Search

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.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.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).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.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux.

Background Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) uses an ordinal ranking system to evaluate global outcomes in clinical trial participants by incorporating safety and efficacy assessments into a single endpoint. In this study, we developed and applied a DOOR endpoint for cIAI clinical trials. Methods We reviewed 10 Phase 3 noninferiority trials for cIAI with electronic patient-level data (n=5473 participants) submitted to the FDA between 2005-2021. Extending previous work [CID. 2019:68(10):1691-8)], we developed an expanded cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint based on clinically meaningful events captured in trial datasets and those that were unique to patients with cIAI. Using this DOOR endpoint, we assigned each participant a DOOR rank, estimated the probability that a participant in the study treatment arm in each trial would have a more desirable DOOR rank than if assigned to the comparator arm, and analyzed individual components of clinical experience in each trial. Results Based on analysis of available data, we noted heterogeneity in definitions of “indeterminate” clinical outcomes, and significant diversity and increased incidence of infectious complications (ICs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and surgical/percutaneous procedures in participants without clinical cure. These informed the expansion of the DOOR endpoint for cIAI to include clinical efficacy outcomes, ICs, SAEs, and additional procedures (Table 1). The DOOR distributions between treatment and comparator arms in all 10 trials were similar. DOOR probability estimates for the 10 trials ranged from 44.5% to 50.3% but were not nominally statistically significant. Component analyses in two trials showed that the study treatment was nominally statistically inferior to the comparator with regard to SAEs and clinical failure, respectively (Fig. 1b, 1c). Table 1.cIAI-Specific DOOR EndpointFigure 1.Forest plot listing the DOOR probabilities and probability for each DOOR component from 3 trials. Trial 1 has no significant differences between the treatment arms in the component analysis (A). The study treatment arm was shown to be nominally statistically inferior for SAEs in Trial 2 (B) and for clinical failure in Trial 3 (C). Conclusion We developed a cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint to better elucidate the events that participants experienced in these trials. The component analysis allowed more nuanced evaluation of the factors that contributed to the composite DOOR probability estimate and provided a visual display of the risk-benefit assessment of a study treatment vs. the comparator. Our study was limited by its retrospective approach and trial design heterogeneity. Disclosures Deborah Collyar, B.Sci, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Advisor/Consultant|Kinnate Biopharma: Advisor/Consultant|M2GEN: Advisor/Consultant|Maxis Clinical Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Parexel: Honoraria|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roundtable Analytics, Inc.: Ownership Interest Sarah B. Doernberg, MD, MAS, Basilea: Clincal events committee|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|Shinogi: Clincal events committee Scott R. Evans, Ph.D., M.S., Abbvie: DSMB|Akouos: DSMB|Apellis: DSMB|AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Atricure: Advisor/Consultant|Becton Dickenson: Advisor/Consultant|Breast International Group: DSMB|Candel: DSMB|ChemoCentrix: Advisor/Consultant|Clover: DSMB|DayOneBio: DSMB|DeGruyter: Editor|Duke University: DSMB|Endologix: Advisor/Consultant|FHI Clinical: DSMB|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Horizon: Advisor/Consultant|International Drug Development Institute: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen: Advisor/Consultant|Lung Biotech: DSMB|Neovasc: Advisor/Consultant|NIH: Grant/Research Support|Nobel Pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Nuvelution: DSMB|Pfizer: DSMB|Rakuten: DSMB|Roche: DSMB|Roivant: Advisor/Consultant|SAB Biopharm: DSMB|SVB Leerink: Advisor/Consultant|Takeda: DSMB|Taylor & Francis: Book royalties|Teva: DSMB|Tracon: DSMB|University of Penn: DSMB|Vir: DSMB Thomas L. Holland, MD, Aridis: Advisor/Consultant|Lysovant: Advisor/Consultant Henry Chambers, MD, Merck: DSMB member|Merck: Stocks/Bonds|Moderna: Stocks/Bonds Vance G. Fowler, Jr, MD, MHS, Affinergy: Grant/Research Support|Affinergy: Honoraria|Affinium: Honoraria|Amphliphi Biosciences: Honoraria|ArcBio: Stocks/Bonds|Basilea: Grant/Research Support|Basilea: Honoraria|Bayer: Honoraria|C3J: Honoraria|Cerexa/Forest/Actavis/Allergan: Grant/Research Support|Contrafect: Grant/Research Support|Contrafect: Honoraria|Cubist/Merck: Grant/Research Support|Debiopharm: Grant/Research Support|Deep Blue: Grant/Research Support|Destiny: Honoraria|Genentech: Grant/Research Support|Genentech: Honoraria|Integrated Biotherapeutics: Honoraria|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|Janssen: Honoraria|Karius: Grant/Research Support|Medicines Co.: Honoraria|MedImmune: Grant/Research Support|MedImmune: Honoraria|NIH: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: Honoraria|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Honoraria|Sepsis diagnostics: Sepsis diagnostics patent pending|UpToDate: Royalties|Valanbio: Stocks/Bonds Sumathi Nambiar, MD MPH, Johnson and Johnson: Stocks/Bonds Helen W. Boucher, MD, American Society of Microbiology: Honoraria|Elsevier: Honoraria|Sanford Guide: Honoraria.

