RESUMEN
Transplant infectious disease (TID) clinicians are integral to the pre-transplantation evaluation. Pre-transplant evaluations allow clinicians to assess risk factors for latent infections and relevant exposures to potential pathogens, address immunizations, and optimize patients' health and understanding of life after transplant. However, there is not a standardized approach to the pre-transplant evaluation. This article reviews the details of performing successful pre-transplant evaluations, including updated recommendations on available vaccines and contemporary opinions on marijuana use. This resource can be used for teaching with trainees or for early career TID clinicians.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles , Trasplante de Órganos , Humanos , Trasplante de Órganos/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , Cuidados Preoperatorios/métodos , Cuidados Preoperatorios/normasRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Neumonía Bacteriana , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador , Humanos , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/microbiología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Neumonía Bacteriana/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Bacteriana/microbiología , Masculino , Neumonía Asociada a la Atención Médica/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Asociada a la Atención Médica/microbiología , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Infección Hospitalaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Persona de Mediana Edad , United States Food and Drug Administration , AncianoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neumonía Asociada a la Atención Médica , Neumonía Bacteriana , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador , Humanos , Linezolid/uso terapéutico , Vancomicina/uso terapéutico , Neumonía Bacteriana/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Bacteriana/microbiología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Bacterias , Neumonía Asociada a la Atención Médica/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/microbiología , Hospitales , Ventiladores MecánicosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Bacterias Grampositivas , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Sepsis , Humanos , Niño , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Liderazgo , Calidad de Vida , Infecciones por Bacterias Grampositivas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Bacterias Grampositivas/microbiología , Bacterias Grampositivas , Sepsis/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Liderazgo , Humanos , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
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.).
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Bacteriemia , Daptomicina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Staphylococcus aureus , Adulto , Humanos , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Bacteriemia/tratamiento farmacológico , Bacteriemia/microbiología , Cefalosporinas/administración & dosificación , Cefalosporinas/efectos adversos , Cefalosporinas/uso terapéutico , Daptomicina/administración & dosificación , Daptomicina/efectos adversos , Daptomicina/uso terapéutico , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/microbiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Método Doble Ciego , Administración Intravenosa , Aztreonam/administración & dosificación , Aztreonam/efectos adversos , Aztreonam/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Infecciones Intraabdominales , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Intraabdominales/complicaciones , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Background: Elizabethkingia anophelis is an emerging Gram-negative nonlactose fermenter in the health care setting, where it causes life-threatening infections in immunocompromised patients. We aimed to characterize the molecular mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and evaluate the utility of contemporary antibiotics with the intent to offer targeted therapy against an uncommonly encountered pathogen. Methods: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was conducted to accurately identify isolate species and elucidate the determinants of ß-lactam resistance. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using broth microdilution and disk diffusion assays. To assess the functional contribution of the major metallo-ß-lactamase (MBL) encoding genes to the resistance profile, bla BlaB was cloned into pBCSK(-) phagemid vector and transformed into Escherichia coli DH10B. Results: WGS identified the organism as E. anophelis. MBL genes bla BlaB-1 and bla GOB-26 were identified, in addition to bla CME-2, which encodes for an extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL). Plasmids were not detected. The isolate was nonsusceptible to all commonly available ß-lactams, carbapenems, newer ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations, and to the combination of aztreonam (ATM) with ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI). Susceptibility to the novel siderophore cephalosporin cefiderocol was determined. A BlaB-1 transformant E. coli DH10B isolate was obtained and demonstrated increased minimum inhibitory concentrations to cephalosporins, carbapenems, and CAZ-AVI, but not ATM. Conclusions: Using WGS, we accurately identified and characterized an extensively drug-resistant E. anophelis in an immunocompromised patient. Rapid evaluation of the genetic background can guide accurate susceptibility testing to better inform antimicrobial therapy selection.
RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Infecciones Urinarias , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Urinarias/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Urinarias/microbiología , Levofloxacino/uso terapéutico , Doripenem/uso terapéutico , ImipenemRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) caused by resistant pathogens. Sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid (sulopenem) is an oral thiopenem antibiotic active against multidrug-resistant pathogens that cause uUTIs. METHODS: Patients with uUTI were randomized to 5 days of sulopenem or 3 days of ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as both clinical and microbiologic response at day 12. In patients with ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible baseline pathogens, sulopenem was compared for superiority over ciprofloxacin; in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, the agents were compared for noninferiority. Using prespecified hierarchical statistical testing, the primary endpoint was tested in the combined population if either superiority or noninferiority was declared in the nonsusceptible or susceptible population, respectively. RESULTS: In the nonsusceptible population, sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin, 62.6% vs 36.0% (difference, 26.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.1 to 7.4; P <.001). In the susceptible population, sulopenem was not noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 66.8% vs 78.6% (difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -18.0 to 5.6). The difference was driven by a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) post-treatment in patients on sulopenem. In the combined analysis, sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 65.6% vs 67.9% (difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 3.3). Diarrhea occurred more frequently with sulopenem (12.4% vs 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin in the treatment of uUTIs. Sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin in patients with uUTIs due to ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible pathogens. Sulopenem was not noninferior in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, driven largely by a lower rate of ASB in those who received ciprofloxacin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03354598.
