions of this endpoint were applied to 2 S. aureus BSI trials, and both demonstrated no benefit of the experimental treatment using DOOR and partial credit analysis.ConclusionsUsing S. aureus BSI as an exemplar, we developed a DOOR endpoint that can be used as a template for development of DOOR endpoints for other diseases. Future trials can incorporate DOOR to allow for global assessment of patient experience.

BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus is a leading cause of bacteremia, yet there remains a significant knowledge gap in the identification of relevant biomarkers that predict clinical outcomes. Heterogeneity in the host response to invasive S. aureus infection suggests that specific biomarker signatures could be utilized to differentiate patients prone to severe disease, thereby facilitating earlier implementation of more aggressive therapies.MethodsTo further elucidate the inflammatory correlates of poor clinical outcomes in patients with S. aureus bacteremia, we evaluated the association between a panel of blood proteins at initial presentation of bacteremia and disease severity outcomes using 2 cohorts of patients with S. aureus bacteremia (n = 32 and n = 124).ResultsWe identified 13 candidate proteins that were correlated with mortality and persistent bacteremia. Prognostic modeling identified interleukin (IL)-8 and CCL2 as the strongest individual predictors of mortality, with the combination of these biomarkers classifying fatal outcome with 89% sensitivity and 77% specificity (P < .0001). Baseline IL-17A levels were elevated in patients with persistent bacteremia (P < .0001), endovascular (P = .026) and metastatic tissue infections (P = .012).ConclusionsThese results demonstrate the potential utility of selected biomarkers to distinguish patients with the highest risk for treatment failure and bacteremia-related complications, providing a valuable tool for clinicians in the management of S. aureus bacteremia. Additionally, these biomarkers could identify patients with the greatest potential to benefit from novel therapies in clinical trials.

Clinical trials for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (SAB) are broadly grouped into 2 categories: registrational trials intended to support regulatory approval of antibiotics for the treatment of SAB and strategy trials intended to inform clinicians on the best treatment options for SAB among existing antibiotics. Both types of SAB trials are urgently needed but have been limited by cost, complexity, and regulatory uncertainty. Here, we review key SAB trial design considerations for investigators, sponsors, and regulators.

Background Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach to clinical trial design and analysis that uses an ordinal ranking system to incorporate the overall risks and benefits of a therapeutic intervention into a single measurement. Here we derived and evaluated a disease-specific DOOR endpoint for registrational trials for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Methods Through comprehensive examination of data from nearly 4000 participants enrolled in six registrational trials for HABP/VABP submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2005 and 2022, we derived and applied a HABP/VABP specific endpoint. We estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment arm would have a more favorable overall DOOR or component outcome than a participant assigned to comparator. Results DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 48.3% to 52.9% and were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the component analyses. Although infectious complications and serious adverse events occurred more frequently in ventilated participants compared to non-ventilated participants, the types of events were similar. Conclusions Through a data-driven approach, we constructed and applied a potential DOOR endpoint for HABP/VABP trials. The inclusion of syndrome-specific events may help to better delineate and evaluate participant experiences and outcomes in future HABP/VABP trials and could help inform data collection and trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Equitable representation of members from historically marginalized groups is important in clinical trials, which inform standards of care. The goal of this study was to characterize the demographics and proportional subgroup reporting and representation of participants enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibacterials used to treat Staphylococcus aureus infections. Methods We examined randomized controlled registrational and strategy trials published from 2000 to 2021 to determine the sex, race, and ethnicity of participants. Participant to incidence ratios (PIRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic group by the percentage of the disease population in each group. Underrepresentation was defined as a PIR < 0.8. Results Of the 87 included studies, 82 (94.2%) reported participant sex, 69 (79.3%) reported participant race, and 20 (23.0%) included ethnicity data. Only 17 (19.5%) studies enrolled American Indian/Alaskan Native participants. Median PIRs indicated that Asian and Black participants were underrepresented in RCTs compared with the incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections in these subgroups. Underrepresentation of Black participants was associated with a larger study size, international sites, industry sponsorship, and phase 2/3 trials compared with phase 4 trials (P <.05 for each). Black participants had more than 4 times the odds of being underrepresented in phase 2/3 trials compared with phase 4 trials (odds ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval: 1.14–18.3). Conclusions Standardized reporting methods for race and ethnicity and efforts to increase recruitment of marginalized groups would help ensure equity, rigor, and generalizability in RCTs of antibacterial agents and reduce health inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Leadership and Operations Center (LOC) is responsible for facilitating, coordinating, and implementing the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) scientific agenda by engaging thought leaders; soliciting research proposals; and developing the processes, tools, and infrastructure required to operationalize studies and create and sustain the ARLG network. These efforts are ongoing as new projects are developed and the network expands and grows to address the ever-changing priorities in antibacterial resistance. This article describes the innovations, accomplishments, and opportunities of the LOC since the inception of the ARLG in 2013.

