Search

Recent observational studies have suggested possible reductions in mortality in patients receiving cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins. We examined 90-day mortality in patients receiving cefazolin compared to nafcillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bloodstream infection (BSI). We identified persons with MSSA BSI admitted to San Francisco General Hospital from January 2008 to July 2013 through a hospital-wide infection surveillance system and confirmed 90-day mortality using U.S. national vital registries. We included persons receiving cefazolin or nafcillin as the predominant intravenous antimicrobial agent; all participants received inpatient Infectious Diseases service consultation. We estimated the association between receipt of cefazolin and 90-day risk of death by multivariate logistic regression, including a propensity score for receiving cefazolin as the second predictor. Of 230 MSSA BSI cases, 30 received nafcillin and 70 received cefazolin as the predominant antimicrobial; 10 died within 90 days, 5 from each group. Unadjusted analysis showed substantial but not statistically significant reduced odds of death in those receiving cefazolin (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 1.44). Multivariate analysis with propensity scores found a similar adjusted odds ratio (0.40; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.74; P = 0.22). We found a large reduction in 90-day mortality in those receiving cefazolin compared to nafcillin for MSSA BSI, but this finding was not statistically significant. The magnitude of effect seen in this and other studies justifies further study.

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. V. G. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Roche, grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius; Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen; Royalties from UpToDate, stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio, Honoraria from Infectious Diseases of America for his service as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases, and a patent sepsis diagnostics pending. H. W. B. reports royalties to author from Sanford Guide; editorial consulting fees from Sanford Guide, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy/ASM, ID Clinics of North America/Elsevier; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Grand Rounds at Temple; IDWeek lecture travel support from Finland Award; role as PACCARB Voting Member (travel reimbursed) and on Board of Trustees, College of the Holy Cross (travel reimbursed). T. H. reports grants or contracts from Aceragen; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma US and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Cancer and Chemotherapy KK. S. R. E. reports NCI/NIH grant, NHLBI/NIH grant, CDC grant, and grants or contracts from Degruyter (Editor-in-Chief: Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); book royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickenson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, IDDI; honorarium from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), and payment or honorarium for travel from Liver Forum and Paris NASH Meeting; support for attending meetings and/or travel from FDA (honorarium); paid participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for NIH, BARDA, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, Abbvie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, Novartis; unpaid Board member for American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. J. H. A. reports grant funding to institution for work unrelated to this from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); support for speaking at SHEA Spring Conference from SHEA. S. N. reports support for travel to meetings is supported by my employer, Johnson and Johnson; stocks in J&J, author's employer. T. H. reports grant from NIH to Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group and grants or contracts from Karius for Adjudication committee; royalties or licenses from UpToDate; consulting fees from Aridis, Pfizer, Lysovant, Affinivax, Basilea, Concert Genetics; participation on Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial and Spero and on Advisory Board for Basilea and Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI). S. B. D. reports grants or contracts to University of California San Francisco (UCSF) from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID/NIH; consulting fees to author from Genentech and Janssen/J + J; support for travel to speak at IDWeek from Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); patent US20100143379A1 for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses thereof; leadership or fiduciary roles on IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, CADPH HAI Advisory Committee, Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram Positive Committee, Immunosuppressed Host Group; payment for clinical events committee/adjudication committee participation from Shinogi, Basilea, Duke Clinical Research Institute. H. C. reports stock or stock options from Merck and Moderna; membership of DSMB for COVID antiviral RCT for Merck. D. C. reports grants or contracts from Duke University for COMET study (cancer) Patient Leadership Group, from UCSF for STORMing Cancer Patient Advocate Team, and from MD Anderson for PRECISION Patient Advisory Involvement Panel; consulting fees for ongoing projects from SimBioSys and MaxisHealth, from Health Literacy Media (HLM) for Patient Advisor for ongoing projects, and from Appelis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for consulting/project ended in 12/2022 and from Kinnate Biopharma for consulting/project ended in 06/2022; honoraria and travel support from HMP Education; support for travel from Agile Falcon Strategic Group, DGE Events, and Informa; participation on DSMB for American Society for Clinical Oncology and on Patient Partner Council for Evidera; a role on Executive Group for Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance and a role as committee member for Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; receitp of manuscript writing support from IQVIA through Regeneron. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide meaningful knowledge of drug-related adverse events (AEs) that are not captured in standard drug development and postmarketing surveillance. Using variables obtained from EHR data in the University of California San Francisco de-identified Clinical Data Warehouse, we aimed to evaluate the potential of machine learning to predict two hematological AEs, thrombocytopenia and anemia, in a cohort of patients treated with linezolid for 3 or more days. Features for model input were extracted at linezolid initiation (index), and outcomes were characterized from index to 14 days post-treatment. Random forest classification (RFC) was used for AE prediction, and reduced feature models were evaluated using cumulative importance (cImp) for feature selection. Grade 3+ thrombocytopenia and anemia occurred in 31% of 2,171 and 56% of 2,170 evaluable patients, respectively. Of the total 53 features, as few as 7 contributed at least 50% cImp, resulting in prediction accuracies of 70% or higher and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.886 for grade 3+ thrombocytopenia and 0.759 for grade 3+ anemia. Sensitivity analyses in strictly defined patient subgroups revealed similarly high predictive performance in full and reduced feature models. A logistic regression model with the same 50% cImp features showed similar predictive performance as RFC and good concordance with RFC probability predictions after isotonic calibration, adding interpretability. Collectively, this work demonstrates potential for machine learning prediction of AE risk in real-world patients using few variables regularly available in EHRs, which may aid in clinical decision making and/or monitoring., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: The ACTT risk profile, which was developed from ACTT-1 (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1), demonstrated that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the high-risk quartile (characterized by low absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], high absolute neutrophil count [ANC], and low platelet count at baseline) benefited most from treatment with the antiviral remdesivir. It is unknown which patient characteristics are associated with benefit from treatment with the immunomodulator baricitinib., Objective: To apply the ACTT risk profile to the ACTT-2 cohort to investigate potential baricitinib-related treatment effects by risk quartile., Design: Post hoc analysis of ACTT-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04401579)., Setting: Sixty-seven trial sites in 8 countries., Participants: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 ( n = 999; 85% U.S. participants)., Intervention: Baricitinib+remdesivir versus placebo+remdesivir., Measurements: Mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, and recovery, all within 28 days; ALC, ANC, and platelet count trajectories., Results: In the high-risk quartile, baricitinib+remdesivir was associated with reduced risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86]; P = 0.020), decreased progression to IMV or death (HR, 0.57 [CI, 0.35 to 0.93]; P = 0.024), and improved recovery rate (HR, 1.53 [CI, 1.16 to 2.02]; P = 0.002) compared with placebo+remdesivir. After 5 days, participants receiving baricitinib+remdesivir had significantly larger increases in ALC and significantly larger decreases in ANC compared with control participants, with the largest effects observed in the high-risk quartile., Limitation: Secondary analysis of data collected before circulation of current SARS-CoV-2 variants., Conclusion: The ACTT risk profile identifies a subgroup of hospitalized patients who benefit most from baricitinib treatment and captures a patient phenotype of treatment response to an immunomodulator and an antiviral. Changes in ALC and ANC trajectory suggest a mechanism whereby an immunomodulator limits severe COVID-19., Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-2593.

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. H. W. B. declares consulting fees from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy/American Society for Microbiology (ASM), Sanford Guide, and ID Clinics of North America/Elsevier; royalties from Sanford Guide; payment or honoraria from Grand Rounds at Temple; Finland Award for IDWeek Lecture travel; and role with travel reimbursed as Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB) Voting Member and Board of Trustees, College of the Holy Cross. D. C. reports honoraria from ARLG, SimBioSys, AstraZeneca, Apellis Pharmaceutical, Kinnate Biopharma, MaxisIT Clinical Sciences, Pfizer, Parexel, Health Literacy Media, Incyte, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and Aster Insights, all unrelated to this work; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Incyte, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Kinnate Biopharma, Maxis Health, Parexel, Health Literacy Media (nonprofit), and SimBioSys; reimbursement for personal expenses for attending meetings and/or travel from Aster Insights and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); participation with honorarium to author on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) or advisory board for ASCO; a role as unpaid volunteer for the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance; and a role with honorarium to author from ORIEN Patient Advisory Council. H. F. C. reports grant funding from NIH; royalties from Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy; payment from The George Washington University for ID board review course lectures; participation in a DSMB for Merck; and stock in Merck and Moderna. S. B. D. reports research funding for clinical research studies from Gilead, Regeneron, Pfizer, F2G, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Biohub, and NIH/NIAID; payments for clinical event adjudication committees from Basilea, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Shionogi; a patent pending for Mif agonists (patent US20100143379A1); money for travel to conference from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); and consulting fees from Genentech and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J); and leadership or fiduciary roles with IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, California Department of Public Health Healthcare Associated Infections Advisory Committee, and the ARLG Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram Positive Committee, and Immunosuppressed Host Group. S. R. E. reports grant funding from NIH (NIAID, National Cancer Institute, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and De Gruyter (Editor-in-Chief of Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genetech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, J&J, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickenson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and IDDI; payments from lectures from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); support for attending meetings from FDA; and participation on DSMBs for NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouous, Appelis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Candel, Novartis, and Advantagene; and being an unpaid board member for the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, ContraFect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, and Roche; grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, ContraFect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from IDSA for his service as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; and a patent pending in sepsis diagnostics. H. L.