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.

Sensitivity and specificity are key aspects in evaluating the performance of diagnostic tests. Accuracy and AUC are commonly used composite measures that incorporate sensitivity and specificity. Average Weighted Accuracy (AWA) is motivated by the need for a statistical measure of diagnostic yield that can be used to compare diagnostic tests from the medical costs and clinical impact point of view, while incorporating the relevant prevalence range of the disease as well as the relative importance of false positive versus false negative cases. We derive the variance/covariance estimators and testing procedures in four different scenarios comparing diagnostic tests: (i) one diagnostic test vs. the best random test, (ii) two diagnostic tests from two independent samples, (iii) two diagnostic tests from the same sample, and (iv) more than two diagnostic tests from different or the same samples. The impacts of sample size, prevalence, and relative importance on power and average medical costs/clinical loss are examined through simulation studies. Accuracy has the highest power while AWA provides a consistent criterion in selecting the optimal threshold and better diagnostic tests with direct clinical interpretations. The use of AWA is illustrated on a three-arm clinical trial evaluating three different assays in detecting Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) in the rectum and pharynx.

Ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R)This is a prospective cohort of patients withNotable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-SPatients with CRO-R

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Pragmatic randomised clinical trials aim to directly inform clinical or health policy decision making. Here, we systematically review methods and design of pragmatic trials of pain therapies to examine methods, identify common challenges, and areas for improvement. Seven databases were searched for pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trials that assessed pain treatment in a clinical population of adults reporting pain. All screening steps and data extractions were performed twice. Data were synthesised descriptively, and correlation analyses between prespecified trial features and PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic–Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2) ratings and attrition were performed. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42020178954. Of 57 included trials, only 21% assessed pharmacological interventions, the remainder physical, surgical, psychological, or self-management pain therapies. Three-quarters of the trials were comparative effectiveness designs, often conducted in multiple centres (median: 5; Q1/3: 1, 9.25) and with a median sample size of 234 patients at randomization (Q1/3: 135.5; 363.5). Although most trials recruited patients with chronic pain, reporting of pain duration was poor and not well described. Reporting was comprehensive for most general items, while often deficient for specific pragmatic aspects. Average ratings for pragmatism were highest for treatment adherence flexibility and clinical relevance of outcome measures. They were lowest for patient recruitment methods and extent of follow-up measurements and appointments. Current practice in pragmatic trials of pain treatments can be improved in areas such as patient recruitment and reporting of methods, analysis, and interpretation of data. These improvements will facilitate translatability to other real-world settings—the purpose of pragmatic trials.

Three rapid diagnostic test panels (Verigene BC-GN, BioFire BCID, and BCID 2 [RUO]) were compared using the Desirability of Outcome Ranking Management of Antimicrobial Therapy (DOOR-MAT) to evaluate potential downstream antimicrobial prescribing decisions resulting from the panels’ different organism and resistance detection. BioFire BCID 2 (RUO) had the best mean DOOR-MAT scores.

The complexities of antibiotic resistance mean that successful stewardship must consider both the effectiveness of a given antibiotic and the spectrum of that therapy to minimize imposing further selective pressure. To meet this challenge, we propose the Desirability of Outcome Ranking approach for the Management of Antimicrobial Therapy (DOOR MAT), a flexible quantitative framework that evaluates the desirability of antibiotic selection. Herein, we describe the steps required to implement DOOR MAT and present examples to illustrate how the desirability of treatment selection can be evaluated using resistance information. While treatments and the scoring of treatment selections must be adapted to specific clinical settings, the principle of DOOR MAT remains constant: The most desirable antibiotic choice effectively treats the patient while exerting minimal pressure on future resistance.

Clinical patient management is dynamic. It is not based on a single decision but on a sequence of decisions, with adjustments of therapy overtime, where adjustment are personalized to individual pa...

