Moving Beyond Mortality: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

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.

Desirability of outcome ranking for obstetrical trials: illustration and application to the ARRIVE trial.

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.

Improving Traditional Registrational Trial End Points: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking End Point for Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Clinical Trials.

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.

Desirability of outcome ranking and quality life measurement for antimicrobial research in organ transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical trials of new antibiotics facilitate bringing new drugs to market but often fail to provide useful information for clinical decision making. METHODS: Literature review of desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) in antibiotic clinical trials and description how DOOR can fit into design, administration, and assessment of clinical trials. RESULTS: DOOR is an approach that addresses many of the shortcomings of current trials by incorporating efficacy and safety into a single outcome to analyze the patient experience in its entirety. Application of partial credit, tiebreaker strategies including response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR), and DOOR for Management of Antimicrobial Therapy (DOOR MAT) provides additional nuance and granularity. To address pitfalls of DOOR, investigators must develop the DOOR a priori, ideally with input from and incorporation of patient voices, and should perform component analysis to ensure that imbalances in key components are detected. CONCLUSION: Inclusion of DOOR in clinical trials will enrich our understanding of how new antibiotics might benefit patients who have had transplantation. Additional work to develop best practices for DOOR selection, analysis, and interpretation must continue, and incorporation of the patient perspective is essential.

Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial.

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.

Novel Method Suggests Global Superiority of Short-Duration Antibiotics for Intra-abdominal Infections.

Desirability of outcome ranking and response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (DOOR/RADAR) are novel and innovative methods of evaluating data in antibiotic trials. We analyzed data from a noninferiority trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infection (STOP-IT), and results suggest global superiority of short-duration therapy for intra-abdominal infections.

Exploring Outcome Priorities and Real-Life Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity: A Survey of the Italian Association for the Study of Pain members.

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) affects nearly 70% of cancer patients after chemotherapy, causing sensory, motor, autonomic dysfunction, and neuropathic pain. The Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) framework is proposed as a better way to assess preventive or therapeutic interventions for CIPN. Methods: A survey was conducted among Italian healthcare professionals and researchers affiliated to the Italian Chapter of the International Association for the Study of Pain (AISD) to identify the most important outcomes in clinical management and research. Results: Among the 73 respondents, 61 qualified for the survey, with an overall response rate of 1.2%. The vast majority were physicians (77%), most of whom were anesthesiologists (47.5%). The results showed that pain, survival, sensory impairment, motor impairment, and quality of life were consistently ranked as the most important outcomes, but there was significant disagreement in the outcomes relative ranking, making it difficult to develop a DOOR algorithm. The study also revealed that clinicians commonly use structured interviews to evaluate patients with CIPN, and the most prescribed drugs or supplements were palmitoylethanolamide, pregabalin, gabapentin and alpha lipoic acid as preventive agents and pregabalin, palmitoylethanolamide, duloxetine, gabapentin, and amitriptyline as therapeutic agents. However, many of these drugs have not been clinically proven to be effective for CIPN. Discussion: This study suggests that the implementation of a DOOR framework for CIPN using healthcare professionals is more difficult than expected, given the significant disagreement in our respondents' ranking of outcomes. Our work provides interesting topics for future research in CIPN, but its limitations include a small sample size, a low response rate, and a possible selection bias.

The DOOR to Antibiotic Stewardship: Refining Assessments of Interventions With Desirability of Outcome Ranking.

BACKGROUND: Limited sample size and disparate outcome measures can hinder the ability of antimicrobial stewardship programs to assess the utility of their quality improvement interventions. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a novel methodology that incorporates multiple outcomes into a single value to more comprehensively compare therapeutic strategies. The objective of this study was to apply DOOR to a single center antibiotic stewardship intervention. METHODS: A pre- and post-interventional study was conducted evaluating the impact of prospective pharmacist review of rapid molecular diagnostic testing (RDT) of blood cultures on antibiotic optimization. Outcomes included the percentage of patients who were switched to appropriate therapy, the time to appropriate therapy, and the percentage of patients who had missed de-escalation opportunities. RESULTS: A total of 19 and 29 patients were included in the final analysis. The percentage of patients reaching appropriate therapy was 84% (16/19) and 97% ([28/29], p = 0.16) in the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups respectively. Median time to appropriate therapy was 26 hours and 36 minutes (IQR 13:05-50:45) and 22:40 (IQR 3:42-48:23, p = 0.32), respectively. One missed de-escalation opportunity was identified in the post-intervention group (0% vs 3%, p = 1.00). DOOR analysis indicated that the probability of a better outcome for the post-intervention group than the pre-intervention group was 58% (95% CI 54-62). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, DOOR revealed a benefit that would not have been apparent with traditional outcomes assessments. Antimicrobial stewardship programs conducting quality improvement studies should consider incorporating DOOR into their methodology.

