RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Ceftobiprole is a cephalosporin that may be effective for treating complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial, adults with complicated S. aureus bacteremia were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ceftobiprole at a dose of 500 mg intravenously every 6 hours for 8 days and every 8 hours thereafter, or daptomycin at a dose of 6 to 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 24 hours plus optional aztreonam (at the discretion of the trial-site investigators). The primary outcome, overall treatment success 70 days after randomization (defined as survival, bacteremia clearance, symptom improvement, no new S. aureus bacteremia-related complications, and no receipt of other potentially effective antibiotics), with a noninferiority margin of 15%, was adjudicated by a data review committee whose members were unaware of the trial-group assignments. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 390 patients who underwent randomization, 387 (189 in the ceftobiprole group and 198 in the daptomycin group) had confirmed S. aureus bacteremia and received ceftobiprole or daptomycin (modified intention-to-treat population). A total of 132 of 189 patients (69.8%) in the ceftobiprole group and 136 of 198 patients (68.7%) in the daptomycin group had overall treatment success (adjusted difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.1). Findings appeared to be consistent between the ceftobiprole and daptomycin groups in key subgroups and with respect to secondary outcomes, including mortality (9.0% and 9.1%, respectively; 95% CI, -6.2 to 5.2) and the percentage of patients with microbiologic eradication (82.0% and 77.3%; 95% CI, -2.9 to 13.0). Adverse events were reported in 121 of 191 patients (63.4%) who received ceftobiprole and 117 of 198 patients (59.1%) who received daptomycin; serious adverse events were reported in 36 patients (18.8%) and 45 patients (22.7%), respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events (primarily mild nausea) were more frequent with ceftobiprole. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftobiprole was noninferior to daptomycin with respect to overall treatment success in patients with complicated S. aureus bacteremia. (Funded by Basilea Pharmaceutica International and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ERADICATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03138733.).
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Bacteriemia , Daptomicina , Infecções Estafilocócicas , Staphylococcus aureus , Adulto , Humanos , Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bacteriemia/tratamento farmacológico , Bacteriemia/microbiologia , Cefalosporinas/administração & dosagem , Cefalosporinas/efeitos adversos , Cefalosporinas/uso terapêutico , Daptomicina/administração & dosagem , Daptomicina/efeitos adversos , Daptomicina/uso terapêutico , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina , Infecções Estafilocócicas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Estafilocócicas/microbiologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Método Duplo-Cego , Administração Intravenosa , Aztreonam/administração & dosagem , Aztreonam/efeitos adversos , Aztreonam/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The ACTT risk profile, which was developed from ACTT-1 (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1), demonstrated that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the high-risk quartile (characterized by low absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], high absolute neutrophil count [ANC], and low platelet count at baseline) benefited most from treatment with the antiviral remdesivir. It is unknown which patient characteristics are associated with benefit from treatment with the immunomodulator baricitinib. OBJECTIVE: To apply the ACTT risk profile to the ACTT-2 cohort to investigate potential baricitinib-related treatment effects by risk quartile. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of ACTT-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04401579). SETTING: Sixty-seven trial sites in 8 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 999; 85% U.S. participants). INTERVENTION: Baricitinib+remdesivir versus placebo+remdesivir. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, and recovery, all within 28 days; ALC, ANC, and platelet count trajectories. RESULTS: In the high-risk quartile, baricitinib+remdesivir was associated with reduced risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86]; P = 0.020), decreased progression to IMV or death (HR, 0.57 [CI, 0.35 to 0.93]; P = 0.024), and improved recovery rate (HR, 1.53 [CI, 1.16 to 2.02]; P = 0.002) compared with placebo+remdesivir. After 5 days, participants receiving baricitinib+remdesivir had significantly larger increases in ALC and significantly larger decreases in ANC compared with control participants, with the largest effects observed in the high-risk quartile. LIMITATION: Secondary analysis of data collected before circulation of current SARS-CoV-2 variants. CONCLUSION: The ACTT risk profile identifies a subgroup of hospitalized patients who benefit most from baricitinib treatment and captures a patient phenotype of treatment response to an immunomodulator and an antiviral. Changes in ALC and ANC trajectory suggest a mechanism whereby an immunomodulator limits severe COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Assuntos
Azetidinas , COVID-19 , Purinas , Pirazóis , Sulfonamidas , Adulto , Humanos , Antivirais/efeitos adversos , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Fatores Imunológicos , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado do Tratamento , Método Duplo-CegoRESUMO
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
Lack of a gold standard can present a challenge for evaluation of diagnostic test accuracy of some infectious diseases tests, particularly when the test's accuracy potentially exceeds that of its predecessors. This approach may measure agreement with an imperfect reference, rather than correctness, because the right answer is unknown. Solutions consist of multitest comparators, including those that involve a test under evaluation if multiple new tests are being evaluated together, using latent class modeling, and clinically adjudicated reference standards. Clinically adjudicated reference standards may be considered as comparator methods when no predefined test or composite of tests is sufficiently accurate; they emulate clinical practice in that multiple data pieces are clinically assessed together.
