Cost-Effectiveness of Plasma Microbial Cell-Free DNA Sequencing When Added to Usual Care Diagnostic Testing for Immunocompromised Host Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Immunocompromised host pneumonia (ICHP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, yet usual care (UC) diagnostic tests often fail to identify an infectious etiology. A US-based, multicenter study (PICKUP) among ICHP patients with hematological malignancies, including hematological cell transplant recipients, showed that plasma microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA) sequencing provided significant additive diagnostic value. AIM: The objective of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of adding mcfDNA sequencing to UC diagnostic testing for hospitalized ICHP patients. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was utilized from the US third-party payer's perspective such that only direct costs were included, using a lifetime time horizon with discount rates of 3% for costs and benefits. Three comparators were considered: (1) All UC, which included non-invasive (NI) and invasive testing and early bronchoscopy; (2) All UC & mcfDNA; and (3) NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch (later bronchoscopy if the initial tests are negative). The model considered whether a probable causative infectious etiology was identified and if the patient received appropriate antimicrobial treatment through expert adjudication, and if the patient died in-hospital. The primary endpoints were total costs, life-years (LYs), equal value life-years (evLYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Extensive scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: At a price of $2000 (2023 USD) for the plasma mcfDNA, All UC & mcfDNA was more costly ($165,247 vs $153,642) but more effective (13.39 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 10.20 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 10.11 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, giving a cost/QALY of $16,761. NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch was also more costly ($162,655 vs $153,642) and more effective (13.19 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, with a cost/QALY of $16,729. The PSA showed that above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, All UC & mcfDNA was the preferred scenario on cost-effectiveness grounds (as it provides the most QALYs gained). Further scenario analyses found that All UC & mcfDNA always improved patient outcomes but was not cost saving, even when the price of mcfDNA was set to $0. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence available at the time of this analysis, this CEA suggests that mcfDNA may be cost-effective when added to All UC, as well as in a scenario using conditional bronchoscopy when NI testing fails to identify a probable infectious etiology for ICHP. Adding mcfDNA testing to UC diagnostic testing should allow more patients to receive appropriate therapy earlier and improve patient outcomes.

Clinical outcomes in patients with piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae bloodstream infection.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae demonstrate in vitro non-susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam but retain susceptibility to ceftriaxone. Uncertainty remains regarding how best to treat these isolates. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare clinical outcomes between patients with piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae bloodstream infection receiving definitive therapy with ceftriaxone versus an alternative effective antibiotic. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with a positive blood culture for piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2022. Patients were divided into one of two definitive treatment groups: ceftriaxone or alternative effective antibiotic. Our primary outcome was a composite of 90 day all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, or recurrence of infection. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare time with the composite outcome between groups. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included in our analysis. Overall, median age was 63 years (IQR 49.5-71.0), the most common source of infection was intra-abdominal (25/62; 40.3%) and the median total duration of therapy was 12.0 days (IQR 9.0-16.8). A total of 9/22 (40.9%) patients in the ceftriaxone treatment group and 18/40 (45.0%) patients in the alternative effective antibiotic group met the composite endpoint. In an adjusted time-to-event analysis, there was no difference in the composite endpoint between groups (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30-1.50). The adjusted Bayesian posterior probability that the HR was less than or equal to 1 (i.e. ceftriaxone is as good or better than alternative therapy) was 85%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that ceftriaxone can be used to effectively treat bloodstream infections with E. coli or K. pneumoniae that are non-susceptible to piperacillin/tazobactam but susceptible to ceftriaxone.

Exploration of a Potential DOOR Endpoint for Hospital-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia Using Six Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs.

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.

External Validation of the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Criteria for Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The 2023 Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) criteria for infective endocarditis (IE) were introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes. External validation studies are required. METHODS: We studied consecutive patients with suspected IE referred to the IE team of Amsterdam University Medical Center (from October 2016 to March 2021). An international expert panel independently reviewed case summaries and assigned a final diagnosis of "IE" or "not IE," which served as the reference standard, to which the "definite" Duke-ISCVID classifications were compared. We also evaluated accuracy when excluding cardiac surgical and pathologic data ("clinical" criteria). Finally, we compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID with the 2000 modified Duke criteria and the 2015 and 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 595 consecutive patients with suspected IE were included: 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE; 111 (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, and 48 (8%) had a cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than either the modified Duke or 2015 ESC criteria (84.2% vs 74.9% and 80%, respectively; P < .001) without significant loss of specificity. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were similarly sensitive but more specific than the 2023 ESC criteria (94% vs 82%; P < .001). The same pattern was seen for the clinical criteria (excluding surgical/pathologic results). New modifications in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria related to "major microbiological" and "imaging" criteria had the most impact. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients with suspected IE.

