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.

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.

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.

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.

A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

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.

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.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Persistent Methicilin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Resetting the Clock for Optimal Management.

A positive follow-up blood culture for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) while on seemingly appropriate therapy is a common and ominous development. However, the definition and management of persistent MRSA bacteremia is unstandardized. In this Opinion Paper, we identify the presence of bacteremia for > 1 calendar day as a "worry point" that should trigger an intensive diagnostic evaluation to identify metastatic infection sites. Next, we define the duration of MRSA bacteremia that likely constitutes antibiotic failure and outline a potential management algorithm for such patients. Finally, we propose pragmatic clinical trial designs to test treatment strategies for persistent MRSA bacteremia.

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.

Determination of plasma protein binding of dalbavancin.

OBJECTIVES: Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with a long half-life, making it a promising treatment for infections requiring prolonged therapy, such as complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Free drug concentration is a critical consideration with prolonged treatment, since free concentration-time profiles may best correlate with therapeutic effect. In support of future clinical trials, we aimed to develop a reliable and reproducible assay for measuring free dalbavancin concentrations. METHODS: The ultracentrifugation technique was used to determine free dalbavancin concentrations in plasma at two concentrations (50 and 200 mg/L) in duplicate. Centrifuge tubes and pipette tips were treated for 24 h before use with Tween 80 to assess adsorption. Dalbavancin concentrations were analysed from the plasma samples (total) and middle layer samples (free) by LC/MS/MS with isotopically labelled internal standard. Warfarin served as a positive control with known high protein binding. RESULTS: Measurement of free dalbavancin was sensitive to adsorption onto plastic. Treatment of tubes and pipette tips with ≥2% Tween 80 effectively prevented drug loss during protein binding experiments. By the ultracentrifugation method, dalbavancin's protein binding was estimated to be approximately 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Dalbavancin has very high protein binding. Given dalbavancin's high protein binding, accurate measurement of free dalbavancin concentrations should be a key consideration in future exposure-response studies, especially clinical trials. Future investigations should confirm if the active fraction is best predicted by the free or total fraction.

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.

Patients' Experiences With Staphylococcus aureus and Gram-negative Bacterial Bloodstream Infections: A Qualitative Descriptive Study and Concept Elicitation Phase To Inform Measurement of Patient-reported Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Although Staphylococcus aureus and gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infections (SAB/GNB) cause substantial morbidity, little is known regarding patient perceptions' of their impact on quality of life (QOL). Guidance for assessing QOL and disease-specific measures are lacking. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study to gain an in-depth understanding of patients' experiences with SAB/GNB and concept elicitation phase to inform a patient-reported QOL outcome measure. METHODS: We conducted prospective one-time, in-depth, semi-structured, individual, qualitative telephone interviews 6- 8 weeks following bloodstream infection with either SAB or GNB. Patients were enrolled in an institutional registry (tertiary academic medical center) for SAB or GNB. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Directed content analysis identified a priori and emergent themes. Theme matrix techniques were used to facilitate analysis and presentation. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 30 patients with SAB and 31 patients with GNB. Most patients were at or near the end of intravenous antibiotic treatment when interviewed. We identified 3 primary high-level concepts: impact on QOL domains, time as a critical index, and sources of variability across patients. Across both types of bloodstream infection, the QOL domains most impacted were physical and functional, which was particularly evident among patients with SAB. CONCLUSIONS: SAB/GNB impact QOL among survivors. In particular, SAB had major impacts on multiple QOL domains. A combination of existing, generic measures that are purposefully selected and disease-specific items, if necessary, could best capture these impacts. Engaging patients as stakeholders and obtaining their feedback is crucial to conducting patient-centered clinical trials and providing patient-centered care.

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.

The Emperor's New Clothes: PRospective Observational Evaluation of the Association Between Initial VancomycIn Exposure and Failure Rates Among ADult HospitalizEd Patients With Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections (PROVIDE).

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is the most commonly administered antibiotic in hospitalized patients, but optimal exposure targets remain controversial. To clarify the therapeutic exposure range, this study evaluated the association between vancomycin exposure and outcomes in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter (n = 14), observational study of 265 hospitalized adults with MRSA bacteremia treated with vancomycin. The primary outcome was treatment failure (TF), defined as 30-day mortality or persistent bacteremia ≥7 days. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI). The study was powered to compare TF between patients who achieved or did not achieve day 2 area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) thresholds previously found to be associated with lower incidences of TF. The thresholds, analyzed separately as co-primary endpoints, were AUC/MIC by broth microdilution ≥650 and AUC/MIC by Etest ≥320. RESULTS: Treatment failure and AKI occurred in 18% and 26% of patients, respectively. Achievement of the prespecified day 2 AUC/MIC thresholds was not associated with less TF. Alternative day 2 AUC/MIC thresholds associated with lower TF risks were not identified. A relationship between the day 2 AUC and AKI was observed. Patients with day 2 AUC ≤515 experienced the best global outcomes (no TF and no AKI). CONCLUSIONS: Higher vancomycin exposures did not confer a lower TF risk but were associated with more AKI. The findings suggest that vancomycin dosing should be guided by the AUC and day 2 AUCs should be ≤515. As few patients had day 2 AUCs <400, further study is needed to define the lower bound of the therapeutic range.

Early Oral Antibiotic Switch for Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Many Are Called, but Few Are Chosen.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a complicated, high-risk disease. For selected low-risk SAB, the role of oral antibiotic stepdown therapy is unknown. Bupha-Intr et al. report a retrospective cohort of low-risk SAB patients who did well with a short duration of intravenous antibiotics, followed by an additional ∼10 days of oral antibiotics, primarily using beta-lactams. Prospective trials will help further define the efficacy of this approach.