Asunto(s)
Ciprofloxacina , Infecciones Urinarias , Humanos , Femenino , Ciprofloxacina/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Urinarias/microbiología , Antibacterianos , Lactamas/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Médicos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Hospitales de Enseñanza , Humanos , Pandemias , Recursos HumanosAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Atención a la Salud , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación , Recursos HumanosRESUMEN
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in K-12 schools was rare during in 2020-2021; few studies included Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended screening of asymptomatic individuals. We conduct a prospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 screening in a mid-sized suburban public school district to evaluate the incidence of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), document frequency of in-school transmission, and characterize barriers and facilitators to asymptomatic screening in schools. Staff and students undergo weekly pooled testing using home-collected saliva samples. Identification of >1 case in a school prompts investigation for in-school transmission and enhancement of safety strategies. With layered mitigation measures, in-school transmission even before student or staff vaccination is rare. Screening identifies a single cluster with in-school staff-to-staff transmission, informing decisions about in-person learning. The proportion of survey respondents self-reporting comfort with in-person learning before versus after implementation of screening increases. Costs exceed $260,000 for assays alone; staff and volunteers spend 135-145 h per week implementing screening.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/diagnóstico , Tamizaje Masivo , Instituciones Académicas , Adolescente , Adulto , COVID-19/transmisión , Niño , Personal Docente , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudiantes , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Infection is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Loss of efficacy in antibiotics due to antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an urgent threat against the continuing success of cancer therapy. In this review, the authors focus on recent updates on the impact of antibiotic resistance in the cancer setting, particularly on the ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.). This review highlights the health and financial impact of antibiotic resistance in patients with cancer. Furthermore, the authors recommend measures to control the emergence of antibiotic resistance, highlighting the risk factors associated with cancer care. A lack of data in the etiology of infections, specifically in oncology patients in United States, is identified as a concern, and the authors advocate for a centralized and specialized surveillance system for patients with cancer to predict and prevent the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Finding better ways to predict, prevent, and treat antibiotic-resistant infections will have a major positive impact on the care of those with cancer.
Asunto(s)
Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Programas de Optimización del Uso de los Antimicrobianos , Humanos , Huésped Inmunocomprometido , Infecciones Oportunistas/prevención & control , Mal Uso de Medicamentos de Venta con Receta/prevención & controlRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Neutropenia is a serious complication following heart transplantation (OHT); however, risk factors for its development and its association with outcomes is not well described. We sought to study the prevalence of neutropenia, risk factors associated with its development, and its impact on infection, rejection, and survival. METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis of adult OHT recipients from July 2004 to December 2017 was performed. Demographic, laboratory, medication, infection, rejection, and survival data were collected for 1 year post-OHT. Baseline laboratory measurements were collected within the 24 hours before OHT. Neutropenia was defined as absolute neutrophil count ≤1000 cells/mm3. Cox proportional hazards models explored associations with time to first neutropenia. Associations between neutropenia, analyzed as a time-dependent covariate, with secondary outcomes of time to infection, rejection, or death were also examined. RESULTS: Of 278 OHT recipients, 84 (30%) developed neutropenia at a median of 142 days (range 81-228) after transplant. Factors independently associated with increased risk of neutropenia included lower baseline WBC (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.11-1.24), pre-OHT ventricular assist device (1.63; 1.00-2.66), high-risk CMV serostatus [donor positive, recipient negative] (1.86; 1.19-2.88), and having a previous CMV infection (4.07; 3.92-13.7). CONCLUSIONS: Neutropenia is a fairly common occurrence after adult OHT. CMV infection was associated with subsequent neutropenia, however, no statistically significant differences in outcomes were found between neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients in this small study. It remains to be determined in future studies if medication changes in response to neutropenia would impact patient outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Citomegalovirus , Trasplante de Corazón , Corazón Auxiliar , Neutropenia , Trasplante de Corazón/efectos adversos , Corazón Auxiliar/efectos adversos , Humanos , Neutropenia/epidemiología , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
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.