Background Tuberculosis (TB-)-preventive therapy (TPT) among pregnant women reduces risk of TB in mothers and infants, but timing of initiation should consider potential adverse effects. We propose an analytical approach to evaluate the risk–benefit of interventions. Methods A novel outcome measure that prioritizes maternal and infant events was developed with a 2-stage Delphi survey, where a panel of stakeholders assigned scores from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) based on perceived desirability. Using data from TB APPRISE, a trial among pregnant women living with human immunodeficiency virus (WLWH) that randomized the timing of initiation of isoniazid, antepartum versus postpartum, was evaluated. Results The composite outcome scoring/ranking system categorized mother–infant paired outcomes into 8 groups assigned identical median scores by stakeholders. Maternal/infant TB and nonsevere adverse pregnancy outcomes were assigned similar scores. Mean (SD) composite outcome scores were 43.7 (33.0) and 41.2 (33.7) in the antepartum and postpartum TPT initiation arms, respectively. However, a modifying effect of baseline antiretroviral regimen was detected (P = .049). When women received nevirapine, composite scores were higher (worse outcomes) in the antepartum versus postpartum arms (adjusted difference, 14.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4–26.2; P = .02), whereas when women received efavirenz there was no difference by timing of TPT (adjusted difference, .62; 95% CI, −3.2–6.2; P = .53). Conclusions For TPT, when used by otherwise healthy persons, preventing adverse events is paramount from the perspective of stakeholders. Among pregnant WLWH in high-TB-burden regions, it is important to consider the antepartum antiretroviral regimen taken when deciding when to initiate TPT. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01494038 (IMPAACT P1078).

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.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.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.The HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection.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 score0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement.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.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.

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are a global threat. Here, we describe the clinical and molecular characteristics of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-defined CRE in the US. METHODS: The second Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacteriaceae (CRACKLE-2, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03646227) is a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. Patients hospitalized in 49 US hospitals, with clinical cultures positive for CDC-defined CRE between 30 April 2016 and 31 August 2017 were included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at 30 days. Clinical data and bacteria were collected, and whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed. FINDINGS: 1,040 patients with unique isolates were included; 449 (43%) with infection and 591 (57%) with colonization. CDC-defined CRE admission rate was 57 CDC-defined CRE admissions/100,000 admissions (95% CI: 45–71). Three subsets of CDC-defined CRE were identified: carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (618/1,040, 59%); non-carbapenemase-producing CRE (194/1,040, 19%); and unconfirmed CRE (228/1,040, 22%; initially reported as CRE, but susceptible to carbapenems in two central laboratories). Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing clonal group 258 K. pneumoniae was the most common carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. In 449 patients with CDC-defined CRE infections, DOOR outcomes were not significantly different in patients with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, non-carbapenemase-producing CRE, and unconfirmed CRE. At 30 days 107/449 (24%, 95% CI 20–28%) patients had died. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with CDC-defined CRE, similar outcomes were observed among three subgroups, including the novel unconfirmed CRE group. CDC-defined CRE represent diverse bacteria, whose spread may not respond to interventions directed to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

Treatment options for multidrug-resistant (MDR) gram-negative infection are growing. However, postregistration, pragmatic, and clinician-led clinical trials in this field are few, recruit small sample sizes, and experience deficiencies in design and operations. MDR gram-negative therapeutic trials are often inefficient, only evaluating a single antibiotic or strategy at a time. Novel clinical trial designs offer potential solutions by attempting to obtain clinically meaningful conclusions at the end or during a trial, for many treatment strategies, simultaneously. An integrated, consensus approach to MDR gram-negative infection trial design is crucial.

Background and ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThis 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.DiscussionIn 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 EvidenceThis 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.

Decisions regarding which rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for bloodstream infections to implement remain challenging given the diversity of organisms detected by different platforms. We used the desirability of outcome ranking management of antimicrobial therapy (DOOR-MAT) as a framework to compare two RDT platforms on potential desirability of antimicrobial therapy decisions. An observational study was performed at University of Maryland Medical System comparing Verigene blood culture (BC) to GenMark Dx ePlex blood culture ID (BCID) (research use only) panels on blood cultures from adult patients. Positive percent agreement (PPA) between each RDT platform and Vitek MS was calculated for comparison of on-panel targets. Theoretical antimicrobial decisions were made based on RDT results, taking into consideration patient parameters, antimicrobial stewardship practices, and local infectious diseases epidemiology. DOOR-MAT with a partial credit scoring system was applied to these decisions, and mean scores were compared across platforms using a paired t test. The study consisted of 160 unique patients. The Verigene BC PPA was 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.1 to 99.8), and ePlex BCID PPA was 98% (95% CI, 94.3 to 99.6). Among the 31 organisms not on the Verigene BC panels, 61% were identified by the ePlex BCID panels. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) DOOR-MAT score for Verigene BC was 86.8 (28.5), while that for ePlex BCID was 91.9 (23.1) (P = 0.01). Both RDT platforms had high PPA for on-panel targets. The ePlex BCID was able to identify more organisms than Verigene, resulting in higher mean DOOR-MAT scores.