Assuntos
Doenças Transmissíveis , Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina , Humanos , Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina/métodos , Doenças Transmissíveis/diagnóstico , Padrões de Referência , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) carries a high risk for excess morbidity and mortality. Despite its prevalence, significant practice variation continues to permeate clinical management of this syndrome. Since the publication of the 2011 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, the field of SAB has evolved with the emergence of newer diagnostic strategies and therapeutic options. In this review, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the evaluation and management of SAB, with special focus on areas where the highest level of evidence is lacking to inform best practices.
Assuntos
Bacteriemia , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina , Infecções Estafilocócicas , Humanos , Staphylococcus aureus , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Infecções Estafilocócicas/diagnóstico , Infecções Estafilocócicas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Estafilocócicas/epidemiologia , Bacteriemia/diagnóstico , Bacteriemia/tratamento farmacológico , Bacteriemia/epidemiologiaRESUMO
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
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
BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a novel approach to clinical trial design that incorporates safety and efficacy assessments into an ordinal ranking system to evaluate overall outcomes of clinical trial participants. Here, we derived and applied a disease-specific DOOR endpoint to registrational trials for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI). METHODS: Initially, we applied an a priori DOOR prototype to electronic patient-level data from 9 phase 3 noninferiority trials for cIAI submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2005 and 2019. We derived a cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint based on clinically meaningful events that trial participants experienced. Next, we applied the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint to the same datasets and, for each trial, estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment would have a more desirable DOOR or component outcome than if assigned to the comparator. RESULTS: Three key findings informed the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint: (1) a significant proportion of participants underwent additional surgical procedures related to their baseline infection; (2) infectious complications of cIAI were diverse; and (3) participants with worse outcomes experienced more infectious complications, more serious adverse events, and underwent more procedures. DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 47.4% to 50.3% and were not significantly different. Component analyses depicted risk-benefit assessments of study treatment versus comparator. CONCLUSIONS: We designed and evaluated a potential DOOR endpoint for cIAI trials to further characterize overall clinical experiences of participants. Similar data-driven approaches can be utilized to create other infectious disease-specific DOOR endpoints.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Infecções Intra-Abdominais , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Infecções Intra-Abdominais/complicações , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is undermining modern medicine, a problem compounded by bacterial adaptation to antibiotic pressures. Phages are viruses that infect bacteria. Their diversity and evolvability offer the prospect of their use as a therapeutic solution. Reported are outcomes of customized phage therapy for patients with difficult-to-treat antimicrobial resistant infections. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 12 cases of customized phage therapy from a phage production center. Phages were screened, purified, sequenced, characterized, and Food and Drug Administration-approved via the IND (investigational new drug) compassionate-care route. Outcomes were assessed as favorable or unfavorable by microbiologic and clinical standards. Infections were device-related or systemic. Other experiences such as time to treatment, antibiotic synergy, and immune responses were recorded. RESULTS: Fifty requests for phage therapy were received. Customized phages were generated for 12 patients. After treatment, 42% (5/12) of cases showed bacterial eradication and 58% (7/12) showed clinical improvement, with two-thirds of all cases (66%) showing favorable responses. No major adverse reactions were observed. Antibiotic-phage synergy in vitro was observed in most cases. Immunological neutralization of phages was reported in 5 cases. Several cases were complicated by secondary infections. Complete characterization of the phages (morphology, genomics, and activity) and their production (methods, sterility, and endotoxin tests) are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Customized phage production and therapy was safe and yielded favorable clinical or microbiological outcomes in two-thirds of cases. A center or pipeline dedicated to tailoring the phages against a patient's specific AMR bacterial infection may be a viable option where standard treatment has failed.