The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, was created in June 2013. Its mission is to develop, prioritize, and implement a clinical research agenda that addresses the public health threat of antibacterial resistance. This article reports on the progress that the ARLG has made to date in fulfilling its mission. Since inception, the ARLG has received and reviewed >70 study proposals, initiated >30 studies, executed >300 agreements, included data from >7000 subjects, published >45 manuscripts, and provided opportunities for 26 mentees. Despite this substantial progress, there remains significant work to be accomplished. This article also describes the considerable challenges that lie ahead.

The article focuses on the updated Duke criteria for diagnosing infective endocarditis, comparing the 2000 and 2023 versions in terms of sensitivity, specificity and clinical decision-making regarding possible endocarditis cases. Topics include the criteria's evolution; validation studies comparing their performance; and strategies for optimizing clinical decisions based on sensitivity-specificity tradeoffs and prevalence of endocarditis pathogens.

BackgroundRapid molecular diagnostic (RMD) platforms may lead to better antibiotic use. Our objective was to develop analytical strategies to enhance the interpretation of RMDs for clinicians.MethodsWe compared the performance characteristics of 4 RMD platforms for detecting resistance against β-lactams in 72 highly resistant isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae (PRIMERS I). Subsequently, 2 platforms were used in a blinded study in which a heterogeneous collection of 196 isolates of E. coli and K. pneumoniae (PRIMERS II) were examined. We evaluated the genotypic results as predictors of resistance or susceptibility against β-lactam antibiotics. We designed analytical strategies and graphical representations of platform performance, including discrimination summary plots and susceptibility and resistance predictive values, that are readily interpretable by practitioners to inform decision-making.ResultsIn PRIMERS I, the 4 RMD platforms detected β-lactamase (bla) genes and identified susceptibility or resistance in >95% of cases. In PRIMERS II, the 2 platforms identified susceptibility against extended-spectrum cephalosporins and carbapenems in >90% of cases; however, against piperacillin/tazobactam, susceptibility was identified in 95% of cases, while prediction of resistance was 69%-73% for ceftazidime and 41%-50% for imipenem.ConclusionsRMD platforms can help inform empiric β-lactam therapy in cases where bla genes are not detected and the prevalence of resistance is known. Our analysis is a first step in bridging the gap between RMDs and empiric treatment decisions.

Clinical trials that compare strategies to optimize antibiotic use are of critical importance but are limited by competing risks that distort outcome interpretation, complexities of noninferiority trials, large sample sizes, and inadequate evaluation of benefits and harms at the patient level. The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group strives to overcome these challenges through innovative trial design. Response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR) is a novel methodology utilizing a superiority design and a 2-step process: (1) categorizing patients into an overall clinical outcome (based on benefits and harms), and (2) ranking patients with respect to a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR). DOORs are constructed by assigning higher ranks to patients with (1) better overall clinical outcomes and (2) shorter durations of antibiotic use for similar overall clinical outcomes. DOOR distributions are compared between antibiotic use strategies. The probability that a randomly selected patient will have a better DOOR if assigned to the new strategy is estimated. DOOR/RADAR represents a new paradigm in assessing the risks and benefits of new strategies to optimize antibiotic use.

BackgroundThe incidence of community-onset (CO) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia rose from the late 1990s through the 2000s. However, hospital-onset (HO) MRSA rates have recently declined in the United States and Europe.MethodsData were abstracted from infection prevention databases between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2011 at 5 US academic medical centers to determine the number of single-patient blood cultures positive for MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) per calendar year, stratified into CO and HO infections.ResultsAcross the 5 centers, 4171 episodes of bacteremia were identified. Center A (Los Angeles, California) experienced a significant decline in CO-MRSA bacteremia rates (from a peak in 2009 of 0.42 to 0.18 per 1000 patient-days in 2011 [P = .005]), whereas CO-MSSA rates remained stable. Centers B (San Francisco, California), D (Chicago, Illinois), and E (Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina) experienced a stable incidence of CO-MRSA and CO-MSSA bacteremia. In contrast, at center C (New York, New York), the incidence of CO-MRSA increased >3-fold (from 0.11 to 0.34 cases per 1000 patient-days [P < .001]). At most of the sites, HO-MRSA decreased and HO-MSSA rates were stable. USA300 accounted for 52% (104/202) of genotyped MRSA isolates overall, but this varied by center, ranging from 35% to 80%.ConclusionsCO-MRSA rates and the contribution of USA300 MRSA varied dramatically across diverse geographical areas in the United States. Enhanced infection control efforts are unlikely to account for such variation in CO infection rates. Bioecological and clinical explanations for geographical differences in CO-MRSA bacteremia rates merit further study.

Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) is tasked with developing a clinical research agenda and conducting clinical studies to address the growing public health threat of antibacterial resistance. The ARLG has identified 4 high-priority areas of research: infections caused by gram-negative bacteria, infections caused by gram-positive bacteria, antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention, and diagnostics. The ARLG will be accepting proposals from the scientific community for clinical research that addresses 1 or more of these high-priority areas. These studies should have the potential to transform medical practice and be unlikely to occur without ARLG support. The purpose of this article is to make interested parties aware of clinical research opportunities made available by ARLG and to encourage submission of clinical research proposals that address the problem of antibacterial resistance.

Background Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) are frequently caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Patient-centered endpoints in clinical trials are needed to develop new antibiotics for HABP/VABP. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a paradigm for the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials based on a patient-centered, benefit-risk evaluation. Methods A multidisciplinary committee created an infectious diseases DOOR endpoint customized for HABP/VABP, incorporating infectious complications, serious adverse events, and mortality. We applied this to 2 previously completed, large randomized controlled trials for HABP/VABP. ZEPHyR compared vancomycin to linezolid and VITAL compared linezolid to tedizolid. For each trial, we evaluated the DOOR distribution and probability, including DOOR component and partial credit analyses. We also applied DOOR in subgroup analyses. Results In both trials, the HABP/VABP DOOR demonstrated similar overall clinical outcomes between treatment groups. In ZEPHyR, the probability that a participant treated with linezolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with vancomycin was 50.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.1%-−55.3%). In VITAL, the probability that a participant treated with tedizolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with linezolid was 48.7% (95% CI, 44.8%–52.6%). The DOOR component analysis revealed that participants treated with tedizolid had a less desirable outcome than those treated with linezolid when considering clinical response alone. However, participants with decreased renal function had improved overall outcomes with tedizolid. Conclusions The HABP/VABP DOOR provided more granular information about clinical outcomes than is typically presented in clinical trials. HABP/VABP trials would benefit from prospectively using DOOR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundSince its emergence in 2000, epidemic spread of the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clone USA300 has led to a high burden of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) in the United States, yet its impact on MRSA bloodstream infections (BSIs) is poorly characterized.MethodsTo assess clonality of the MRSA isolates causing SSTI and BSI during the epidemic period, a stratified, random sample of 1350 unique infection isolates (from a total of 7252) recovered at the Community Health Network of San Francisco from 2000 to 2008 were selected for genotyping. Risk factors and outcomes for 549 BSI cases caused by the USA300 epidemic clone and non-USA300 MRSA clones were assessed by retrospective review of patient medical records.ResultsFrom 2000 to 2008, secular trends of USA300 SSTI and USA300 BSI were strongly correlated (Pearson r = 0.953). USA300 accounted for 55% (304/549) of BSIs as it was the predominant MRSA clone that caused community-associated (115/160), healthcare-associated community-onset (125/207), and hospital-onset (64/182) BSIs. Length of hospitalization after BSI diagnosis and mortality rates for USA300 and non-USA300 were similar. Two independent risk factors for USA300 BSI were identified: concurrent SSTI (adjusted relative risk, 1.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.2-1.6]) and anti-MRSA antimicrobial use in the preceding 30 days (0.7 [95% CI, .6-.8]). Isolates from concurrent SSTI were indistinguishable genotypically from the USA300 isolates that caused BSI.ConclusionsUSA300 SSTIs serve as a source for BSI. Strategies to control the USA300 SSTI epidemic may lessen the severity of the concurrent USA300 BSI epidemic.

