Search

Presents several guide questions for principals in interviewing candidates for school counselors. Rationale for determining the right and wrong answers on questions that were asked.

Deals with the philosophy and implementation of foreign economic aid for agricultural development in less developed countries. Definition of philosophy; Overview of development goals and strategy; How the level of living of cultivator families can be improved; Objectives of the aid policies of the donor.

Focuses on the implementation and visibility of diversity in healthcare management in the United States. Concerns on career, education and training, recruitment and leadership development; Ability of organizations to accept changes in the field; Impact of diversity on employees in the healthcare industry.

Abstract: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Chemotherapy treatment-related side-effects are common and increase the risk of suboptimal outcomes. Exercise interventions during cancer treatment improve self-reported physical functioning, fatigue, anxiety, and depression, but it is unclear whether these interventions improve important clinical outcomes, such as chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI). The National Cancer Institute funded the Exercise and Nutrition to Improve Cancer Treatment-Related Outcomes (ENICTO) Consortium, to address this knowledge gap. This paper describes the mechanisms hypothesized to underpin intervention effects on clinically-relevant treatment outcomes, briefly outlines each project's distinct research aims, summarizes the scope and organizational structure of ENICTO, and provides an overview of the integrated common data elements used to pursue research questions collectively. In addition, the paper includes a description of consortium-wide activities and broader research community opportunities for collaborative research. Findings from the ENICTO Consortium have the potential to accelerate a paradigm shift in oncology care such that cancer patients could receive exercise and nutrition programming as the standard of care in tandem with chemotherapy to improve RDI for a curative outcome., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. V. G. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Roche, grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius; Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen; Royalties from UpToDate, stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio, Honoraria from Infectious Diseases of America for his service as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases, and a patent sepsis diagnostics pending. H. W. B. reports royalties to author from Sanford Guide; editorial consulting fees from Sanford Guide, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy/ASM, ID Clinics of North America/Elsevier; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Grand Rounds at Temple; IDWeek lecture travel support from Finland Award; role as PACCARB Voting Member (travel reimbursed) and on Board of Trustees, College of the Holy Cross (travel reimbursed). T. H. reports grants or contracts from Aceragen; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma US and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Cancer and Chemotherapy KK. S. R. E. reports NCI/NIH grant, NHLBI/NIH grant, CDC grant, and grants or contracts from Degruyter (Editor-in-Chief: Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); book royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickenson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, IDDI; honorarium from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), and payment or honorarium for travel from Liver Forum and Paris NASH Meeting; support for attending meetings and/or travel from FDA (honorarium); paid participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for NIH, BARDA, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, Abbvie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, Novartis; unpaid Board member for American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. J. H. A. reports grant funding to institution for work unrelated to this from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); support for speaking at SHEA Spring Conference from SHEA. S. N. reports support for travel to meetings is supported by my employer, Johnson and Johnson; stocks in J&J, author's employer. T. H. reports grant from NIH to Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group and grants or contracts from Karius for Adjudication committee; royalties or licenses from UpToDate; consulting fees from Aridis, Pfizer, Lysovant, Affinivax, Basilea, Concert Genetics; participation on Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial and Spero and on Advisory Board for Basilea and Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI). S. B. D. reports grants or contracts to University of California San Francisco (UCSF) from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID/NIH; consulting fees to author from Genentech and Janssen/J + J; support for travel to speak at IDWeek from Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); patent US20100143379A1 for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses thereof; leadership or fiduciary roles on IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, CADPH HAI Advisory Committee, Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram Positive Committee, Immunosuppressed Host Group; payment for clinical events committee/adjudication committee participation from Shinogi, Basilea, Duke Clinical Research Institute. H. C. reports stock or stock options from Merck and Moderna; membership of DSMB for COVID antiviral RCT for Merck. D. C. reports grants or contracts from Duke University for COMET study (cancer) Patient Leadership Group, from UCSF for STORMing Cancer Patient Advocate Team, and from MD Anderson for PRECISION Patient Advisory Involvement Panel; consulting fees for ongoing projects from SimBioSys and MaxisHealth, from Health Literacy Media (HLM) for Patient Advisor for ongoing projects, and from Appelis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for consulting/project ended in 12/2022 and from Kinnate Biopharma for consulting/project ended in 06/2022; honoraria and travel support from HMP Education; support for travel from Agile Falcon Strategic Group, DGE Events, and Informa; participation on DSMB for American Society for Clinical Oncology and on Patient Partner Council for Evidera; a role on Executive Group for Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance and a role as committee member for Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; receitp of manuscript writing support from IQVIA through Regeneron. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

Gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) are a significant threat to the sustainability of global sheep production. Periparturient ewes play a key role in GIN epidemiology, with increased GIN faecal egg counts (FECs) in these ewes resulting in heavy pasture contamination that facilitates parasitic gastroenteritis in immunologically naïve lambs later during the grazing period. Traditionally, blanket anthelmintic treatment would suppress GIN egg outputs in these ewes and subsequent pasture contamination. However, farmers are now advised to implement targeted selective treatment (TST) to reduce anthelmintic use and subsequent anthelmintic resistance development, yet, there is currently limited evidence to determine optimal TST strategies in ewes. In this study, the characteristics of 226 ewes on seven Welsh farms were assessed postlambing to identify factors associated with their individual strongyle FECs using negative binomial mixed model analysis. Nemabiome analysis was conducted on 34 ewes across two study farms using the Oxford Nanopore MinIon platform with an aim of identifying factors associated with variations in ewe nemabiome composition within flocks. The best-fitted model of ewe FEC incorporated ewe body condition score, dag score, breed, and an interaction effect between ewe age and litter size as fixed factors. The addition of a mean FEC value for ewes of a specific litter size on each farm further improved model fit and reduced between-farm variance in the model. Nemabiome analysis revealed significant variation in within flock nemabiome diversity on individual farms, with significantly reduced nemabiome diversity recorded in ewes exhibiting dags and in twin-bearing ewes on respective farms, whilst T. circumcincta was present as a significantly higher proportion of the nemabiome in Suffolk ewes and twin bearing ewes (P < 0.05) in respective flocks. Our data demonstrate that commonly recorded ewe characteristics can be exploited to predict individual periparturient ewe FEC and subsequently may be used as a guide for TST strategies on sheep farms once specific TST thresholds are identified to deliver the optimal balance between minimal pasture contamination and maximal GIN refugia. This study is the first to utilise Oxford Nanopore MinIon sequencing to evaluate the nemabiome of sheep, and to molecularly assess the nemabiome of individual ruminants within a flock/herd, with results indicating that significant within flock variations in nemabiome composition which may have implications for TST and flock management strategies., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) generally assess efficacy and safety separately, with the conclusion of whether a treatment is beneficial based solely on the efficacy endpoint. However, assessing and combining efficacy and safety domains, using a single composite outcome measure, can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the overall effect of a treatment. Furthermore, composite outcomes can incorporate information regarding the relationship between the individual outcomes. In fact, such outcomes have been suggested in the clinical trials literature for at least 15 years., Objectives: To (1) identify whether recent primary publications of chronic pain RCTs from major pain journals included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms and (2) discuss the potential benefits of such outcomes in various stages of treatment development, including as outcome measures in RCTs, and to support decisions of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards and ordering of treatments in the context of treatment guidelines., Evidence Review: RCTs published in 6 major pain journals published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were reviewed., Findings: Of 73 RCTs identified, only 2 included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms. Both of these articles compared 2 active treatments., Conclusions: Composite outcomes of benefits and harms are underutilized in chronic pain RCTs. The advantages and challenges of using such outcomes are discussed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RHD has received in the past 5 years research grants and contracts from the US Food and Drug Administration and the US National Institutes of Health, and compensation for serving on advisory boards or consulting on clinical trial methods from Abide, Acadia, Adynxx, Analgesic Solutions, Aptinyx, Aquinox, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Beckley, Biogen, Biohaven, Biosplice, Boston Scientific, Braeburn, Cardialen, Centrexion, Chiesi, Chromocell, Clexio, Collegium, CoimbiGene, Confo, Decibel, Editas, Eli Lilly, Endo, Ethismos (equity), Eupraxia, Exicure, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Gloriana, Hope, Kriya, Lotus, Mainstay, Merck, Mind Medicine (also equity), Neumentum, Neurana, NeuroBo, Novaremed, Novartis, OliPass, Orion, Oxford Cannabinoid Technologies, Pfizer, Q-State, Reckitt Benckiser, Regenacy (also equity), Rho, Sangamo, Sanifit, Scilex, Semnur, SIMR Biotech, Sinfonia, SK Biopharmaceuticals, Sollis, SPM Therapeutics SPRIM, Teva, Theranexus, Vertex, Vizuri, and WCG. JG, in the past 36 months, has received (unrelated to this work) grant support from the NIH and Neurometrix, consulting income from AlgoTX, GW pharmaceuticals, Eikonozo, and Saluda, and shares for consulting from Eisana Corp. DL, in the past 36 months, has received (unrelated to this work) support from the NIH and the US Food & Drug Administration. DT, in the last 36 months, have received (unrelated to this work) grant support from NIH and NIOSH, consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, GSK/Novartis, and Omnicom Health Group, and is Editor-in-Chief of the Clinical Journal of Pain., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In randomized trials, 1 primary outcome is typically chosen to evaluate the consequences of an intervention, whereas other important outcomes are relegated to secondary outcomes. This issue is amplified for many obstetrical trials in which an intervention may have consequences for both the pregnant person and the child. In contrast, desirability of outcome ranking, a paradigm shift for the design and analysis of clinical trials based on patient-centric evaluation, allows multiple outcomes-including from >1 individual-to be considered concurrently., Objective: This study aimed to describe desirability of outcome ranking methodology tailored to obstetrical trials and to apply the methodology to maternal-perinatal paired (dyadic) outcomes in which both individuals may be affected by an intervention but may experience discordant outcomes (eg, an obstetrical intervention may improve perinatal but worsen maternal outcomes)., Study Design: This secondary analysis applies the desirability of outcome ranking methodology to data from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network ARRIVE trial. The original analysis found no substantial difference in the primary (perinatal composite) outcome, but a decreased risk of the secondary outcome of cesarean delivery with elective induction at 39 weeks. In the present desirability-of-outcome-ranking analysis, dyadic outcomes ranging from spontaneous vaginal delivery without severe neonatal complication (most desirable) to cesarean delivery with perinatal death (least desirable) were classified into 8 categories ranked by overall desirability by experienced investigators. Distributions of the desirability of outcome ranking were compared by estimating the probability of having a more desirable dyadic outcome with elective induction at 39 weeks of gestation than with expectant management. To account for various perspectives on these outcomes, a complementary analysis, called the partial credit strategy, was used to grade outcomes on a 100-point scale and estimate the difference in overall treatment scores between groups using a t test., Results: All 6096 participants from the trial were included. The probability of a better dyadic outcome for a randomly selected patient who was randomized to elective induction was 53% (95% confidence interval, 51-54), implying that elective induction led to a better overall outcome for the dyad when taking multiple outcomes into account concurrently. Furthermore, the desirability-of-outcome-ranking probability of averting cesarean delivery with elective induction was 52% (95% confidence interval, 51-53), which was not at the expense of an operative vaginal delivery or a poorer outcome for the perinate (ie, survival with a severe neonatal complication or perinatal death). Randomization to elective induction was also advantageous in most of the partial credit score scenarios., Conclusion: Desirability-of-outcome-ranking methodology is a useful tool for obstetrical trials because it provides a concurrent view of the effect of an intervention on multiple dyadic outcomes, potentially allowing for better translation of data for decision-making and person-centered care., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. H. W. B. declares consulting fees from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy/American Society for Microbiology (ASM), Sanford Guide, and ID Clinics of North America/Elsevier; royalties from Sanford Guide; payment or honoraria from Grand Rounds at Temple; Finland Award for IDWeek Lecture travel; and role with travel reimbursed as Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB) Voting Member and Board of Trustees, College of the Holy Cross. D. C. reports honoraria from ARLG, SimBioSys, AstraZeneca, Apellis Pharmaceutical, Kinnate Biopharma, MaxisIT Clinical Sciences, Pfizer, Parexel, Health Literacy Media, Incyte, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and Aster Insights, all unrelated to this work; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Incyte, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Kinnate Biopharma, Maxis Health, Parexel, Health Literacy Media (nonprofit), and SimBioSys; reimbursement for personal expenses for attending meetings and/or travel from Aster Insights and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); participation with honorarium to author on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) or advisory board for ASCO; a role as unpaid volunteer for the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance; and a role with honorarium to author from ORIEN Patient Advisory Council. H. F. C. reports grant funding from NIH; royalties from Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy; payment from The George Washington University for ID board review course lectures; participation in a DSMB for Merck; and stock in Merck and Moderna. S. B. D. reports research funding for clinical research studies from Gilead, Regeneron, Pfizer, F2G, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Biohub, and NIH/NIAID; payments for clinical event adjudication committees from Basilea, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Shionogi; a patent pending for Mif agonists (patent US20100143379A1); money for travel to conference from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); and consulting fees from Genentech and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J); and leadership or fiduciary roles with IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, California Department of Public Health Healthcare Associated Infections Advisory Committee, and the ARLG Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram Positive Committee, and Immunosuppressed Host Group. S. R. E. reports grant funding from NIH (NIAID, National Cancer Institute, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and De Gruyter (Editor-in-Chief of Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genetech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, J&J, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickenson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and IDDI; payments from lectures from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); support for attending meetings from FDA; and participation on DSMBs for NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouous, Appelis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Candel, Novartis, and Advantagene; and being an unpaid board member for the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, ContraFect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, and Roche; grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, ContraFect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from IDSA for his service as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; and a patent pending in sepsis diagnostics. H. L.-T. is an employee of Pfizer and holds stock in Pfizer. C. H. receives stock dividends from GlaxoSmithKline. T. L. H. declares grant funding from NIH and Karius; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Affinivax, Lysovant, Aridis, and Pfizer; and participation on DSMB for platform trial for SNAP Trial and advisory board for Basilea. J. H.-A. reports grant funding from NIH and CDC; and payment from IDSA (reviewing IDSA/Clinical Infectious Diseases supplement), ARLG (for speaking at IDWeek dinner and Texas Medical Center Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference conference), and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) (for speaking at SHEA Spring Conference). S. N. is an employee of J&J and holds stock in J&J; received support for travel to meetings paid by employer; and participated as unpaid member of a scientific advisory committee of Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Neonatal trials have traditionally used binary composite short-term (such as death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia) or longer-term (such as death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment) outcomes. We applied the Desirability Of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) method to rank the overall patient outcome by best (no morbidities) to worst (death)., Study Design: Using a completed large multicenter trial (Milking In Non-Vigorous Infants [MINVI]) of umbilical cord milking (UCM) vs. early cord clamping (ECC), we applied the DOOR methodology to neonatal outcomes. Six outcomes were chosen and ranked: no interventions or NICU admission (most desirable); received initial cardiorespiratory support at birth; neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission for predefined criteria; mild hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE); moderate to severe HIE; and death (least desirable)., Results: 1524 non-vigorous newborns born between 35 and 42 weeks' gestation had data for analysis. The DOOR