Plasma Microbial Cell-Free DNA Sequencing in Immunocompromised Patients With Pneumonia: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, yet a causative pathogen is identified in a minority of cases. Plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing may improve diagnostic yield in immunocompromised patients with pneumonia. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study of immunocompromised adults undergoing bronchoscopy to establish a pneumonia etiology, plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing was compared to standardized usual care testing. Pneumonia etiology was adjudicated by a blinded independent committee. The primary outcome, additive diagnostic value, was assessed in the Per Protocol population (patients with complete testing results and no major protocol deviations) and defined as the percent of patients with an etiology of pneumonia exclusively identified by plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing. Clinical additive diagnostic value was assessed in the Per Protocol subgroup with negative usual care testing. RESULTS: Of 257 patients, 173 met Per Protocol criteria. A pneumonia etiology was identified by usual care in 52/173 (30.1%), plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing in 49/173 (28.3%) and the combination of both in 73/173 (42.2%) patients. Plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing exclusively identified an etiology of pneumonia in 21/173 patients (additive diagnostic value 12.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7% to 18.0%, P < .001). In the Per Protocol subgroup with negative usual care testing, plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing identified a pneumonia etiology in 21/121 patients (clinical additive diagnostic value 17.4%, 95% CI, 11.1% to 25.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing significantly increased diagnostic yield in immunocompromised patients with pneumonia undergoing bronchoscopy and extensive microbiologic and molecular testing. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04047719.

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.

Priorities and Progress in Gram-positive Bacterial Infection Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group: A Narrative Review.

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.

Ceftobiprole for Treatment of Complicated Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.

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.).

Scoping review of percutaneous mechanical aspiration for valvular and cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mechanical aspiration (PMA) of intravascular vegetations is a novel strategy for management of patients with infective endocarditis (IE) who are at high risk of poor outcomes with conventional cardiac surgery. However, clear indications for its use as well as patient outcomes are largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review of the literature to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes of those undergoing PMA for management of IE. METHODS: Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full text for inclusion and independently extracted data. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published until February 21, 2023, describing the use of PMA for management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) or valvular IE were included. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: As this was a scoping review, risk of bias assessment was not performed. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Descriptive data was reported. RESULTS: We identified 2252 titles, of which 1442 abstracts were screened, and 125 full text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Fifty-one studies, describing a total of 294 patients who underwent PMA for IE were included in our review. Over 50% (152/294) of patients underwent PMA to debulk cardiac implantable electronic device lead vegetations prior to extraction (152/294), and 38.8% (114/294) of patients had a history of drug use. Patient outcomes were inconsistently reported, but few had procedural complications, and all-cause in-hospital mortality was 6.5% (19/294). CONCLUSIONS: While PMA is a promising advance in the care of patients with IE, higher quality data regarding patient outcomes are needed to better inform the use of this procedure.

Exploration of a Potential Desirability of Outcome Ranking Endpoint for Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections Using 9 Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs.

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.

Dexamethasone for Inpatients With COVID-19 in a National Cohort.

Importance: Limited effective therapeutics are available to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clinical trials and observational studies have shown varying effects of systemic corticosteroids, including dexamethasone, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with limited descriptions of important patient subgroups. Objective: To examine the clinical use of dexamethasone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 respiratory illness and to explore the heterogeneity of treatment outcomes across different subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective, propensity score-weighted cohort study of adult patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours for COVID-19 respiratory illness between July 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021, at a large health care network of 156 hospitals across the US. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to February 2023. Exposures: Systemic dexamethasone administered within 48 hours of either admission or escalation in oxygen support. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice. Results: A total of 80 699 patients who met the eligibility criteria were identified (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-76] years; 37 606 women [46.6%]); 13 230 patients (16.4%) identified as Black, 49 222 (60.9%) as White, 18 247 (22.6%) as other race, and 20 340 (25.2%) as Hispanic ethnicity. Of these patients, 13 040 (16.2%) did not require supplemental oxygen within 48 hours of admission, 56 368 (69.8%) required supplemental oxygen, 7618 (9.4%) required noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and 3673 (4.6%) required mechanical ventilation (MV) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). After adjustment by propensity score overlap weighting, early use of dexamethasone was associated with reduction in a composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice for patients receiving supplemental oxygen (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98) and MV and/or ECMO (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99). In contrast, all-cause inpatient mortality or discharge to hospice was not lower for patients who received dexamethasone in the no supplemental oxygen group (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.03) and in the NIPPV group (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04). Importantly, patients with more comorbidities had greater benefit from dexamethasone use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national multicenter cohort study of inpatients with COVID-19, early administration of dexamethasone was associated with significantly reduced odds of mortality or discharge to hospice in those requiring supplemental oxygen or MV and/or ECMO but not in those requiring no supplemental oxygen or NIPPV. These results support the continued use of systemic dexamethasone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

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.

Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of gremubamab (MEDI3902), an anti-Pseudomonas aeruginosa bispecific human monoclonal antibody, in P. aeruginosa-colonised, mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) in hospitalised patients is associated with high mortality. The effectiveness of the bivalent, bispecific mAb MEDI3902 (gremubamab) in preventing PA nosocomial pneumonia was assessed in PA-colonised mechanically ventilated subjects. METHODS: EVADE (NCT02696902) was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Europe, Turkey, Israel, and the USA. Subjects ≥ 18 years old, mechanically ventilated, tracheally colonised with PA, and without new-onset pneumonia, were randomised (1:1:1) to MEDI3902 500, 1500 mg (single intravenous dose), or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of nosocomial PA pneumonia through 21 days post-dose in MEDI3902 1500 mg versus placebo, determined by an independent adjudication committee. RESULTS: Even if the initial sample size was not reached because of low recruitment, 188 subjects were randomised (MEDI3902 500/1500 mg: n = 16/87; placebo: n = 85) between 13 April 2016 and 17 October 2019. Out of these, 184 were dosed (MEDI3902 500/1500 mg: n = 16/85; placebo: n = 83), comprising the modified intent-to-treat set. Enrolment in the 500 mg arm was discontinued due to pharmacokinetic data demonstrating low MEDI3902 serum concentrations. Subsequently, enrolled subjects were randomised (1:1) to MEDI3902 1500 mg or placebo. PA pneumonia was confirmed in 22.4% (n = 19/85) of MEDI3902 1500 mg recipients and in 18.1% (n = 15/83) of placebo recipients (relative risk reduction [RRR]: - 23.7%; 80% confidence interval [CI] - 83.8%, 16.8%; p = 0.49). At 21 days post-1500 mg dose, the mean (standard deviation) serum MEDI3902 concentration was 9.46 (7.91) µg/mL, with 80.6% (n = 58/72) subjects achieving concentrations > 1.7 µg/mL, a level associated with improved outcome in animal models. Treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The bivalent, bispecific monoclonal antibody MEDI3902 (gremubamab) did not reduce PA nosocomial pneumonia incidence in PA-colonised mechanically ventilated subjects. Trial registration Registered on Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02696902 ) on 11th February 2016 and on EudraCT ( 2015-001706-34 ) on 7th March 2016.

PROPHETIC EU: Prospective Identification of Pneumonia in Hospitalized Patients in the Intensive Care Unit in European and United States Cohorts.

Background: The prospective identification of patients at high risk for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia may improve clinical trial feasibility and foster antibacterial development. In a prior study conducted in the United States, clinical criteria were used to prospectively identify these patients; however, these criteria have not been applied in a European population. Methods: Adults considered high risk for pneumonia (treatment with ventilation or high levels of supplemental oxygen) in the intensive care units of 7 European hospitals were prospectively enrolled from June 12 to December 27, 2017. We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients developing pneumonia according to US Food and Drug Administration guidance and a subset potentially eligible for antibacterial trial enrollment. We compared patient characteristics, treatment exposures, and pneumonia incidence in a European cohort and a previously described US cohort. Results: Of 888 high-risk patients, 211/888 (24%) were treated for possible pneumonia, and 150/888 (17%) met the Food and Drug Administration definition for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. A higher proportion of European patients treated for possible pneumonia met the pneumonia definition (150/211 [71%] vs 537/1464 [37%]; P < .001). Among patients developing pneumonia, a higher proportion of European patients met antibacterial trial eligibility criteria (124/150 [83%] vs 371/537 [69%]; P < .001). Conclusions: Clinical criteria prospectively identified high-risk patients with high rates of pneumonia in the European cohort. Despite higher rates of established risk factors and incident pneumonia, European patients were significantly less likely to receive antibiotics for possible pneumonia than US patients. Different treatment practices may contribute to lower rates of antibacterial trial enrollment in the United States.

Dalbavancin as an option for treatment of S. aureus bacteremia (DOTS): study protocol for a phase 2b, multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is a life-threatening infection and leading cause of infective endocarditis, with mortality rates of 15-50%. Treatment typically requires prolonged administration of parenteral therapy, itself associated with high costs and potential catheter-associated complications. Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with potent activity against Staphylococcus and a long half-life, making it an appealing potential therapy for S. aureus bacteremia without the need for durable central venous access. METHODS: DOTS is a phase 2b, multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded, superiority, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. The trial will enroll 200 adults diagnosed with complicated S. aureus bacteremia, including definite or possible right-sided infective endocarditis, who have been treated with effective antibiotic therapy for at least 72 h (maximum 10 days) and with subsequent clearance of bacteremia prior to randomization to study treatment. Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to complete their antibiotic treatment course with either two doses of dalbavancin on days 1 and 8, or with a total of 4-8 weeks of standard intravenous antibiotic therapy. The primary objective is to compare the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) at day 70 for patients randomized to dalbavancin versus standard of care. Key secondary endpoints include quality of life outcomes and pharmacokinetic analyses of dalbavancin. DISCUSSION: The DOTS trial will establish whether dalbavancin is superior to standard parenteral antibiotic therapy for the completion of treatment of complicated S. aureus bacteremia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04775953 . Registered on 1 March 2021.

Antiplatelet Therapy in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: No Time Like the Past?

In this invited commentary, we reflect on the accompanying study by A. R. Caffrey, H. J. Appaneal, K. L. LaPlante, V. V. Lopes, et al. (Antimicrob Agents Chemother 66:e02117-21, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.02117-21), which analyzed the impact of clopidogrel use on clinical outcomes in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.