I thank and commend Dr. Gibson on his thoughtful and thorough discussion regarding the role of p-values in evaluating evidence (Gibson 2020). Much like p-values themselves, the ASA’s statement on p...

The value of hypothesis testing, and the frequent misinterpretation of p-values as a cornerstone of statistical methodology, continues to be debated. In 2019, the President of the American Statisti...

Response-adaptive randomization (RAR) has recently gained popularity in clinical trials. The intent is noble: minimize the number of participants randomized to inferior treatments and increase the amount of information about better treatments. Unfortunately, RAR causes many problems, including (1) bias from temporal trends, (2) inefficiency in treatment effect estimation, (3) volatility in sample-size distributions that can cause a nontrivial proportion of trials to assign more patients to an inferior arm, (4) difficulty of validly analyzing results, and (5) the potential for selection bias and other issues inherent to being unblinded to ongoing results. The problems of RAR are most acute in the very setting for which RAR has been proposed, namely long-duration “platform” trials and infectious disease settings where temporal trends are ubiquitous. Response-adaptive randomization can eliminate the benefits that randomization, the most powerful tool in clinical trials, provides. Use of RAR is discouraged.

Gonorrhea remains a major public health challenge, and current recommendations for gonorrhea treatment are threatened by evolving antimicrobial resistance and a diminished pipeline for new antibiotics. Evaluations of potential new treatments for gonorrhea currently make limited use of new understanding of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic contributors to effective therapy, the prevention of antimicrobial resistance, and newer designs for clinical trials. They are hampered by the requirement to utilize combination ceftriaxone/azithromycin therapy as the comparator regimen in noninferiority trials designed to seek an indication for gonorrhea therapy. Evolving gonococcal epidemiology and clinical trial design constraints hinder the enrollment of those populations at the greatest risk for gonorrhea (adolescents, women, and persons infected with antibiotic-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae). This article summarizes a recent meeting on the evaluation process for antimicrobials for urogenital gonorrhea treatment and encourages the consideration of new designs for the evaluation of gonorrhea therapy.

Background Adjudication of endpoints is a standard procedure in cardiovascular clinical trials. However, several studies indicate that the benefit of adjudication in estimating treatment effect may be limited. Aims This post hoc analysis of SOCRATES (NCT01994720) compared the treatment effects and investigated the agreement of clinical event assessment by site investigators and independent adjudicators. Methods SOCRATES compared ticagrelor and aspirin in 13,199 patients with acute minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. The primary endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. Stroke was the major component of the primary endpoint and a secondary endpoint. The endpoints were adjudicated by a blinded independent committee. We compared the treatment effect on the primary endpoint and stroke alone based on the investigators' and adjudicators' assessments, and investigated the agreement rate on the stroke endpoint and major hemorrhages. Results The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for ticagrelor versus aspirin therapy for the primary endpoint were 0.89 (0.78–1.01) when calculated on adjudicator-assessed events and 0.88 (0.78–1.00) for investigator-assessed events. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for stroke were 0.86 (0.75–0.99) based on the adjudicators' diagnoses and 0.85 (0.75–0.97) based on the investigators' diagnoses. The overall agreement between adjudicator- and investigator-diagnosed stroke was 91%, and for major hemorrhages was 88%. Conclusions In SOCRATES, there was no clinically meaningful difference in the estimated treatment effect, on either the primary endpoint or stroke, by using investigator- or adjudicator-assessed events. Double-blind treatment outcome studies with stroke endpoints may not benefit from adjudication. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01994720.

We discuss the multivariate (2L-variate) correlation structure and the asymptotic distribution for the group-sequential weighted logrank statistics formulated when monitoring two correlated event-time outcomes in clinical trials. The asymptotic distribution and the variance-covariance for the 2L-variate weighted logrank statistic are derived as available in various group-sequential trial designs. These methods are used to determine a group-sequential testing procedure based on calendar times or information fractions. We apply the theoretical results to a group-sequential method for monitoring a clinical trial with early stopping for efficacy when the trial is designed to evaluate the joint effect on two correlated event-time outcomes. We illustrate the method with application to a clinical trial and describe how to calculate the required sample sizes and numbers of events.