distribution was different between the UCM and ECC arms, with a significantly greater probability (55.8 % [95 % CI 53.1-58.5 %; p < 0.0001]) of a randomly selected neonate having a more desirable outcome if they were in the UCM arm. DOOR probabilities of averting individual adverse outcomes such as NICU admission for predefined criteria (52.8 %; 95%CI 50.5-55.1 %) and cardiorespiratory support (54.0 %; 95%CI 51.6-56.4 %) were significantly higher among those in the UCM group., Conclusion: DOOR provides an overall assessment of the benefits and harms with greater insight than typical binary composite measures to clinicians and parents when evaluating an intervention. Future neonatal trials should consider the a priori use of the DOOR methodology to evaluate trial outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Standardized approaches to phage susceptibility testing (PST) are essential to inform selection of phages for study in patients with bacterial infections. There is no reference standard for assessing bacterial susceptibility to phage. We compared agreement between PST performed at three centers: two centers using a liquid assay standardized between the sites with the third, a plaque assay. Four Pseudomonas aeruginosa phages: PaWRA01ø11 (EPa11), PaWRA01ø39 (EPa39), PaWRA02ø83 (EPa83), PaWRA02ø87 (EPa87), and a cocktail of all four phages were tested against 145 P . aeruginosa isolates. Comparisons were made within measurements at the two sites performing the liquid assay and between these two sites. Agreement was assessed based on coverage probability (CP 8 ), total deviation index, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), measurement accuracy, and precision. For the liquid assay, there was satisfactory agreement among triplicate measurements made on different days at site 1, and high agreement based on accuracy and precision between duplicate measurements made on the same run at site 2. There was fair accuracy between measurements of the two sites performing the liquid assay, with CCCs below 0.6 for all phages tested. When compared to the plaque assay (performed once at site 3), there was less agreement between results of the liquid and plaque assays than between the two sites performing the liquid assay. Similar findings to the larger group were noted in the subset of 46 P . aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis. Results of this study suggest that reproducibility of PST methods needs further development., Competing Interests: The material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting true views of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the National Institutes of Health. R.P. reports grants from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, and BioFire and is a onsultant to Curetis, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, and Qvella; monies are paid to Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic and R.P. have a relationship with Pathogenomix. R.P. has research supported by Adaptive Phage Therapeutics (APT). Mayo Clinic has a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in APT. R.P. is also a consultant to Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and CARB-X. In addition, R.P. has a patent on Bordetella pertussis/Bordetella parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued. R.P. receives honoraria from the NBME, Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course. M.N., A.F., and Walter Reed Army Institute of Research have a royalty-bearing licensing agreement with APT. J.R.F, M.L, A.N. and P.A. are employees at APT.

Most clinical trials of treatment efficacy evaluate benefits and harms separately. Investigators generally rate the primary outcome of a trial with a binary outcome measure and consider harms separately as adverse events. This approach fails to recognize finer gradations of patient response, correlations between benefits and harms, and the overall effects on individual patients. For example, in status epilepticus trials, efficacy is often defined as the absence of clinically apparent seizures with recovery of consciousness. Such an efficacy outcome fails to recognize that some causes of status epilepticus, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage or stroke, may not be accompanied by return of consciousness, and the need to intubate a patient may be classified as treatment failure even if status was successfully terminated. The Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) method uses a different approach. The DOOR method involves comparing the experiences of trial participants in different treatment arms by the desirability of the overall patient outcome. Using status epilepticus treatment as an example, a patient who experiences successful termination of status epilepticus but with major side effects would have a less desirable outcome than a patient with treatment success and minor side effects, who in turn would have a less desirable outcome than a patient with treatment success but no side effects. This is a patient-centered approach because it considers treatment efficacy in the context of the costs borne by the patient, for example, toxicity in achieving efficacy. Thus, DOOR considers both the benefits and harms to individual patients in assessing the outcome of a clinical trial. In this article, we present the rationale for the use of DOOR, the issues involved in the development of and statistical analyses of an ordinal outcome, and an example of the potential application of the DOOR method to a clinical trial of convulsive status epilepticus., (© 2023 American Academy of Neurology.)

The advancement of infectious disease diagnostics, along with studies devoted to infections caused by gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, is a top scientific priority of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases are rapidly evolving and improving. However, the availability of rapid tests designed to determine antibacterial resistance or susceptibility directly in clinical specimens remains limited, especially for gram-negative organisms. Additionally, the clinical impact of many new tests, including an understanding of how best to use them to inform optimal antibiotic prescribing, remains to be defined. This review summarizes the recent work of the ARLG toward addressing these unmet needs in the diagnostics field and describes future directions for clinical research aimed at curbing the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support from the ARLG of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID; UM1AI104681). K. E. H. reports holding leadership roles with ARLG as the Diagnostics Committee Chair and Study Principal Investigator (PI), the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) as an advisor, Journal of Clinical Microbiology (JCM) as a Mycology Section Editor, and Clinical Infectious Diseases as a Deputy Editor. S. B. D. reports grants or contracts from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID/NIH; consulting fees from Genentech and Janssen/J+J; support from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for travel to speak at IDWeek; patent US20100143379A1 for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses thereof; leadership on the IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, Healthcare-Associated Infection Advisory Committee for the California Department of Public Health, Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Innovations Group, ARLG Laboratory Center, ARLG Mentorship Committee, ARLG Gram-positive Committee, and ARLG Immunosuppressed Host Group; and payment to her institution from Shinogi, Basilea, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute for clinical events committee/adjudication committee participation. S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID/NIH, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Degruter (Editor-in-Chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and SVB Leerink; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the US Food and Drug Administration, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; and board member participation for the NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, Abbvie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, Novartis, American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. M. J. S. reports grants and contracts from Merck, Biomerieux, SNIPRBiome, and Selux Diagnostics; consulting fees from Shionogi; and participation on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie. P. J. S. reports grants or contracts from BD Diagnostics, T2 Diagnostics, OpGen, Inc, Affinity Biosensors, and Qiagen Sciences, Inc; consulting fees from OpGen, Inc, Entasis, BD Diagnostics, Merck, Qiagen Sciences, Inc, and Shionogi; payment or honoraria from GenMark Dx, OpGen, Inc, and BD Diagnostics; leadership on the ARLG Diagnostics Committee, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee, and College of American Pathologists Microbiology Committee; and stock in GeneCapture. R. P. reports grants or contracts from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, BIOFIRE, and Adaptive Phage Therapeutics; a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics through the Mayo Clinic; consulting fees from PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, HealthTrackRx, Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, Trellis Bioscience, Inc, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and CARB-X; honoraria from the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis polymerase chain reaction (PCR) issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued; and a financial relationship with Pathogenomix through the Mayo Clinic. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Addressing the treatment and prevention of antibacterial-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections is a priority area of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). The ARLG has conducted a series of observational studies to define the clinical and molecular global epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant and ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, with the goal of optimizing the design and execution of interventional studies. One ongoing ARLG study aims to better understand the impact of fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative gut bacteria in neutropenic patients, which threatens to undermine the effectiveness of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in these vulnerable patients. The ARLG has conducted pharmacokinetic studies to inform the optimal dosing of antibiotics that are important in the treatment of drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, including oral fosfomycin, intravenous minocycline, and a combination of intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam. In addition, randomized clinical trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of step-down oral fosfomycin for complicated urinary tract infections and single-dose intravenous phage therapy for adult patients with cystic fibrosis who are chronically colonized with P. aeruginosa in their respiratory tract. Thus, the focus of investigation in the ARLG has evolved from improving understanding of drug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections to positively affecting clinical care for affected patients through a combination of interventional pharmacokinetic and clinical studies, a focus that will be maintained moving forward., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support from the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID; grant UM1AI104681). M. J. S. reports grants or contracts from Merck, bioMérieux, SNIPRBiome, and Selux Diagnostics; consulting fees from Shionogi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board (DSMB) for AbbVie. D. v. D. reports grants or contracts from Merck; consulting fees from Utility, Shionogi, Merck, Union, Roche, and Qpex; payment or honoraria from Pfizer, Entasis, and Clinical Care Options; participation on an advisory board for Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; and leadership in the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. K. A. R. reports royalties from Springer Nature Group (textbook royalties); consulting fees, outside the submitted work, as an advisory board member for Shionogi, Qpex Biopharma/Medicines, and Utility Therapeutics and a consultant for Pulmatrix, BugsResearch, Clinartis, Spero Therapeutics, Qpex Biopharma/Medicines, Genetech, Utility Therapeutics, Venatorx, Chimerix, and Debiopharm; payment or honoraria from Shionogi (speaker bureau) and Biri Bioscience (presentation/speaker); participation on a DSMB, outside the submitted work, for Janssen Pharmaceutical; voting membership on the National Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Committee for the United States; and membership in the Antimicrobial Stewardship Curriculum Workgroup of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. N. R. reports grants or contracts from Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, Quidel, and Lilly; consulting fees from Krog; payment or honoraria from Virology Education; travel support from Sanofi; participation on a DSMB or advisory board for Moderna, Sanofi, EMMES, ICON, and Seqirus; advisory roles with the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group, Tropical Medicine Research Center (TMRC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Pertussis Challenge; an associate editor role with Clinical Infectious Diseases; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from the Georgia Research Alliance. S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID, the NIH and De Gruyter (as editor-in-chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases), the National Cancer Institute/NIH, and the CDC; royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and IDDI; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the US Food and Drug Administration, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, the International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and the Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; and board member participation for the NIH, the Breast International Group, the University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, Novartis, the American Statistical Association, the Society for Clinical Trials, and the Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports personal consulting fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, ContraFect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer (all paid to author); grants from the NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, ContraFect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for service as associate editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; travel support from ContraFect to 2019 ECCMID; and a sepsis diagnostics patent pending. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma and honoraria from Duke University and Cancer and Chemo Therapy. R. P. reports grants or contracts from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, BIOFIRE, and Adaptive Phage Therapeutics; a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics through the Mayo Clinic; consulting fees from PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, HealthTrackRx, Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, Trellis Bioscience, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and CARB-X; honoraria from the NBME, Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis polymerase chain reaction issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication (with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic), and a patent on an antibiofilm substance issued; and a financial relationship with Pathogenomix through the Mayo Clinic. N. S. reports grant funding from Duke University, the NIH, and the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group. R. A. B. reports grants and contracts from VenatoRx, Wockhardt, and Merck; payments from Pfizer to moderate meeting sessions; a provisional patent with Case Western Reserve University on the development of boronic acid transition state inhibitors for β-lactamases; and participation on a DSMB as a logistics associate for DMID-CROMS, Safety Oversight Committee Support, and Technical Resources International. Y. D. reports grants from Entasis and Shionogi; consulting fees from GSK, Moderna, Meiji Seika Pharma, Shionogi, Gilead, FujiFilm, and bioMérieux; and speaker payments from MSD, Shionogi, and Gilead. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) has prioritized infections caused by gram-positive bacteria as one of its core areas of emphasis. The ARLG Gram-positive Committee has focused on studies responding to 3 main identified research priorities: (1) investigation of strategies or therapies for infections predominantly caused by gram-positive bacteria, (2) evaluation of the efficacy of novel agents for infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and (3) optimization of dosing and duration of antimicrobial agents for gram-positive infections. Herein, we summarize ARLG accomplishments in gram-positive bacterial infection research, including studies aiming to (1) inform optimal vancomycin dosing, (2) determine the role of dalbavancin in MRSA bloodstream infection, (3) characterize enterococcal bloodstream infections, (4) demonstrate the benefits of short-course therapy for pediatric community-acquired pneumonia, (5) develop quality of life measures for use in clinical trials, and (6) advance understanding of the microbiome. Future studies will incorporate innovative methodologies with a focus on interventional clinical trials that have the potential to change clinical practice for difficult-to-treat infections, such as MRSA bloodstream infections., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support from the ARLG of the NIH and the NIAID (UM1AI104681). S. B. D. reports grants or contracts paid to her institution from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID/NIH; consulting fees paid directly to her from Genentech and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J); travel and meeting support from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) to speak at IDWeek; a patent (US20100143379A1) for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses thereof; a leadership role on the IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, California Department of Public Health Hospital Acquired Infections Advisory Committee, and ARLG Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram-positive Committee, and Immunosuppressed Host Group; and payment directly to her for clinical events committee/adjudication committee participation from Shionogi, Basilea, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute.D. R. A. reports funding support from ContraFect and a leadership role on the ARLG Gram-positive Committee. A. B. reports funding support from the ARLG Early Faculty Seedling Award (NIAID UM1AI104681) and consulting fees from Roche. H. W. B. reports royalties from the Sanford Guide; consulting fees from the Sanford Guide, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy/American Society for Microbiology (ASM), and ID Clinics of North America/Elsevier; honoraria for Grand Rounds at Temple University; travel and meeting support for an IDWeek Lecture; membership as a voting member on the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; and membership on the Board of Trustees at the College of the Holy Cross. B. C. reports grants or contracts paid to his institution from Moderna Vaccines and Merck Vaccines; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Cowen Investments, Pfizer, Moderna, GSK, and Sanofi; payment as a medicolegal expert with multiple law firms; participation on the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) or advisory board for Affinivax and GSK; and a leadership role as president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. S. E. C. reports grants or contracts paid to her institution from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); consulting fees paid directly to her from the Duke Clinical Research Institute; participation on a DSMB for Debiopharm; and leadership roles as a board member of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases and Globarl Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership North America (GARDP-NA). S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID/NIH and De Gruyter (Editor-in-Chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, J&J, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and IDDI; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the FDA, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; board member participation for the NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, and Novartis; and board positions with the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports personal consulting fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, ContraFect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer; grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, ContraFect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the IDSA for his service as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; travel support from ContraFect to the 2019 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID); and a sepsis diagnostics patent pending. S. A. F. reports grant or contracts from NIH (P50HD103525, U01AL116400, R21AI176063) and AHRQ (R01 HS024269), honoraria from ARLG, and provision of Clorox wipes for a clinical research study. B. J. K. reports grants from CDC and NIAID; honoraria from ARLG; and leadership roles in the CDC Microbiome Working Group, IDSA Journal Club, and ARLG. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma and honoraria from Duke University and Cancer and Chemo Therapy. T. P. L. reports grants paid to his institution from Wockhardt; grants paid directly to him from Paratek, Cidara, Biofire Diagnostics, and Merck; payment directly to him for lectures from Shionogi, Ferring, Seres, and Melinta; consulting fees paid directly to him from AbbVie, Cidara Therapeutics, Ferring, ICPD, Genentech, J&J, Melinta, Merck, Roche, Shionogi, Spero, Venatrox, La Jolla, Seres, Paratek, GSK, and DoseMe; and payment for the development of educational presentations from the Mayo Clinic. L. G. M. reports grants or contracts from Merck, ContraFect, Paratek, Medline, and GSK. J. M. M. reports grants from Asociación Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico FONDECYT (grant number 1211947). B. S. reports advisory board fees paid directly to him from Basilia. T. T. T. reports grants from NIH paid to her institution; travel and meeting support from IDSA; and a leadership role on the IDWeek Planning Committee and a role as a Gulf Coast Consortium Cluster Reviewer (both unpaid). N. A. T. reports grants from CDC and PDI, Inc; and consulting fees from Techspert. D. J. W. reports grants paid to his institution from CDC and NIH/NIAID; a leadership role on the IDSA Childhood Pneumonia Guidelines Committee; and receipt of equipment from bioMérieux for procalcitonin assays for an observational study. T. L. H. reports grants from Karius and NIH; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Aridis, Pfizer, Lysovant, and Affinivax; and participation on a DSMB for the SNAP Trial and the advisory board for Basilea. C. A. A. reports grant funding to their institution from NIH/NIAID (1 Po1 AI152999, R01AI148342, R01 AI346337, T32 AI141349, K24 Ai121296, U19 AI44297, R01 AI150685, and R21 AI151536), MeMed Diagnostics Ltd, Entasis Therapeutics, Merck Pharmaceuticals, and Harris County Public Health; royalties paid to them from UpToDate; reimbursement from IDSA for attending IDWeek as a speaker and part of the organizing committee; reimbursement from ASM to attend ASM Microbe as a speaker; reimbursement from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) to attend SHEA as a speaker; reimbursement from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases to attend ECCMID as a speaker; reimbursement from Mérieux Foundation to attend ICARE course as faculty; reimbursement from Sociedad Chilea de Infectiologia, Sociedad Colombiana de Infectologia, Pan American Society for Infectious Diseases, and Brazilian Society for Infectious Diseases to attend the annual meeting and act as a speaker; was an unpaid participant on a DSMB with the World Health Organization and Antibacterial Pipeline Advisory Group; received payment for participation with the NIH Grant Review Study Sections; was a voluntary member of the board of directors of IDSA; and is the Editor-in-Chief of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. B. E. M. reports royalties from UpToDate for online chapters; consulting fees from JRD, LLC (J&J), PPD Development, LP (GSK0 and Basilea Pharmaceutical International Ltd); participation on a DSMB with NIH Therapeutic and Prevention; and held the position of Governor of the Academy with the American Academy of Microbiology. C. L. reports grant payments to their institutions from NIAID/NIH (1R01AI151038-01) and Pfizer. M. H. S. reports advisory board fees from DoseMe; consulting fees from GSK and Entasis; and has an issued patent US10688195B2. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support to the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH) (UM1AI104681). H. R. C., M. S., and H. S. G. report salary support from the ARLG via Duke University. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma and honoraria from Duke University and the Japanese Journal of Cancer and Chemotherapy Publishers, Inc. H. F. C. reports royalties from the Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy, payment for expert testimony from Nexus Pharmaceuticals, participation on a Merck data safety monitoring board for molnupiravir, and stock ownership in Moderna and Merck. V. G. F. reports personal consulting fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer (paid to author); grants from the NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for service as associate editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; travel support from ContraFect to the 2019 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; and a sepsis diagnostics patent pending. S. R. E. reports grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the NIH and De Gruyter (as editor-in-chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, the International Drug Development Institute, SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and IDDI; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks; meeting support from the US Food and Drug Administration, the Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, the Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, the International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and the Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; and board member participation for the NIH, Breast International Group, the University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, Abbvie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, Novartis, the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and the Frontier Science Foundation. R. P. reports grants or contracts from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics, BIOFIRE, and Adaptive Phage Therapeutics; a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics through the Mayo Clinic; consulting fees from PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, HealthTrackRx, Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, Trellis Bioscience, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and CARB-X; honoraria from the National Board of Medical Examiners, Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis polymerase chain reaction issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued; and a financial relationship with Pathogenomix through the Mayo Clinic. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support from the ARLG of the NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID; UM1AI104681). H. R. C. and M.S. report salary support from the ARLG via Duke University (NIAID; UM1AI104681). H. F. C. reports royalties from the Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy; payment for expert testimony from Nexus Pharmaceuticals; participation on a Merck data and safety monitoring board for molnupiravir; and stock ownership in Moderna and Merck. S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID, NIH, and Degruter (editor-in-chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, and SVB Leerink; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the US Food and Drug Administration, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; and board member participation for the NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. R. P. reports grants or contracts from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, BIOFIRE, and Adaptive Phage Therapeutics; a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics through the Mayo Clinic; consulting fees from PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, HealthTrackRx, Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, Trellis Bioscience, Inc, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and CARB-X; honoraria from the NBME, Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis polymerase chain reaction issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an antibiofilm substance issued; and a financial relationship with Pathogenomix through the Mayo Clinic. V. G. F. reports personal consulting fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer (paid to author); grants from the NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for his service as associate editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; travel support from Contrafect to 2019 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; and a sepsis diagnostics patent pending. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support from the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (grant number UM1AI104681). S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID and the NIH and Degruter (Editor-in-Chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, IDDI, and SVB Leerink; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the US Food and Drug Administration, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; and board member participation for the NIH, Breast International Group, Washington University, University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, Abbvie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, Novartis, American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. R. P. reports grants or contracts from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, BIOFIRE, and Adaptive Phage Therapeutics; a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics through the Mayo Clinic; consulting fees from PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, HealthTrackRx, Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, Trellis Bioscience, Inc, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and CARB-X; honoraria from the National Board of Medical Examiners, Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis polymerase chain reaction (PCR) issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued; and a financial relationship with Pathogenomix through the Mayo Clinic. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma and honoraria from Duke University and Cancer and Chemo Therapy. J. H.