Search

Background Although a short course (7 days) of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be noninferior to a conventional course (14 days) in terms of mortality and infectious complications for patients with a Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection (GNB), it is unknown whether a shorter treatment duration can provide a better overall clinical outcome. Methods We applied a bloodstream infection-specific desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis to the results of a previously completed, randomized controlled trial comparing short versus conventional course antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with uncomplicated GNB. We determined the probability that a randomly selected participant in the short course group would have a more desirable overall outcome than a participant in the conventional duration group. We performed (1) partial credit analyses allowing for calculated and variable weighting of DOOR ranks and (2) subgroup analyses to elucidate which patients may benefit the most from short durations of therapy. Results For the 604 patients included in the original study (306 short course, 298 conventional course), the probability of having a more desirable outcome with a short course of antibiotics compared with a conventional course was 51.1% (95% confidence interval, 46.7% to 55.4%), indicating no significant difference. Partial credit analyses indicated that the DOOR results were similar across different patient preferences. Prespecified subgroup analyses using DOOR did not reveal significant differences between short and conventional courses of therapy. Conclusions Both short and conventional durations of antibiotic therapy provide comparable clinical outcomes when using DOOR to consider benefits and risks of treatment options for GNB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We previously conducted a concept elicitation study on the impact of S taphylococcus aureus and gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infections (SAB/GNB) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the patient's perspective and found significant impacts on HRQoL, particularly in the physical and functional domains. Using this information and following guidance on the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, we determined which combination of measures and items (ie, specific questions) would be most appropriate in a survey assessing HRQoL in bloodstream infections. Methods We selected a variety of measures/items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) representing different domains. We purposefully sampled patients ~6–12 weeks post-SAB/GNB and conducted 2 rounds of cognitive interviews to refine the survey by exploring patients' understanding of items and answer selection as well as relevance for capturing HRQoL. Results We interviewed 17 SAB/GNB patients. Based on the first round of cognitive interviews (n = 10), we revised the survey. After round 2 of cognitive interviewing (n = 7), we finalized the survey to include 10 different PROMIS short forms/measures of the most salient HRQoL domains and 2 adapted questions (41 items total) that were found to adequately capture HRQoL. Conclusions We developed a survey from well-established PRO measures that captures what matters most to SAB/GNB patients as they recover. This survey, uniquely tailored to bloodstream infections, can be used to assess these meaningful, important HRQoL outcomes in clinical trials and in patient care. Engaging patients is crucial to developing treatments for bloodstream infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]