Background Patients with carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) have high in-hospital mortality rates. It is unknown if patients with CRPA treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) have improved clinical outcomes compared to those treated with polymyxins. Methods The CDC-funded, Georgia Emerging Infections Program performed active population- and laboratory-based surveillance for CRPA isolated from sterile sites, urine, lower respiratory tract and wounds in metropolitan Atlanta, GA from 8/1/2016–7/31/2018. We reviewed charts of adults without cystic fibrosis who were hospitalized within 1 week of CRPA culture. Using a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis which incorporates both benefits and risks into a single outcome, we estimated the probability that a patient treated first with C/T would have a more desirable clinical outcome at 30-days than a patient treated with polymyxins (polymyxin B or colistin). We adjusted for confounding using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on culture source and need for dialysis at baseline. A partial credit analysis allowed for variable weighting of DOOR ranks and calculation of differences in mean partial credit scores. Results Among 710 cases from 18 different hospitals, we identified 73 patients treated for CRPA infections with polymyxins (n=31) or C/T (n=42). Most patients were male (64%) and Black (80%), and those receiving polymyxins were more likely to have required dialysis at baseline (35% vs. 14%, p=0.03) (Table 1). At 30 days after culture, 34 (47%) were alive with no adverse events, 21 (29%) were alive with ≥ 1 adverse event, and 18 (25%) had died. Patients first treated with C/T had a lower 30-day mortality rate than those treated with polymyxins (14% vs 39%, p=0.03). Additionally, those receiving C/T had better overall clinical outcomes, with an adjusted DOOR probability of having an improved outcome of 67% (95% CI 53%–80%) compared to those receiving polymyxins (Figure 1). Partial credit analyses indicated consistent results across different patient values of survival with adverse events (Figure 2). Figure 1: Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) distributions by treatment group, accounting for adverse events and survival status that occurred up to 30 days after CRPA culture. 1. Percentages are adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting, controlling for culture source and need for dialysis at baseline 2. Adverse events measured included: acute kidney injury, discharge to higher acuity location than previous residence, or being hospitalized 30 days after culture Figure 2: Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted partial credit analysis. This displays the difference (ceftolozane/tazobactam minus polymyxin) in mean partial credit scores (black line) and associated 95% confidence bands (gray lines) as a function of the partial credit score assigned to an individual having at least one adverse event (range 0 – 100%). A score of 100% is assigned to patients alive with no adverse events and a score of 0% is assigned to patients who die. A difference in mean partial credit scores of approximately zero suggests there was no difference observed between treatment groups. Conclusion These findings support the recent Infectious Diseases Society of America guidance favoring C/T over polymyxins for treatment of CRPA infections. Disclosures David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis (Advisor or Review Panel member)genentech (Advisor or Review Panel member)Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Utility (Advisor or Review Panel member) Scott R. Evans, PhD, Abbvie (Consultant)Advantagene (Consultant)Alexion (Consultant)Amgen (Consultant)AstraZeneca (Consultant)Atricure (Consultant)Breast International Group (Consultant)Cardinal Health (Consultant)Clover (Consultant)FHI Clinical (Consultant)Genentech (Consultant)Gilead (Consultant)Horizon (Consultant)International Drug Development Institute (Consultant)Lung Biotech (Consultant)Microbiotix (Consultant)Neovasc (Consultant)Nobel Pharma (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant)Nuvelution (Consultant)Pfizer (Consultant)Rakuten (Consultant)Roche (Consultant)Roivant (Consultant)SAB Biopharm (Consultant)Shire (Consultant)Stryker (Consultant)SVB Leerink (Consultant)Takeda (Consultant)Teva (Consultant)Tracon (Consultant)Vir (Consultant)