-T. is an employee of Pfizer and holds stock in Pfizer. C. H. receives stock dividends from GlaxoSmithKline. T. L. H. declares grant funding from NIH and Karius; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Affinivax, Lysovant, Aridis, and Pfizer; and participation on DSMB for platform trial for SNAP Trial and advisory board for Basilea. J. H.-A. reports grant funding from NIH and CDC; and payment from IDSA (reviewing IDSA/Clinical Infectious Diseases supplement), ARLG (for speaking at IDWeek dinner and Texas Medical Center Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference conference), and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) (for speaking at SHEA Spring Conference). S. N. is an employee of J&J and holds stock in J&J; received support for travel to meetings paid by employer; and participated as unpaid member of a scientific advisory committee of Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare none.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASP) improve individual patient outcomes and clinical care processes while reducing antimicrobial-associated adverse events, optimizing operational priorities, and providing institutional cost savings. ASP composition, resources required, and priority focuses are influenced by myriad factors. Despite robust evidence and broad national support, individual ASPs still face challenges in obtaining appropriate resources. Though understanding the current landscape of ASP resource allocation, factors influencing staffing needs, and strategies required to obtain desired resources is important, acceptance of recommended staffing levels and appropriate ASP resource allocation are much needed to facilitate ASP sustainability and growth across the complex and diverse health care continuum., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) carries a high risk for excess morbidity and mortality. Despite its prevalence, significant practice variation continues to permeate clinical management of this syndrome. Since the publication of the 2011 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, the field of SAB has evolved with the emergence of newer diagnostic strategies and therapeutic options. In this review, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the evaluation and management of SAB, with special focus on areas where the highest level of evidence is lacking to inform best practices., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. D. J. M. reports payment from the Antimicrobial Resistance Leadership Group for participation in a systematic review and travel support from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), ID Division to attend IDWeek. H. F. C. reports an institutional grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH/NIAID) for the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (UM1AI104681); royalties earned as editor for The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy; payment for expert testimony in a patent dispute for Nexus Pharmaceuticals and a product liability case for Eli Lilly; support from Merck for participation in a Data and Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board; and stock in Moderna and Merck (spouse's IRA). S. B. D. reports funding for clinical research studies from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID; personal consulting fees from Genentech and Janssen/J+J; travel support from IDSA to speak at IDWeek; a patent for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses (US20100143379A1); roles on the IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, CADPH HAI Advisory Committee, Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram Positive Committee, and Immunosuppressed Host Group; and compensation for clinical events committee participation from Shinogi, Basilea, and Duke Clinical Research Institute. A. A. reports no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The advancement of infectious disease diagnostics, along with studies devoted to infections caused by gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, is a top scientific priority of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases are rapidly evolving and improving. However, the availability of rapid tests designed to determine antibacterial resistance or susceptibility directly in clinical specimens remains limited, especially for gram-negative organisms. Additionally, the clinical impact of many new tests, including an understanding of how best to use them to inform optimal antibiotic prescribing, remains to be defined. This review summarizes the recent work of the ARLG toward addressing these unmet needs in the diagnostics field and describes future directions for clinical research aimed at curbing the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support from the ARLG of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID; UM1AI104681). K. E. H. reports holding leadership roles with ARLG as the Diagnostics Committee Chair and Study Principal Investigator (PI), the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) as an advisor, Journal of Clinical Microbiology (JCM) as a Mycology Section Editor, and Clinical Infectious Diseases as a Deputy Editor. S. B. D. reports grants or contracts from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID/NIH; consulting fees from Genentech and Janssen/J+J; support from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for travel to speak at IDWeek; patent US20100143379A1 for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses thereof; leadership on the IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, Healthcare-Associated Infection Advisory Committee for the California Department of Public Health, Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Innovations Group, ARLG Laboratory Center, ARLG Mentorship Committee, ARLG Gram-positive Committee, and ARLG Immunosuppressed Host Group; and payment to her institution from Shinogi, Basilea, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute for clinical events committee/adjudication committee participation. S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID/NIH, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Degruter (Editor-in-Chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and SVB Leerink; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the US Food and Drug Administration, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; and board member participation for the NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, Abbvie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, Novartis, American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. M. J. S. reports grants and contracts from Merck, Biomerieux, SNIPRBiome, and Selux Diagnostics; consulting fees from Shionogi; and participation on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie. P. J. S. reports