-A. reports funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unrelated to the report reported in this manuscript, honoraria from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and travel and meeting support from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the ARLG. D. C. reports personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Incyte, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Kinnate Biopharma, Maxis Health, Parexel, and Health Literacy Media (nonprofit); travel and meeting support from M2GEN and the American Society of Clinical Oncology; participation on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for the American Society of Clinical Oncology; and leadership in the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance. H. C. reports salary support from the ARLG via Duke University. H. F. C. reports royalties from the Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy, payment for expert testimony from Nexus Pharmaceuticals, participation on a Merck DSMB for molnupiravir, and stock ownership in Moderna and Merck. V. G. F. reports personal consulting fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer (paid to the author); grants from the NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for his service as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; travel support from Contrafect to the 2019 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID); and a sepsis diagnostics patent pending. H. B. reports royalties from the Sanford Guide; consulting fees from the Sanford Guide, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy/ASM, and ID Clinics of North America/Elsevier; honoraria for Grand Rounds at Temple University; travel and meeting support for an IDWeek Lecture; and membership as a voting member on the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB) and membership on the Board of Trustees at the College of the Holy Cross. H. K. reports funding awarded to her institution(s) from the Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and PracticeTransformation (CIN 13-410) at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, NIH, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. They also report serving on the editorial board for the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy- Antimicrobial Resistance (JAC-AMR). T. K. reports no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: THALES demonstrated that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death but increased bleeding versus aspirin during the 30 days following a mild-to-moderate acute non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke (AIS) or high-risk transient ischaemic attack (TIA). There are no cost-effectiveness analyses supporting this combination in Europe. To address this, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed., Methods: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a decision tree and Markov model with a short-term and long-term (30-year) horizon. Stroke, mortality, bleeding and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) data from THALES were used to estimate short-term outcomes. Model transitions were based on stroke severity (disabling stroke was defined as modified Rankin Scale >2). Healthcare resource utilisation and EQ-5D data beyond 30 days were based on SOCRATES, another trial in AIS/TIA that compared ticagrelor with aspirin. Long-term costs, survival and disutilities were based on published literature. Unit costs were derived from national databases and discounted at 3% annually from a Swedish healthcare perspective., Results: One-month treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin resulted in 12 fewer strokes, 4 additional major bleeds and cost savings of €95 000 per 1000 patients versus aspirin from a Swedish healthcare perspective. This translated into increased quality-adjusted life-years (0.04) and reduced societal costs (-€1358) per patient over a lifetime horizon. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were number of patients experiencing subsequent disabling stroke and degree of disability. Findings were robust over a range of input assumptions., Conclusion: One month of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin is likely to improve outcomes and reduce costs versus aspirin in mild-to-moderate AIS or high-risk TIA., Trial Registration Number: NCT03354429., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AT, CM, KR, HD, PL, MK, AH and MO are employees of AstraZeneca. SCJ, PA, SRE, SJ, CAM and YW have acted as consultants to AstraZeneca. PA has received research grants from AstraZeneca. RJ is an employee of Parexel., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Lower respiratory tract infections are frequently treated with antibiotics, despite a viral cause in many cases. It remains unknown whether low procalcitonin concentrations can identify patients with lower respiratory tract infection who are unlikely to benefit from antibiotics. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections in patients with low procalcitonin., Methods: We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at five health centres in the USA. Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically suspected non-pneumonia lower respiratory tract infection and symptom duration from 24 h to 28 days were eligible for enrolment. Participants with a procalcitonin concentration of 0·25 ng/mL or less were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four with stratification by site, to receive over-encapsulated oral azithromycin 250 mg or matching placebo (two capsules on day 1 followed by one capsule daily for 4 days). Participants, non-study clinical providers, investigators, and study coordinators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was efficacy of azithromycin versus placebo in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin was -12·5%. Solicited adverse events (abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, allergic reaction, or yeast infections) were recorded as a secondary outcome. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03341273., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2017, and March 9, 2020, 691 patients were assessed for eligibility and 499 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive azithromycin (n=249) or placebo (n=250). Clinical improvement at day 5 was observed in 148 (63%, 95% CI 54 to 71) of 238 participants with full data in the placebo group and 155 (69%, 61 to 77) of 227 participants with full data in the azithromycin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference -6%, 95% CI -15 to 2). The 95% CI for the difference did not meet the non-inferiority margin. Solicited adverse events and the severity of solicited adverse events were not significantly different between groups at day 5, except for increased abdominal pain associated with azithromycin (47 [23%, 95% CI 18 to 29] of 204 participants) compared with placebo (35 [16%, 12 to 21] of 221; between-group difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 0]; p=0·066)., Interpretation: Placebo was not non-inferior to azithromycin in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in adults with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. After accounting for both the rates of clinical improvement and solicited adverse events at day 5, it is unclear whether antibiotics are indicated for patients with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration., Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ELT and CWW report consulting for Biomeme. ELT, CWW, and MTM have a patent pending for Methods to Diagnose and Treat Acute Respiratory Infections (US20180245154A1). Following completion of the study, ELT became an employee of Danaher Diagnostics. EBW is a principal investigator for Pfizer-funded studies of COVID-19 vaccine, a co-investigator for a vaccine study funded by Moderna, and a member of an advisory board for Vaxcyte. NGR serves as a safety consultant for the Emmes Corporation and ICON-I, and reports research funds from Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Quidel, and Lilly. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. H. W. B. declares consulting fees from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Sanford Guide, and ID Clinics of North America. T. B. is an employee of and holds stock in Shionogi & Co and reports a nondisclosure agreement between Duke University and Shionogi (to share the analysis conducted by Shionogi with the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group [ARLG]). H. F. C. reports grant funding from NIH; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson; participation on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) for Merck; and stock in Merck and Moderna. S. B. D. reports research funding from Gilead, Regeneron, and NIH; payments for clinical event adjudication committees from Basilea and Shionogi (pending); and consulting fees from Genentech. S. R. E. reports grant funding from NIH and Degruyter; royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genetech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Bickenson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, and SVB Leerink; payments for lectures from the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks; support for attending meetings from FDA, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association, participation on DSMBs for NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouous, Appelis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, and Advantagene; and being a board member for the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche; grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the Infectious Diseases of America for service as associate editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; and a patent for sepsis diagnostics is pending. S. P. G. is an employee of Nabriva Therapeutics and holds stock in Nabriva Therapeutics. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma and payment for lectures from Johnson & Johnson and Duke University. T. L. H. declares royalties from UpToDate and consulting fees from Basilea Pharmaceutica, MotifBio, Genentech, and Lysovant. D. M. is an employee of Nabriva Therapeutics and holds stock in Nabriva Therapeutics. S. N. is an employee of Johnson & Johnson and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. J. H.-A. report grants from NIH (funding to ARLG, payments made to institution). S. B. D. reports grants or contracts from NIH funding to the ARLG; research funding from Gilead, Regeneron, and NIH; payments for clinical event adjudication committees from Basilea and Shionogi (pending); and consulting fees from Genentech. All remaining authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The DSMB: The Toughest Job in Clinical TrialsIn this review article, the authors discuss methods that DSMBs can use to compare the absolute and relative risks of benefits and adverse effects between trial interventions and illustrate how the DSMB can use this approach to evaluate the balance of these competing risks. Two approaches are discussed - the win ratio and the DOOR probability on one treatment relative to another.