Introduction: In the THALES trial, ticagrelor and aspirin was superior to aspirin alone in reducing the primary endpoint of stroke or death, and subsequent disabling strokes, but increased risk of bleeding, as expected for dual antiplatelet therapy. Aim: Present the bleeding profile of ticagrelor in combination with aspirin in patients with acute cerebrovascular events. Methods: The THALES trial randomized patients with non-cardioembolic, non-severe ischemic stroke (NIHSS≤5) or high-risk TIA to ticagrelor (180mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90mg twice daily until day 30) or placebo within 24h of symptom onset in 28 countries. All patients received aspirin 300-325mg on day 1 followed by 75-100mg daily until day 30. Primary safety endpoint was time to severe bleeding, defined by GUSTO criteria, within 30 days. Analyses were by intention to treat. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03354429). Results: Among 11016 patients randomized, 28 (0.5%) in the ticagrelor+aspirin group (T+A) and 7 (0.1%) in the aspirin group (A) had a severe bleeding event; HR 3.99 (1.74-9.14); p=0.001. Among these, 22 (0.4%) (T+A) vs 6 (0.1%) (A) were fatal or intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs) and 6 (0.1%) (T+A) vs 1 ( Conclusion: While the rate of severe bleeding in the patients with acute ischemic stroke or TIA was low, patients randomized to receive ticagrelor more often experienced severe bleeding events. No subgroup with different bleeding risk could be identified. Given the high risk of disability following a subsequent stroke, the benefit of adding ticagrelor to aspirin in reducing subsequent stroke appears to outweigh the risk of bleeding.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background and Purpose: In patients with acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, the THALES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death) demonstrated that when added to aspirin, ticagrelor reduced stroke or death but increased risk of severe hemorrhage compared with placebo. The primary efficacy outcome of THALES included hemorrhagic stroke and death, events also counted in the primary safety outcome. We sought to disentangle risk and benefit, assess their relative impact, and attempt to identify subgroups with disproportionate risk or benefit. Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of patients with mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, patients were randomized within 24 hours after symptom onset to a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor plus aspirin or matching placebo plus aspirin. For the present analyses, we defined the efficacy outcome, major ischemic events, as the composite of ischemic stroke or nonhemorrhagic death, and defined the safety outcome, major hemorrhage, as intracranial hemorrhage or hemorrhagic death. Net clinical impact was defined as the combination of these 2 end points. Results: In 11 016 patients (5523 ticagrelor-aspirin and 5493 aspirin), a major ischemic event occurred in 294 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 359 patients (6.5%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk reduction 1.19% [95% CI, 0.31%–2.07%]). Major hemorrhage occurred in 22 patients (0.4%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 6 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk increase 0.29% [95% CI, 0.10%–0.48%]). Net clinical impact favored ticagrelor-aspirin (absolute risk reduction 0.97% [95% CI, 0.08%–1.87%]). Findings were similar when different thresholds for disability were applied and over a range of predefined subgroups. Conclusions: In patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, ischemic benefits of 30-day treatment with ticagrelor-aspirin outweigh risks of hemorrhage. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

In December 2019, the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) was awarded funding for another 7-year cycle to support a clinical research network on antibacterial resistance. ARLG 2.0 has 3 overarching research priorities: infections caused by antibiotic-resistant (AR) gram-negative bacteria, infections caused by AR gram-positive bacteria, and diagnostic tests to optimize use of antibiotics. To support the next generation of AR researchers, the ARLG offers 3 mentoring opportunities: the ARLG Fellowship, Early Stage Investigator seed grants, and the Trialists in Training Program. The purpose of this article is to update the scientific community on the progress made in the original funding period and to encourage submission of clinical research that addresses 1 or more of the research priority areas of ARLG 2.0.

We investigate selection of critical boundary functions for testing the hypotheses of two time-to-event outcomes as both primary endpoints or a primary and a secondary endpoint in group-sequential clinical trials, where (1) the effect sizes of endpoints are unequal, or (2) one endpoint is for short-term evaluation and the other for long-term evaluation. Bonferroni-Holm and fixed-sequence procedures are considered. We assess the effects of the magnitudes of the hazard ratios and the correlation between the endpoints on statistical powers and provide guidance for consideration.

Fundamental statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating the efficacy and safety of pain treatments are reviewed., This article presents an overview of fundamental statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments. Statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating efficacy and safety are discussed, including (1) research design; (2) endpoints and analyses; (3) sample size determination and statistical power; (4) missing data and trial estimands; (5) data monitoring and interim analyses; and (6) interpretation of results. Although clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments are emphasized, the key issues raised by these trials are also directly applicable to clinical trials of other types of treatments, including biologics, devices, nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, physical therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy), and complementary and integrative health interventions.

Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Pain., Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