Assuntos
Infecções Bacterianas , Bacteriófagos , Terapia por Fagos , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bactérias , Infecções Bacterianas/terapia , Infecções Bacterianas/microbiologia , Bacteriófagos/fisiologia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
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
We report a case of a 53-year-old HIV-negative patient in San Francisco, California, USA, with no classic mpox prodromal symptoms or skin lesions who experienced fulminant, vision-threatening scleritis, keratitis, and uveitis. Deep sequence analysis identified monkeypox virus RNA in the aqueous humor. We confirmed the virus on the cornea and sclera by PCR.
Assuntos
Mpox , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Face , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase , Sintomas Prodrômicos , RNA ViralRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Assuntos
Antivirais , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Dexametasona , Método Duplo-Cego , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Persons who use drugs (PWUD) face substantial risk of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Limited data exist describing clinical and substance use characteristics of PWUD with invasive S. aureus infections or comparing treatment and mortality outcomes in PWUD vs non-PWUD. These are needed to inform optimal care for this marginalized population. METHODS: We identified adults hospitalized from 2013 to 2018 at 2 medical centers in San Francisco with S. aureus bacteremia or International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses of endocarditis, epidural abscess, or vertebral osteomyelitis with compatible culture. In addition to demographic and clinical characteristic comparison, we constructed multivariate Cox proportional hazards models for 1-year infection-related readmission and mortality, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, housing, comorbidities, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). RESULTS: Of 963 hospitalizations for S. aureus infections in 946 patients, 372 of 963 (39%) occurred in PWUD. Among PWUD, heroin (198/372 [53%]) and methamphetamine use (185/372 [50%]) were common. Among 214 individuals using opioids, 98 of 214 (46%) did not receive methadone or buprenorphine. PWUD had lower antibiotic completion than non-PWUD (70% vs 87%; Pâ <â .001). While drug use was not associated with increased mortality, 1-year readmission for ongoing or recurrent infection was double in PWUD vs non-PWUD (28% vs 14%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.0 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.3-2.9]). MRSA was independently associated with 1-year readmission for infection (aHR, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.1-2.2]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-PWUD, PWUD with invasive S. aureus infections had lower rates of antibiotic completion and twice the risk of infection persistence/recurrence at 1 year. Among PWUD, both opioid and stimulant use were common. Models for combined treatment of substance use disorders and infections, particularly MRSA, are needed.
Assuntos
Bacteriemia , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina , Infecções Estafilocócicas , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias , Adulto , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bacteriemia/tratamento farmacológico , Bacteriemia/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Infecções Estafilocócicas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Estafilocócicas/epidemiologia , Staphylococcus aureus , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/complicações , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2_ infections in healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical for healthcare delivery. We aimed to estimate and characterize the prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a US HCW cohort and to identify risk factors associated with infection. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of HCWs at 3 Bay Area medical centers using serial surveys and SARS-CoV-2 viral and orthogonal serological testing, including measurement of neutralizing antibodies. We estimated baseline prevalence and cumulative incidence of COVID-19. We performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations of baseline factors with incident infections and evaluated the impact of time-varying exposures on time to COVID-19 using marginal structural models. RESULTS: A total of 2435 HCWs contributed 768 person-years of follow-up time. We identified 21 of 2435 individuals with prevalent infection, resulting in a baseline prevalence of 0.86% (95% confidence interval [CI], .53%-1.32%). We identified 70 of 2414 incident infections (2.9%), yielding a cumulative incidence rate of 9.11 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI, 7.11-11.52). Community contact with a known COVID-19 case was most strongly correlated with increased hazard for infection (hazard ratio, 8.1 [95% CI, 3.8-17.5]). High-risk work-related exposures (ie, breach in protective measures) drove an association between work exposure and infection (hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3-4.8). More cases were identified in HCWs when community case rates were high. CONCLUSIONS: We observed modest COVID-19 incidence despite consistent exposure at work. Community contact was strongly associated with infections, but contact at work was not unless accompanied by high-risk exposure.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Incidência , Prevalência , Estudos Longitudinais , Pessoal de Saúde , Estudos de CoortesRESUMO
This post hoc analysis of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) shows a treatment effect of remdesivir (RDV) on progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Additionally, we create a risk profile that better predicts progression than baseline oxygen requirement alone. The highest risk group derives the greatest treatment effect from RDV.