Background: Bacteriophages (phages) are a promising anti-infective option for human disease. Major gaps remain in understanding their potential utility., Methods: This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of a single dose of intravenous phage in approximately 72 clinically stable adult cystic fibrosis volunteers recruited from up to 20 US sites with Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway colonization. The single dose of phage consists of a mixture of four anti-pseudomonal phages. Six sentinel participants will be sequentially enrolled with dose escalation of the phage mixture by one log 10 beginning with 4 × 10 7 plaque-forming units in an unblinded stage 1. If no serious adverse events related to the study product are identified, the trial will proceed to a double-blinded stage 2. In stage 2a, 32 participants will be randomly assigned to one of three phage dosages or placebo in a 1:1:1:1 allocation. An interim analysis will be performed to determine the phage dosage with the most favorable safety and microbiological activity profile to inform phage dosing in stage 2b. During stage 2b, up to 32 additional volunteers will be randomized 1:1 to the phage or placebo arm. Primary outcomes include (1) the number of grade 2 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events, (2) change in log 10 P. aeruginosa total colony counts in sputum, and (3) the probability of a randomly selected subject having a more favorable outcome ranking if assigned to receive phage therapy versus placebo. Exploratory outcomes include (1) sputum and serum phage pharmacokinetics, (2) the impact of phage on lung function, (3) the proportion of P. aeruginosa isolates susceptible to the phage mixture before and after study product administration, and (4) changes in quality of life., Discussion: This trial will investigate the activity of phages in reducing P. aeruginosa colony counts and provide insights into the safety profile of phage therapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05453578. Registered on 12 July 2022., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with postoperative DJF in long constructs for ASD., Methods: A retrospective review was performed at a tertiary referral spine centre from 01/01/2007 to 31/12/2016. Demographic, clinical and radiographic parameters were collated for patients with DJF in the postoperative period and compared to those without DJF. Survival analyses were performed using univariate logistic regression to identify variables with a p value < 0.05 for inclusion in multivariate analysis. Spearman's correlations were performed where applicable., Results: One hundred two patients were identified. 41 (40.2%) suffered DJF in the postoperative period, with rod fracture being the most common sign of DJF (13/65; 20.0%). Mean time to failure was 32.4 months. On univariate analysis, pedicle subtraction osteotomy (p = 0.03), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (p < 0.001), pre-op LL (p < 0.01), pre-op SVA (p < 0.01), pre-op SS (p = 0.02), postop LL (p = 0.03), postop SVA (p = 0.01), postop PI/LL (p < 0.001), LL correction (p < 0.001), SVA correction (p < 0.001), PT correction (p = 0.03), PI/LL correction (p < 0.001), SS correction (p = 0.03) all proved significant. On multivariate analysis, pedicle subtraction osteotomy (OR 27.3; p = 0.03), postop SVA (p < 0.01) and LL correction (p = 0.02) remained statistically significant as independent risk factors for DJF., Conclusion: Recently, DJF has received recognition as its own entity due to a notable postoperative incidence. Few studies to date have evaluated risk factors for DJF. The results of our study highlight that pedicle subtraction osteotomy, poor correction of lumbar lordosis, and sagittal vertical axis are significantly associated with postoperative occurrence of DJF., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common., Methods: This is a prospective cohort of patients with E coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. For each patient with a CRO-R E coli BSI enrolled, the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) E coli BSI was included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 50% probability of worse outcomes in the CRO-R group as the null hypothesis. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to reduce confounding., Results: Notable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-S E coli BSI included the proportion with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (23% vs 15%, P = .079) and the median time to active antibiotic therapy (12 hours [interquartile range {IQR}, 1-35 hours] vs 1 hour [IQR, 0-6 hours]; P < .001). Unadjusted DOOR analyses indicated a 58% probability (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%-63%) for a worse clinical outcome in CRO-R versus CRO-S BSI. In the IPW-adjusted cohort, no difference was observed (54% [95% CI, 47%-61%]). Secondary outcomes included unadjusted and adjusted differences in the proportion of 30-day mortality between CRO-R and CRO-S BSIs (-5.3% [95% CI, -10.3% to -.4%] and -1.8 [95% CI, -6.7% to 3.2%], respectively), postculture median length of stay (8 days [IQR, 5-13 days] vs 6 days [IQR, 4-9 days]; P < .001), and incident admission to a long-term care facility (22% vs 12%, P = .045)., Conclusions: Patients with CRO-R E coli BSI generally have poorer outcomes compared to patients infected with CRO-S E coli BSI, even after adjusting for important confounders., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. G.-D. reports grants and contracts paid to her institution from the NIH, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Janssen Research & Development, Pfizer, BioNTech SE, GCAR, Hoffman La-Roche, I-Mab Biopharma, Rebiotix, Target Health, OBO Lilly USA, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Summit Ltd, UK, Cidara Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Seres Therapeutics, and Theratechnologies; and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Research Committee participation paid to her directly. Y. D. reports grants and contracts paid to his institution from Entasis, Asahi Kasei Pharma, and Shionogi; consulting fees paid directly to him by Meiji Seika Pharma, Shionogi, Gilead, MSD, Chugai, bioMérieux, and GSK; and speaker payments from MSD, Shionogi, AstraZeneca, Teijin Healthcare, Gilead, FujiFilm Toyama Chemical, bioMérieux, H.U. Frontier, and Eiken Chemical. C. A. A. reports grants and contracts paid to his institution from NIH/NIAID (1 P01 AI152999, R01 AI148342, R01 AI134637, T32 AI141349, K24 AI121296, U19 AI144297, R01 AI150685, R21 AI151536), MeMed Diagnostics, Entasis Therapeutics, Merck Pharmaceuticals, and Harris County Public Health; payments to him for UpToDate royalties; reimbursement of meeting attendance and speaking from IDSA, American Society for Microbiology, Society of Hospital Epidemiology of America, European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux Foundation, Sociedad Argentina de Infectologia, Sociedad Chilena de Infectologia, Sociedad Colombiana de Infectologia, Panamerican Society for Infectious Diseases, and Brazilian Society for Infectious Diseases; reviewer participation as part of the NIH grant Review Study Sections; travel expenses from the IDSA Board of Directors; and for Editor in Chief for Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; nonpaid participation includes the World Health Organization Antibacterial Pipeline Advisory Group and participation on the IDSA Board of Directors. E. S. reports grants and contracts paid to his institution from Janssen Pharmaceuticals; speaker fees paid directly to him from Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and participation on a steering committee with no payment involved from Janssen Pharamceuticals. L. G. M. reports grants and contracts paid to his institution from Merck, Medline, Contrafect, and GSK. M. J. S. reports grants and contracts paid to his institution from Merck, Allergan, BioFire Diagnostics, Affinity Biosensors, and SNIPRBiome; consulting fees paid directly to him by Shionogi; and participation on a data and safety monitoring board paid directly to him by Spero Therapeutics. M. K. reports participating on an advisory board with payments made directly to him from Melinta, and receipt of drugs or other services paid directly to his institution by NIH. W. C. H. participates as a member of an endpoint adjudication committee for Pfizer; is a member of the advisory board for ADMA Biologics; and has stock ownership in Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Zimmer Biomet. R. P. reports grants from BioFire, ContraFect, and TenNor Therapeutics; is a consultant to Curetis, Abbott Laboratories, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Day Zero Diagnostics, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences, and Qvella; is a consultant to Netflix and CARB-X; has a patent on Bordetella pertussis (parapertussis) polymerase chain reaction issued, a patent on a device and method for sonication (with royalties paid by Samsung), and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued; receives an editor's stipend from the IDSA; and receives honoraria from the National Board of Medical Examiners, UpToDate, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course. Other interests paid to her institution include Adaptive Phase Therapeutics and Pathogenomix. S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID/NIH and De Gruyter (Editor in Chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, and SVB Leerink; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the US Food and Drug Administration, the Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, the Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, the International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and the Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; and board member participation for the NIH, the Breast International Group, the University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, the American Statistical Association, the Society for Clinical Trials, and the Frontier Science Foundation. H. F. C. reports participation on a Merck data and safety monitoring board for molnupiravir paid directly to him, and stock ownership in Moderna and Merck. V. G. F. reports grants to his institution from the NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; personal fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, and Roche; editorial stipend from IDSA; pending patent for a host gene expression signature diagnostic for sepsis; leadership role as associate editor for Clinical Infectious Diseases; and stock options with Valanbio and ArcBio. D. v. D. reports grants and contracts from the NIH and Merck, paid to his institution, outside the published work, and grants from Shionogi paid to him; consultancy for Actavis, Tetraphase, Sanofi Pasteur, Medimmune, Astellas, Merck, Allergan, T2 Biosystems, Roche, Achaogen, Neumedicine, Shionogi, Pfizer, Entasis, QPex, Wellspring, Karius, Utility, and Union; payment for honoraria from Pfizer; and an editor's stipend from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Animal migrations represent the regular movements of trillions of individuals. The scale of these movements has inspired human intrigue for millennia and has been intensively studied by biologists. This research has highlighted the diversity of migratory strategies seen across and within migratory taxa: while some migrants temporarily express phenotypes dedicated to travel, others show little or no phenotypic flexibility in association with migration. However, a vocabulary for describing these contrasting solutions to the performance trade-offs inherent to the highly dynamic lifestyle of migrants (and strategies intermediate between these two extremes) is currently missing. We propose a taxon-independent organising framework based on energetics, distinguishing between migrants that forage as they travel (income migrants) and those that fuel migration using energy acquired before departure (capital migrants). Not only does our capital:income continuum of migratory energetics account for the variable extent of phenotypic flexibility within and across migrant populations, but it also aligns with theoreticians' treatment of migration and clarifies how migration impacts other phases of the life cycle. As such, it provides a unifying scale and common vacabulary for comparing the migratory strategies of divergent taxa., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.)