A Desirability of Outcome Ranking Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Seven Versus Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection.

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

Short- versus standard-course intravenous antibiotics for peri-prosthetic joint infections managed with debridement and implant retention: a randomised pilot trial using a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) endpoint.

BACKGROUND: Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of joint replacement surgery. Determining the optimal duration of intravenous (IV) antibiotics for PJI managed with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) is a research priority. METHODS: Patients undergoing DAIR for early and late-acute PJI of the hip or knee were randomised to receive 2 (short-course) or 6 (standard-course) weeks of IV antibiotics, with both groups completing 12 weeks of antibiotics in total. The primary endpoint of this pilot, open-label, randomised trial was a 7-point ordinal desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) score, which accounted for mortality, clinical cure and treatment adverse events at 12 months. Duration of IV treatment was used as a tiebreaker, with shorter courses ranked higher. Outcome adjudication was performed by expert clinicians blinded to the allocated intervention (Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000127303). RESULTS: 60 patients were recruited; 31 and 29 were allocated to short- and standard-course treatment, respectively. All had an evaluable outcome at 12 months and were analysed by intention-to-treat. Clinical cure was demonstrated in 44 (73%) overall; 22 (71%) in the short-course group and 22 (76%) in the standard-care group (P=0.77). Using the DOOR approach, the probability that short- was better than standard-course treatment was 59.7% (95% confidence interval 45.1-74.3). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with early and late-acute PJI managed with DAIR, shorter courses of IV antibiotics may be appropriate. Due to small sample size, these data accord with, but do not confirm, results from other international trials of early transition to oral antibiotics.

A Composite Endpoint for Treatment Benefit According to Patient Preference.

Complex disorders usually affect multiple symptom domains measured by several outcomes. The importance of these outcomes is often different among patients. Current approaches integrate multiple outcomes without considering patient preferences at the individual level. In this paper, we propose a new composite Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) that integrates individual level ranking of outcome importance and define a winning probability measuring the overall treatment effect. Stratified randomization can be performed based on the participants' baseline outcome rankings. A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U-statistic is used to average the pairwise DOOR between one treated and one control patient, considering the difference in these patients' ranking of outcome importance. We use both theoretical and empirical methods to examine the statistical properties of our method and to compare with conventional approaches. We conclude that the proposed composite DOOR properly reflects patient-level preferences and can be used in pivotal trials or comparative effectiveness trials for a patient-centered evaluation of overall treatment benefits.

Optimization of sepsis therapy based on patient-specific digital precision diagnostics using next generation sequencing (DigiSep-Trial)-study protocol for a randomized, controlled, interventional, open-label, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is triggered by an infection and represents one of the greatest challenges of modern intensive care medicine. With regard to a targeted antimicrobial treatment strategy, the earliest possible pathogen detection is of crucial importance. Until now, culture-based detection methods represent the diagnostic gold standard, although they are characterized by numerous limitations. Culture-independent molecular diagnostic procedures represent a promising alternative. In particular, the plasmatic detection of circulating, cell-free DNA by next-generation sequencing (NGS) has shown to be suitable for identifying disease-causing pathogens in patients with bloodstream infections. METHODS: The DigiSep-Trial is a randomized, controlled, interventional, open-label, multicenter trial characterizing the effect of the combination of NGS-based digital precision diagnostics with standard-of-care microbiological analyses compared to solely standard-of-care microbiological analyses in the clinical picture of sepsis/septic shock. Additional anti-infective expert consultations are provided for both study groups. In 410 patients (n = 205 per arm) with sepsis/septic shock, the study examines whether the so-called DOOR-RADAR (Desirability of Outcome Ranking/Response Adjusted for Duration of Antibiotic Risk) score (representing a combined endpoint including the criteria (1) intensive/intermediate care unit length of stay, (2) consumption of antibiotics, (3) mortality, and (4) acute kidney injury (AKI)) can be improved by an additional NGS-based diagnostic concept. We also aim to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this new diagnostic procedure. It is postulated that intensive/intermediate care unit length of stay, mortality rate, incidence of AKI, the duration of antimicrobial therapy as well as the costs caused by complications and outpatient aftercare can be reduced. Moreover, a significant improvement in patient's quality of life is expected. DISCUSSION: The authors´ previous work suggests that NGS-based diagnostics have a higher specificity and sensitivity compared to standard-of-care microbiological analyses for detecting bloodstream infections. In combination with the here presented DigiSep-Trial, this work provides the optimal basis to establish a new NGS-driven concept as part of the national standard based on the best possible evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: DRKS-ID DRKS00022782 . Registered on August 25, 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04571801 . Registered October 1, 2020.