Antibiotic resistance in the patient with cancer: Escalating challenges and paths forward.

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.

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.).

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.

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 4,000 participants enrolled in six registrational trials for HABP/VABP submitted to the FDA between 2005-2022, 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. Though 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.

The pre-transplant evaluation: Considerations for trainees and early career transplant infectious diseases clinician.

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.

Sulopenem or Ciprofloxacin for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Phase 3, Randomized Trial.

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.

The Future Ain't What It Used to Be Out With the Old In With the Better: Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study).

BACKGROUND: Imipenem combined with the ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7-14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. RESULTS: Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02493764.

Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group 2.0: Back to Business.

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.

Factors associated with neutropenia post heart transplantation.

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.

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

BACKGROUND: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5-21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, -27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, -46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02452047.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Analysis Populations in the RESTORE-IMI 1 Phase 3 Trial of Imipenem-Cilastatin-Relebactam versus Colistin plus Imipenem-Cilastatin in Patients with Imipenem-Nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

The RESTORE-IMI 1 phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) combined with relebactam (REL) for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. The objective of this analysis was to compare the outcomes among patients meeting eligibility requirements based on central laboratory susceptibility versus local laboratory susceptibility. Patients with serious infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible, colistin-susceptible, and imipenem-REL-susceptible pathogens were randomized 2:1 to IMI-REL plus placebo or colistin plus IMI for 5 to 21 days. The primary endpoint was a favorable overall response. Key endpoints included the clinical response and all-cause mortality. We compared outcomes between the primary microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population, where eligibility was based on central laboratory susceptibility testing, and the supplemental mMITT (SmMITT) population, where eligibility was based on local, site-level testing. The SmMITT (n = 41) and MITT (n = 31) populations had similar baseline characteristics, including sex, age, illness severity, and renal function. In both analysis populations, favorable overall response rates in the IMI-REL treatment group were >70%. Favorable clinical response rates at day 28 were 71.4% for IMI-REL and 40.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 75.0% for IMI-REL and 53.8% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. Day 28 all-cause mortality rates were 9.5% for IMI-REL and 30.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 10.7% for IMI-REL and 23.1% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. The outcomes in the SmMITT population were generally consistent with those in the mMITT population, suggesting that outcomes may be applicable to the real-world use of IMI-REL for treating infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative pathogens. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02452047.).

Trichodysplasia spinulosa: Case reports and review of literature.

Trichodysplasia spinulosa (TS) is a rare skin condition caused by trichodysplasia spinulosa-associated polyomavirus (TSPyV). It affects immunosuppressed patients, and <50 cases have been reported. The majority of these cases are seen in solid organ transplant recipients. TS often poses a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge because of its rarity and resemblance with other skin conditions. Several forms of treatment are usually tried prior to establishing a definitive diagnosis. Oral valganciclovir and topical cidofovir have been found to give the best results and hence are the most commonly used agents once the diagnosis is established. Here, we present two cases with a review of literature of TS in solid organ transplant recipients, focusing on time to develop the condition post-transplant, immunosuppression regimen used, and treatment initiated both before and after a definitive diagnosis.

BAD BUGS, NO DRUGS 2002-2020: PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND CALL TO ACTION.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires a multifaceted response via a One Health approach. Antibiotics make procedures including joint replacement, transplantation, cancer chemotherapy, and premature newborn care possible. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 2 million Americans are infected and >35,900 die from AMR, costing over $20 billion/year. Projections are that this will increase to 350 million cumulative AMR deaths by 2050. In its 2004 report entitled "Bad Bugs, No Drugs: As Antibiotic R&D Stagnates, A Public Health Crisis Brews," the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) raised alarm and proposed solutions. In the face of decreasing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals and several program failures, scientific collaboration and regulatory innovation led to updated guidance for common, life-threatening infections. The IDSA and others worked to advance policies for discovery and development of drugs for the most resistant infections. Successes include legislation and public-private partnerships that provide push incentives. Need exists for pull incentives; several models are currently being explored.

Considerations for Clinical Trials of Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infection in Adults.

Clinical trials for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (SAB) are broadly grouped into 2 categories: registrational trials intended to support regulatory approval of antibiotics for the treatment of SAB and strategy trials intended to inform clinicians on the best treatment options for SAB among existing antibiotics. Both types of SAB trials are urgently needed but have been limited by cost, complexity, and regulatory uncertainty. Here, we review key SAB trial design considerations for investigators, sponsors, and regulators.

Drug Use and Postoperative Mortality Following Valve Surgery for Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis (IE) often requires surgical intervention. An increasingly common cause of IE is injection drug use (IDU-IE). There is conflicting evidence on whether postoperative mortality differs between people with IDU-IE and people with IE from etiologies other than injection drug use (non-IDU-IE). In this manuscript, we compare short-term postoperative mortality in IDU-IE vs non-IDU-IE through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Publication databases were queried for key terms included in articles up to September 2017. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohorts, or retrospective cohorts that reported on 30-day mortality or in-hospital/operative mortality following valve surgery and that compared outcomes between IDU-IE and non-IDU-IE were included. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1593 patients (n = 341 [21.4%] IDU-IE) were included in the meta-analysis. IDU-IE patients more frequently had tricuspid valve infection, Staphylococcus infection, and heart failure before surgery. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in 30-day postsurgical mortality or in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differing preoperative clinical characteristics, early postoperative mortality does not differ between IDU-IE and non-IDU-IE patients who undergo valve surgery. Future research on long-term outcomes following valve replacement is needed to identify opportunities for improved healthcare delivery with IDU-IE.