In this overview, we describe important contributions from the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) to patient care, clinical trials design, and mentorship while outlining future priorities. The ARLG research agenda is focused on 3 key areas: gram-positive infections, gram-negative infections, and diagnostics. The ARLG has developed an innovative approach to clinical trials design, the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR), which uses an ordinal measure of global outcome to assess both benefits and harms. DOOR was initially applied to observational studies to determine optimal dosing of vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylcococcus aureus bacteremia and the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infection. DOOR is being successfully applied to the analysis of interventional trials and, in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for use in registrational trials. In the area of diagnostics, the ARLG developed Master Protocol for Evaluating Multiple Infection Diagnostics (MASTERMIND), an innovative design that allows simultaneous testing of multiple diagnostic platforms in a single study. This approach will be used to compare molecular assays for the identification of fluoroquinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (MASTER GC) and to compare rapid diagnostic tests for bloodstream infections. The ARLG has initiated a first-in-kind randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in participants with cystic fibrosis who are chronically colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa to assess the pharmacokinetics and antimicrobial activity of bacteriophage therapy. Finally, an engaged and highly trained workforce is critical for continued and future success against antimicrobial drug resistance. Thus, the ARLG has developed a robust mentoring program targeted to each stage of research training to attract and retain investigators in the field of antimicrobial resistance research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developing and implementing the scientific agenda of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) by soliciting input and proposals, transforming concepts into clinical trials, conducting those trials, and translating trial data analyses into actionable information for infectious disease clinical practice is the collective role of the Scientific Leadership Center, Clinical Operations Center, Statistical and Data Management Center, and Laboratory Center of the ARLG. These activities include shepherding concept proposal applications through peer review; identifying, qualifying, training, and overseeing clinical trials sites; recommending, developing, performing, and evaluating laboratory assays in support of clinical trials; and designing and performing data collection and statistical analyses. This article describes key components involved in realizing the ARLG scientific agenda through the activities of the ARLG centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical research networks conduct important studies that would not otherwise be performed by other entities. In the case of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), such studies include diagnostic studies using master protocols, controlled phage intervention trials, and studies that evaluate treatment strategies or dynamic interventions, such as sequences of empiric and definitive therapies. However, the value of a clinical research network lies not only in the results from these important studies but in the creation of new approaches derived from collaborative thinking, carefully examining and defining the most important research questions for clinical practice, recognizing and addressing common but suboptimal approaches, and anticipating that the standard approaches of today may be insufficient for tomorrow. This results in the development and implementation of new methodologies and tools for the design, conduct, analyses, and reporting of research studies. These new methodologies directly impact the studies conducted within the network and have a broad and long-lasting impact on the field, enhancing the scientific value and efficiency of generations of research studies. This article describes innovations from the ARLG in diagnostic studies, observational studies, and clinical trials evaluating interventions for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Carbapenemase-producing (CP) Escherichia coli (CP- Ec) are a global public health threat. We aimed to describe the clinical and molecular epidemiology and outcomes of patients from several countries with CP- Ec isolates obtained from a prospective cohort. Methods Patients with CP- Ec were enrolled from 26 hospitals in 6 countries. Clinical data were collected, and isolates underwent whole-genome sequencing. Clinical and molecular features and outcomes associated with isolates with or without metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) were compared. The primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at 30 days after the index culture. Results Of the 114 CP- Ec isolates in Consortium on resistance against carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacterales-2 (CRACKLE-2), 49 harbored an MBL, most commonly bla NDM-5 (38/49, 78%). Strong regional variations were noted with MBL- Ec predominantly found among patients in China (23/49). Clinically, MBL- Ec were more often from urine sources (49% vs 29%), less often met criteria for infection (39% vs 58%, P =.04), and had lower acuity of illness when compared with non–MBL- Ec. Among patients with infection, the probability of a better DOOR outcome for a randomly selected patient with MBL- Ec as compared with non–MBL- Ec was 62% (95% CI: 48.2–74.3%). Among infected patients, non–MBL- Ec had increased 30-day (26% vs 0%; P =.02) and 90-day (39% vs 0%; P =.001) mortality compared with MBL- Ec. Conclusions Emergence of CP- Ec was observed with important geographic variations. Bacterial characteristics, clinical presentations, and outcomes differed between MBL- Ec and non–MBL- Ec. Mortality was higher among non-MBL isolates, which were more frequently isolated from blood, but these findings may be confounded by regional variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on providing a comprehensive overview of the evaluation and management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, emphasizing areas where the highest level of evidence is lacking to inform best practices. Topics include the classification of patients based on the risk for complications, minimum evaluation requirements, therapeutic approaches, and the importance of addressing underlying substance use disorders in the management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

Background Traditional end points used in registrational randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) often do not allow for complete interpretation of the full range of potential clinical outcomes. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an approach to the design and analysis of clinical trials that incorporates benefits and risks of novel treatment strategies and provides a global assessment of patient experience. Methods Through a multidisciplinary committee of experts in infectious diseases, clinical trial design, drug regulation, and patient experience, we developed a DOOR end point for infectious disease syndromes and demonstrated how this could be applied to 3 registrational drug trials (ZEUS, APEKS-cUTI, and DORI-05) for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). ZEUS compared fosfomycin to piperacillin/tazobactam, APEKS-cUTI compared cefiderocol to imipenem, and DORI-05 compared doripenem to levofloxacin. Using DOOR, we estimated the probability of a more desirable outcome with each investigational antibacterial drug. Results In each RCT, the DOOR distribution was similar and the probability that a patient in the investigational arm would have a more desirable outcome than a patient in the control arm had a 95% confidence interval containing 50%, indicating no significant difference between treatment arms. DOOR facilitated improved understanding of potential trade-offs between clinical efficacy and safety. Partial credit and subgroup analyses also highlight unique attributes of DOOR. Conclusions DOOR can effectively be used in registrational cUTI trials. The DOOR end point presented here can be adapted for other infectious disease syndromes and prospectively incorporated into future clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]