Background and Objectives: The goal of this work was to investigate the short-term time-course benefit and risk of ticagrelor with aspirin in acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA in The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and ASA for Prevention of Stroke and Death (THALES) trial., Methods: In an exploratory analysis of the THALES trial, we evaluated the cumulative incidence of irreversible efficacy and safety outcomes at different time points during the 30-day treatment period. The efficacy outcome was major ischemic events defined as a composite of ischemic stroke or nonhemorrhagic death. The safety outcome was major hemorrhage defined as a composite of intracranial hemorrhage and fatal bleedings. Net clinical impact was defined as the combination of these 2 endpoints., Results: This analysis included a total of 11,016 patients (5,523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group, 5,493 in the aspirin group) with a mean age of 65 years, and 39% were women. The reduction of major ischemic events by ticagrelor occurred in the first week (4.1% vs 5.3%; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% CI 0.36%-1.94%) and remained throughout the 30-day treatment period. An increase in major hemorrhage was seen during the first week and remained relatively constant in the following weeks (absolute risk increase ≈0.3%). Cumulative analysis showed that the net clinical impact favored ticagrelor-aspirin in the first week (absolute risk reduction 0.97%, 95% CI, 0.17%-1.77%) and remained constant throughout the 30 days., Discussion: In patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, the treatment effect of ticagrelor-aspirin was present from the first week. The ischemic benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin outweighs the risk of major hemorrhage throughout the treatment period, which may support the use of 30-day treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin in these patients., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that, for patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, the ischemic benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin outweighs the risk of major hemorrhage throughout the 30-day treatment period., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)

Abstract: Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

The rate of adaptive evolution, the contribution of selection to genetic changes that increase mean fitness, is determined by the additive genetic variance in individual relative fitness. To date, there are few robust estimates of this parameter for natural populations, and it is therefore unclear whether adaptive evolution can play a meaningful role in short-term population dynamics. We developed and applied quantitative genetic methods to long-term datasets from 19 wild bird and mammal populations and found that, while estimates vary between populations, additive genetic variance in relative fitness is often substantial and, on average, twice that of previous estimates. We show that these rates of contemporary adaptive evolution can affect population dynamics and hence that natural selection has the potential to partly mitigate effects of current environmental change.

Background: Although a short course (7 days) of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be noninferior to a conventional course (14 days) in terms of mortality and infectious complications for patients with a Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection (GNB), it is unknown whether a shorter treatment duration can provide a better overall clinical outcome., Methods: We applied a bloodstream infection-specific desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis to the results of a previously completed, randomized controlled trial comparing short versus conventional course antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with uncomplicated GNB. We determined the probability that a randomly selected participant in the short course group would have a more desirable overall outcome than a participant in the conventional duration group. We performed (1) partial credit analyses allowing for calculated and variable weighting of DOOR ranks and (2) subgroup analyses to elucidate which patients may benefit the most from short durations of therapy., Results: For the 604 patients included in the original study (306 short course, 298 conventional course), the probability of having a more desirable outcome with a short course of antibiotics compared with a conventional course was 51.1% (95% confidence interval, 46.7% to 55.4%), indicating no significant difference. Partial credit analyses indicated that the DOOR results were similar across different patient preferences. Prespecified subgroup analyses using DOOR did not reveal significant differences between short and conventional courses of therapy., Conclusions: Both short and conventional durations of antibiotic therapy provide comparable clinical outcomes when using DOOR to consider benefits and risks of treatment options for GNB., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Importance: Bacterial and viral causes of acute respiratory illness (ARI) are difficult to clinically distinguish, resulting in the inappropriate use of antibacterial therapy. The use of a host gene expression-based test that is able to discriminate bacterial from viral infection in less than 1 hour may improve care and antimicrobial stewardship., Objective: To validate the host response bacterial/viral (HR-B/V) test and assess its ability to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral infection among patients with ARI., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolled 755 children and adults with febrile ARI of 7 or fewer days' duration from 10 US emergency departments. Participants were enrolled from October 3, 2014, to September 1, 2019, followed by additional enrollment of patients with COVID-19 from March 20 to December 3, 2020. Clinical adjudication of enrolled participants identified 616 individuals as having bacterial or viral infection. The primary analysis cohort included 334 participants with high-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator concordance and the presence of an identified pathogen confirmed by microbiological testing). A secondary analysis of the entire cohort of 616 participants included cases with low-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator discordance or the absence of an identified pathogen in microbiological testing). Thirty-three participants with COVID-19 were included post hoc., Interventions: The HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance characteristics for the HR-B/V test compared with clinical adjudication were reported as either bacterial or viral infection or categorized into 4 likelihood groups (viral very likely [probability score <0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score >0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement., Results: Among 755 enrolled participants, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 16-52 years); 360 participants (47.7%) were female, and 395 (52.3%) were male. A total of 13 participants (1.7%) were American Indian, 13 (1.7%) were Asian, 368 (48.7%) were Black, 131 (17.4%) were Hispanic, 3 (0.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 297 (39.3%) were White, and 60 (7.9%) were of unspecified race and/or ethnicity. In the primary analysis involving 334 participants, the HR-B/V test had sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 77.8%-96.2%), specificity of 82.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-86.6%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.3%-99.1%) for bacterial infection. In comparison, the sensitivity of procalcitonin measurement was 28.6% (95% CI, 16.2%-40.9%; P < .001), the specificity was 87.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-90.7%; P = .006), and the NPV was 87.6% (95% CI, 85.5%-89.5%; P < .001). When stratified into likelihood groups, the HR-B/V test had an NPV of 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1%-100%) for bacterial infection in the viral very likely group and a positive predictive value of 63.4% (95% CI, 47.2%-77.9%) for bacterial infection in the bacterial very likely group. The HR-B/V test correctly identified 30 of 33 participants (90.9%) with acute COVID-19 as having a viral infection., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the HR-B/V test accurately discriminated bacterial from viral infection among patients with febrile ARI and was superior to procalcitonin measurement. The findings suggest that an accurate point-of-need host response test with high NPV may offer an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and patient outcomes.