RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Pneumonia Associada a Assistência à Saúde , Pneumonia Bacteriana , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica , Humanos , Linezolida/uso terapêutico , Vancomicina/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia Bacteriana/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Bacteriana/microbiologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bactérias , Pneumonia Associada a Assistência à Saúde/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/microbiologia , Hospitais , Ventiladores MecânicosRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Pneumonia Bacteriana , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica , Humanos , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/microbiologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia Bacteriana/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Bacteriana/microbiologia , Masculino , Pneumonia Associada a Assistência à Saúde/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Associada a Assistência à Saúde/microbiologia , Feminino , Estados Unidos , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Infecção Hospitalar/tratamento farmacológico , Resultado do Tratamento , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , United States Food and Drug Administration , IdosoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAb) is 1 of the most problematic antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. We sought to elucidate the international epidemiology and clinical impact of CRAb. METHODS: In a prospective observational cohort study, 842 hospitalized patients with a clinical CRAb culture were enrolled at 46 hospitals in five global regions between 2017 and 2019. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days from the index culture. The strains underwent whole-genome analysis. RESULTS: Of 842 cases, 536 (64%) represented infection. By 30 days, 128 (24%) of the infected patients died, ranging from 1 (6%) of 18 in Australia-Singapore to 54 (25%) of 216 in the United States and 24 (49%) of 49 in South-Central America, whereas 42 (14%) of non-infected patients died. Bacteremia was associated with a higher risk of death compared with other types of infection (40 [42%] of 96 vs 88 [20%] of 440). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, bloodstream infection and higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Clonal group 2 (CG2) strains predominated except in South-Central America, ranging from 216 (59%) of 369 in the United States to 282 (97%) of 291 in China. Acquired carbapenemase genes were carried by 769 (91%) of the 842 isolates. CG2 strains were significantly associated with higher levels of meropenem resistance, yet non-CG2 cases were over-represented among the deaths compared with CG2 cases. CONCLUSIONS: CRAb infection types and clinical outcomes differed significantly across regions. Although CG2 strains remained predominant, non-CG2 strains were associated with higher mortality. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03646227.
Assuntos
Infecções por Acinetobacter , Acinetobacter baumannii , Humanos , Acinetobacter baumannii/genética , Carbapenêmicos/farmacologia , Carbapenêmicos/uso terapêutico , Estudos Prospectivos , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana , Infecções por Acinetobacter/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Acinetobacter/epidemiologia , Infecções por Acinetobacter/microbiologia , beta-Lactamases/genética , Proteínas de Bactérias/genética , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Morte Perinatal , Gravidez , Recém-Nascido , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Trabalho de Parto Induzido/métodos , CesáreaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Liderança , Humanos , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Carbapenêmicos , Ceftazidima , Colistina , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Testes de Sensibilidade MicrobianaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Gerenciamento de Dados , Liderança , Humanos , Coleta de Dados , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas , Liderança , Humanos , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bactérias Gram-Positivas , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Bactérias Gram-Negativas , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Liderança , Humanos , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Projetos de PesquisaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Infecções Urinárias , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Infecções Urinárias/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Urinárias/microbiologia , Levofloxacino/uso terapêutico , Doripenem/uso terapêutico , ImipenemRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Fosfomicina , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas , Adulto , Humanos , Fosfomicina/uso terapêutico , Liderança , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/tratamento farmacológico , Bactérias Gram-Negativas , Carbapenêmicos/uso terapêutico , Fluoroquinolonas/uso terapêutico , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana Múltipla , Testes de Sensibilidade MicrobianaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Positivas , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina , Sepse , Humanos , Criança , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Liderança , Qualidade de Vida , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Positivas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Positivas/microbiologia , Bactérias Gram-Positivas , Sepse/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Trials have evaluated the use of clopidogrel and aspirin to prevent stroke after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). In a previous trial, ticagrelor was not better than aspirin in preventing vascular events or death after stroke or TIA. The effect of the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin on prevention of stroke has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involving patients who had had a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating more severe stroke), or TIA and who were not undergoing thrombolysis or thrombectomy. The patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (300 to 325 mg on the first day followed by 75 to 100 mg daily) or matching placebo plus aspirin. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were first subsequent ischemic stroke and the incidence of disability within 30 days. The primary safety outcome was severe bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 11,016 patients underwent randomization (5523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 5493 in the aspirin group). A primary-outcome event occurred in 303 patients (5.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 362 patients (6.6%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Ischemic stroke occurred in 276 patients (5.0%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 345 patients (6.3%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = 0.004). The incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 7 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤5) or TIA who were not undergoing intravenous or endovascular thrombolysis, the risk of the composite of stroke or death within 30 days was lower with ticagrelor-aspirin than with aspirin alone, but the incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THALES ClinicalTrial.gov number, NCT03354429.).
Assuntos
Aspirina/uso terapêutico , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/uso terapêutico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/tratamento farmacológico , Ticagrelor/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aspirina/efeitos adversos , Avaliação da Deficiência , Método Duplo-Cego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/complicações , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/efeitos adversos , Antagonistas do Receptor Purinérgico P2Y/uso terapêutico , Prevenção Secundária , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/complicações , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/mortalidade , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle , Ticagrelor/efeitos adversosRESUMO
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 (CP8), 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.