Assuntos
Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Humanos , Respiração Artificial , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Transplante de Órgãos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Passive reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, potentially representing an emerging source of spread. We analyzed CPO prevalence in wards where SOT recipients receive inpatient care to inform public health action to prevent transmission. METHODS: From September 2019 to June 2020, five US hospitals conducted consecutive point prevalence surveys (PPS) of all consenting patients admitted to transplant units, regardless of transplant status. We used the Cepheid Xpert Carba-R assay to identify carbapenemase genes (blaKPC , blaNDM , blaVIM , blaIMP , blaOXA-48 ) from rectal swabs. Laboratory-developed molecular tests were used to retrospectively test for a wider range of blaIMP and blaOXA variants. RESULTS: In total, 154 patients were screened and 92 (60%) were SOT recipients. CPOs were detected among 7 (8%) SOT recipients, from two of five screened hospitals: four blaKPC , one blaNDM , and two blaOXA-23 . CPOs were detected in two (3%) of 62 non-transplant patients. In three of five participating hospitals, CPOs were not identified among any patients admitted to transplant units. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal surveillance in transplant units, as well as PPS in areas with diverse CPO epidemiology, may inform the utility of routine screening in SOT units to prevent the spread of CPOs.
Assuntos
Transplante de Órgãos , beta-Lactamases , Proteínas de Bactérias/genética , Hospitais , Humanos , Transplante de Órgãos/efeitos adversos , Prevalência , Estudos Retrospectivos , Transplantados , beta-Lactamases/genéticaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Rapid blood culture diagnostics are of unclear benefit for patients with gram-negative bacilli (GNB) bloodstream infections (BSIs). We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with GNB BSIs who had blood culture testing with standard-of-care (SOC) culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) vs rapid organism identification (ID) and phenotypic AST using the Accelerate Pheno System (RAPID). METHODS: Patients with positive blood cultures with Gram stains showing GNB were randomized to SOC testing with antimicrobial stewardship (AS) review or RAPID with AS. The primary outcome was time to first antibiotic modification within 72 hours of randomization. RESULTS: Of 500 randomized patients, 448 were included (226 SOC, 222 RAPID). Mean (standard deviation) time to results was faster for RAPID than SOC for organism ID (2.7 [1.2] vs 11.7 [10.5] hours; Pâ <â .001) and AST (13.5 [56] vs 44.9 [12.1] hours; Pâ <â .001). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to first antibiotic modification was faster in the RAPID arm vs the SOC arm for overall antibiotics (8.6 [2.6-27.6] vs 14.9 [3.3-41.1] hours; Pâ =â .02) and gram-negative antibiotics (17.3 [4.9-72] vs 42.1 [10.1-72] hours; Pâ <â .001). Median (IQR) time to antibiotic escalation was faster in the RAPID arm vs the SOC arm for antimicrobial-resistant BSIs (18.4 [5.8-72] vs 61.7 [30.4-72] hours; Pâ =â .01). There were no differences between the arms in patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid organism ID and phenotypic AST led to faster changes in antibiotic therapy for gram-negative BSIs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03218397.
Assuntos
Bacteriemia , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bacteriemia/diagnóstico , Bacteriemia/tratamento farmacológico , Hemocultura , Bactérias Gram-Negativas , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/diagnóstico , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Testes de Sensibilidade MicrobianaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although Staphylococcus aureus and gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infections (SAB/GNB) cause substantial morbidity, little is known regarding patient perceptions' of their impact on quality of life (QOL). Guidance for assessing QOL and disease-specific measures are lacking. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study to gain an in-depth understanding of patients' experiences with SAB/GNB and concept elicitation phase to inform a patient-reported QOL outcome measure. METHODS: We conducted prospective one-time, in-depth, semi-structured, individual, qualitative telephone interviews 6- 8 weeks following bloodstream infection with either SAB or GNB. Patients were enrolled in an institutional registry (tertiary academic medical center) for SAB or GNB. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Directed content analysis identified a priori and emergent themes. Theme matrix techniques were used to facilitate analysis and presentation. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 30 patients with SAB and 31 patients with GNB. Most patients were at or near the end of intravenous antibiotic treatment when interviewed. We identified 3 primary high-level concepts: impact on QOL domains, time as a critical index, and sources of variability across patients. Across both types of bloodstream infection, the QOL domains most impacted were physical and functional, which was particularly evident among patients with SAB. CONCLUSIONS: SAB/GNB impact QOL among survivors. In particular, SAB had major impacts on multiple QOL domains. A combination of existing, generic measures that are purposefully selected and disease-specific items, if necessary, could best capture these impacts. Engaging patients as stakeholders and obtaining their feedback is crucial to conducting patient-centered clinical trials and providing patient-centered care.