Background/Aims: Standard approaches to trial design and analyses can be inefficient and non-pragmatic. Failure to consider a range of outcomes impedes evidence-based interpretation and reduces power. Traditional approaches synthesizing information obtained from separate analysis of each outcome fail to incorporate associations between outcomes and recognize the cumulative nature of outcomes in individual patients, suffer from competing risk complexities during interpretation, and since efficacy and safety analyses are often conducted on different populations, generalizability is unclear. Pragmatic and efficient approaches to trial design and analyses are needed. Methods: Approaches providing a pragmatic assessment of benefits and harms of interventions, summarizing outcomes experienced by patients, and providing sample size efficiencies are described. Ordinal outcomes recognize finer gradations of patient responses. Desirability of outcome ranking is an ordinal outcome combining benefits and harms within patients. Analysis of desirability of outcome ranking can be based on rank-based methodologies including the desirability of outcome ranking probability, the win ratio, and the proportion in favor of treatment. Partial credit analyses, involving grading the levels of the desirability of outcome ranking outcome similar to an academic test, provides an alternative approach. The methodologies are demonstrated using the acute stroke or transient ischemic attack treated with aspirin or ticagrelor and patient outcomes study (SOCRATES; NCT01994720), a randomized clinical trial. Results: Two 5-level ordinal outcomes were developed for SOCRATES. The first was based on a modified Rankin scale. The odds ratio is 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.75, 0.99; p = 0.04) indicating that the odds of worse stroke categorization for a trial participant assigned to ticagrelor is 0.86 times that of a trial participant assigned to aspirin. The 5-level desirability of outcome ranking outcome incorporated and prioritized survival; the number of strokes, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding events; and whether a stroke event was disabling. The desirability of outcome ranking probability and win ratio are 0.504 (95% confidence interval = 0.499, 0.508; p = 0.10) and 1.11 (95% confidence interval = 0.98, 1.26; p = 0.10), respectively, implying that the probability of a more desirable result with ticagrelor is 50.4% and that a more desirable result occurs 1.11 times more frequently on ticagrelor versus aspirin. Conclusion: Ordinal outcomes can improve efficiency through required pre-specification, careful construction, and analyses. Greater pragmatism can be obtained by composing outcomes within patients. Desirability of outcome ranking provides a global assessment of the benefits and harms that more closely reflect the experience of patients. The desirability of outcome ranking probability, the proportion in favor of treatment, the win ratio, and partial credit can more optimally inform patient treatment, enhance the understanding of the totality of intervention effects on patients, and potentially provide efficiencies over standard analyses. The methods provide the infrastructure for incorporating patient values and estimating personalized effects.

Intensive care units (ICUs) are an appropriate focus of antibiotic stewardship program efforts because a large proportion of any hospital's use of parenteral antibiotics, especially broad-spectrum, occurs in the ICU. Given the importance of antibiotic stewardship for critically ill patients and the importance of critical care practitioners as the front line for antibiotic stewardship, a workshop was convened to specifically address barriers to antibiotic stewardship in the ICU and discuss tactics to overcome these. The working definition of antibiotic stewardship is "the right drug at the right time and the right dose for the right bug for the right duration." A major emphasis was that antibiotic stewardship should be a core competency of critical care clinicians. Fear of pathogens that are not covered by empirical antibiotics is a major driver of excessively broad-spectrum therapy in critically ill patients. Better diagnostics and outcome data can address this fear and expand efforts to narrow or shorten therapy. Greater awareness of the substantial adverse effects of antibiotics should be emphasized and is an important counterargument to broad-spectrum therapy in individual low-risk patients. Optimal antibiotic stewardship should not focus solely on reducing antibiotic use or ensuring compliance with guidelines. Instead, it should enhance care both for individual patients (by improving and individualizing their choice of antibiotic) and for the ICU population as a whole. Opportunities for antibiotic stewardship in common ICU infections, including community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia and sepsis, are discussed. Intensivists can partner with antibiotic stewardship programs to address barriers and improve patient care.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background and Purpose: Among patients with a transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic strokes, those with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis of cervicocranial vasculature have the highest risk of recurrent vascular events. Methods: In the double-blind THALES (The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and ASA for Prevention of Stroke and Death) trial, we randomized patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke, or high-risk transient ischemic attack to ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2–30) or placebo added to aspirin (300–325 mg on day 1 followed by 75–100 mg daily for days 2–30) within 24 hours of symptom onset. The present paper reports a prespecified analysis in patients with and without ipsilateral, potentially causal atherosclerotic stenosis ≥30% of cervicocranial vasculature. The primary end point was time to the occurrence of stroke or death within 30 days. Results: Of 11 016 randomized patients, 2351 (21.3%) patients had an ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis. After 30 days, a primary end point occurred in 92/1136 (8.1%) patients with ipsilateral stenosis randomized to ticagrelor and in 132/1215 (10.9%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56–0.96], P=0.023) resulting in a number needed to treat of 34 (95% CI, 19–171). In patients without ipsilateral stenosis, the corresponding event rate was 211/4387 (4.8%) and 230/4278 (5.4%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74–1.08]; P=0.23, Pinteraction=0.245). Severe bleeding occurred in 4 (0.4%) and 3 (0.2%) patients with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis on ticagrelor and on placebo, respectively (P=NS), and in 24 (0.5%) and 4 (0.1%), respectively, in 8665 patients without ipsilateral stenosis (hazard ratio=5.87 [95% CI, 2.04–16.9], P=0.001). Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis comparing ticagrelor added to aspirin to aspirin alone, we found no treatment by ipsilateral atherosclerosis stenosis subgroup interaction but did identify a higher absolute risk and a greater absolute risk reduction of stroke or death at 30 days in patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis stenosis than in those without. In this easily identified population, ticagrelor added to aspirin provided a clinically meaningful benefit with a number needed to treat of 34 (95% CI, 19–171). Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