Assuntos
Bacteriófagos , Fibrose Cística , Infecções por Pseudomonas , Humanos , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Infecções por Pseudomonas/tratamento farmacológico , Fibrose Cística/microbiologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Anti-Infecciosos , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Resistência Microbiana a Medicamentos , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Reductions in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics is a cornerstone of antimicrobial stewardship. We aim to demonstrate use of the Desirability of Outcome Ranking Approach for the Management of Antimicrobial Therapy (DOOR MAT) to evaluate the treatment of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections in patients from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) across a decade. METHODS: Using electronic records, we determined empiric and definitive antibiotic treatments, clinical characteristics, and 30-day mortality of patients with monomicrobial E. coli and K. pneumoniae bloodstream infections hospitalized in VHA medical centers from 2009 to 2018. Focusing on patients treated with parenteral ß-lactams and with available antibiotic susceptibility testing results, we applied a range of DOOR MAT scores that reflect the desirability of antibiotic choices according to spectrum and activity against individual isolates. We report trends in resistance and desirability of empiric and definitive antibiotic treatments. RESULTS: During the 10-year period analyzed, resistance to expanded-spectrum cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones increased in E. coli but not in K. pneumoniae, while resistance to carbapenems and piperacillin-tazobactam remained unchanged. In 6451 cases analyzed, we observed improvements in DOOR MAT scores consistent with deescalation. Improvement in desirability of definitive treatment compared with empiric treatment occurred in 26% of cases, increasing from 16% in 2009 to 34% in 2018. Reductions in overtreatment were sustained and without negative impact on survival. CONCLUSIONS: DOOR MAT provides a framework to assess antibiotic treatment of E. coli and K. pneumoniae bloodstream infections and can be a useful metric in antimicrobial stewardship.
Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos , Infecções por Escherichia coli , Infecções por Klebsiella , Sepse , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Escherichia coli , Infecções por Escherichia coli/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Infecções por Klebsiella/tratamento farmacológico , Klebsiella pneumoniae , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana , Sepse/tratamento farmacológico , Saúde dos Veteranos , beta-LactamasesRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Aspirina/administração & dosagem , Hemorragia Cerebral/induzido quimicamente , AVC Isquêmico/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/administração & dosagem , Ticagrelor/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Hemorragia Cerebral/epidemiologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/tratamento farmacológico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Liderança , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bactérias Gram-Negativas , Bactérias Gram-PositivasRESUMO
Data monitoring committees (DMCs), or data and safety monitoring boards, protect clinical trial participants by conducting benefit-risk assessments during the course of a clinical trial. These evaluations may be improved by broader access to data and more effective analyses and presentation. Data monitoring committees should have access to all data, including efficacy data, at each interim review. The DMC reports should include graphical presentations that summarize benefits and harms in efficient ways. Benefit-risk assessments should include summaries that are consistent with the intention-to-treat principle and have a pragmatic focus. This article provides examples of graphical summaries that integrate benefits and harms, and proposes that such summaries become standard in DMC reports.
Assuntos
Comitês de Monitoramento de Dados de Ensaios Clínicos , Melhoria de Qualidade , Acesso à Informação , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Medição de RiscoRESUMO
Although it is common to analyze efficacy and safety separately in clinical trials, this could yield a misleading study conclusion if an increase in efficacy is accompanied by a decrease in safety. A risk-benefit analysis is a systematic approach to examine safety and efficacy jointly. Both the "rank-based" and "partial-credit" methods described in this paper allow researchers to create a single, composite outcome incorporating efficacy, safety, and other factors. The first approach compares the distribution of rankings between arms. In the second approach, a score can be assigned to each outcome category, considering its severity and comparing the mean or median scores of arms. The methods were applied to the A5279/Brief Rifapentine-Isoniazid Efficacy for TB Prevention study, and design considerations for future clinical trials are discussed, including the challenge of arriving at a consensus on rankings/scorings. If well designed, a risk-benefit analysis may allow for a superiority comparison and, therefore, avoid setting a noninferiority margin. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01404312 (A5279).
Assuntos
Antituberculosos , Tuberculose , Antituberculosos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Humanos , Isoniazida , Medição de Risco , Tuberculose/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
Patient management relies on diagnostic information to identify appropriate treatment. Standard evaluations of diagnostic tests consist of estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and accuracy. Although useful, these metrics do not convey the tests' clinical value, which is critical to informing decision-making. Full appreciation of the clinical impact of a diagnostic test requires analyses that integrate sensitivity and specificity, account for the disease prevalence within the population of test application, and account for the relative importance of specificity vs sensitivity by considering the clinical implications of false-positive and false-negative results. We developed average weighted accuracy (AWA), representing a pragmatic metric of diagnostic yield or global utility of a diagnostic test. AWA can be used to compare test alternatives, even across different studies. We apply the AWA methodology to evaluate a new diagnostic test developed in the Rapid Diagnostics in Categorizing Acute Lung Infections (RADICAL) study.