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

Composite endpoints are frequently used in clinical trials, but simple approaches, such as the time to first event, do not reflect any ordering among the endpoints. However, some endpoints, such as mortality, are worse than others. A variety of procedures have been proposed to reflect the severity of the individual endpoints such as pairwise ranking approaches, the win ratio, and the desirability of outcome ranking. When patients have different lengths of follow-up, however, ranking can be difficult and proposed methods do not naturally lead to regression approaches and require specialized software. This paper defines an ordering score O to operationalize the patient ranking implied by hierarchical endpoints. We show how differential right censoring of follow-up corresponds to multiple interval censoring of the ordering score allowing standard software for survival models to be used to calculate the nonparametric maximum likelihood estimators (NPMLEs) of different measures. Additionally, if one assumes that the ordering score is transformable to an exponential random variable, a semiparametric regression is obtained, which is equivalent to the proportional hazards model subject to multiple interval censoring. Standard software can be used for estimation. We show that the NPMLE can be poorly behaved compared to the simple estimators in staggered entry trials. We also show that the semiparametric estimator can be more efficient than simple estimators and explore how standard Cox regression maneuvers can be used to assess model fit, allow for flexible generalizations, and assess interactions of covariates with treatment. We analyze a trial of short versus long-term antiplatelet therapy using our methods.

Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections in the rectum and pharynx are important extragenital reservoirs of infection. Few assays approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are commercially available to diagnose pharyngeal or rectal infections. The current study reports on the analytical performance of the Abbott RealTime CT/NG assay, including the limit of detection, inclusivity, and analytical specificity for C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae in rectal and pharyngeal specimens. The limit of detection was performed using known concentrations of organisms, elementary bodies per milliliter (EB/mL) for C. trachomatis and colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) for N. gonorrhoeae, in clinical rectal and pharyngeal swab matrices. Inclusivity was performed against 12 serovars of C. trachomatis and seven strains of N. gonorrhoeae. The analytical specificity was performed using 28 different bacteria and viruses. The limit of detection for C. trachomatis was 2.56 EB/mL in pharyngeal specimens and 12.8 EB/mL in rectal specimens. The limit of detection for N. gonorrhoeae was 0.0256 CFU/mL for both pharyngeal and rectal specimens. The inclusivity and analytical specificity were 100% for both rectal and pharyngeal specimens. These analytical performance data demonstrate that the Abbott CT/NG RealTime assay is an accurate, sensitive, and specific assay in rectal and pharyngeal specimens, supporting the potential of the assay for detection of rectal and pharyngeal C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections.

BACKGROUND: AIDS Clinical Trial Group 5199 compared neurological and neuropsychological test performance of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)–infected participants in resource-limited settings treated with 3 World Health Organization–recommended antiretroviral (ART) regimens. We investigated the impact of tuberculosis (TB) on neurological and neuropsychological outcomes. METHODS: Standardized neurological and neuropsychological examinations were administered every 24 weeks. Generalized estimating equation models assessed the association between TB and neurological/neuropsychological performance. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 860 participants at baseline were as follows: 53% female, 49% African; median age, 34 years; CD4 count, 173 cells/μL; and plasma HIV-1 RNA, 5.0 log copies/mL. At baseline, there were 36 cases of pulmonary, 9 cases of extrapulmonary, and 1 case of central nervous system (CNS) TB. Over the 192 weeks of follow-up, there were 55 observations of pulmonary TB in 52 persons, 26 observations of extrapulmonary TB in 25 persons, and 3 observations of CNS TB in 2 persons. Prevalence of TB decreased with ART initiation and follow-up. Those with TB coinfection had significantly poorer performance on grooved pegboard (P < .001) and fingertapping nondominant hand (P < .01). TB was associated with diffuse CNS disease (P < .05). Furthermore, those with TB had 9.27 times (P < .001) higher odds of reporting decreased quality of life, and had 8.02 times (P = .0005) higher odds of loss of productivity. CONCLUSIONS: TB coinfection was associated with poorer neuropsychological functioning, particularly the fine motor skills, and had a substantial impact on functional ability and quality of life. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00096824.