grants or contracts from BD Diagnostics, T2 Diagnostics, OpGen, Inc, Affinity Biosensors, and Qiagen Sciences, Inc; consulting fees from OpGen, Inc, Entasis, BD Diagnostics, Merck, Qiagen Sciences, Inc, and Shionogi; payment or honoraria from GenMark Dx, OpGen, Inc, and BD Diagnostics; leadership on the ARLG Diagnostics Committee, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee, and College of American Pathologists Microbiology Committee; and stock in GeneCapture. R. P. reports grants or contracts from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, BIOFIRE, and Adaptive Phage Therapeutics; a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics through the Mayo Clinic; consulting fees from PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, HealthTrackRx, Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, Trellis Bioscience, Inc, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and CARB-X; honoraria from the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis polymerase chain reaction (PCR) issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued; and a financial relationship with Pathogenomix through the Mayo Clinic. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report funding support from the ARLG of the NIH and the NIAID (UM1AI104681). S. B. D. reports grants or contracts paid to her institution from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID/NIH; consulting fees paid directly to her from Genentech and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J); travel and meeting support from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) to speak at IDWeek; a patent (US20100143379A1) for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses thereof; a leadership role on the IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, California Department of Public Health Hospital Acquired Infections Advisory Committee, and ARLG Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram-positive Committee, and Immunosuppressed Host Group; and payment directly to her for clinical events committee/adjudication committee participation from Shionogi, Basilea, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute.D. R. A. reports funding support from ContraFect and a leadership role on the ARLG Gram-positive Committee. A. B. reports funding support from the ARLG Early Faculty Seedling Award (NIAID UM1AI104681) and consulting fees from Roche. H. W. B. reports royalties from the Sanford Guide; consulting fees from the Sanford Guide, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy/American Society for Microbiology (ASM), and ID Clinics of North America/Elsevier; honoraria for Grand Rounds at Temple University; travel and meeting support for an IDWeek Lecture; membership as a voting member on the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; and membership on the Board of Trustees at the College of the Holy Cross. B. C. reports grants or contracts paid to his institution from Moderna Vaccines and Merck Vaccines; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Cowen Investments, Pfizer, Moderna, GSK, and Sanofi; payment as a medicolegal expert with multiple law firms; participation on the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) or advisory board for Affinivax and GSK; and a leadership role as president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. S. E. C. reports grants or contracts paid to her institution from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); consulting fees paid directly to her from the Duke Clinical Research Institute; participation on a DSMB for Debiopharm; and leadership roles as a board member of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases and Globarl Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership North America (GARDP-NA). S. R. E. reports grants from the NIAID/NIH and De Gruyter (Editor-in-Chief for Statistical Communications in Infectious Diseases); royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, J&J, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roviant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), SVB Leerink, Medtronic, Regeneron, Wake Forest University, Recor, Janssen, and IDDI; payments from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the FDA, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; board member participation for the NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, Advantagene, Candel, and Novartis; and board positions with the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports personal consulting fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, ContraFect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer; grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, ContraFect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the IDSA for his service as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; travel support from ContraFect to the 2019 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID); and a sepsis diagnostics patent pending. S. A. F. reports grant or contracts from NIH (P50HD103525, U01AL116400, R21AI176063) and AHRQ (R01 HS024269), honoraria from ARLG, and provision of Clorox wipes for a clinical research study. B. J. K. reports grants from CDC and NIAID; honoraria from ARLG; and leadership roles in the CDC Microbiome Working Group, IDSA Journal Club, and ARLG. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma and honoraria from Duke University and Cancer and Chemo Therapy. T. P. L. reports grants paid to his institution from Wockhardt; grants paid directly to him from Paratek, Cidara, Biofire Diagnostics, and Merck; payment directly to him for lectures from Shionogi, Ferring, Seres, and Melinta; consulting fees paid directly to him from AbbVie, Cidara Therapeutics, Ferring, ICPD, Genentech, J&J, Melinta, Merck, Roche, Shionogi, Spero, Venatrox, La Jolla, Seres, Paratek, GSK, and DoseMe; and payment for the development of educational presentations from the Mayo Clinic. L. G. M. reports grants or contracts from Merck, ContraFect, Paratek, Medline, and GSK. J. M. M. reports grants from Asociación Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico FONDECYT (grant number 1211947). B. S. reports advisory board fees paid directly to him from Basilia. T. T. T. reports grants from NIH paid to her institution; travel and meeting support from IDSA; and a leadership role on the IDWeek Planning Committee and a role as a Gulf Coast Consortium Cluster Reviewer (both unpaid). N. A. T. reports grants from CDC and PDI, Inc; and consulting fees from Techspert. D. J. W. reports grants paid to his institution from CDC and NIH/NIAID; a leadership role on the IDSA Childhood Pneumonia Guidelines Committee; and receipt of equipment from bioMérieux for procalcitonin assays for an observational study. T. L. H. reports grants from Karius and NIH; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Aridis, Pfizer, Lysovant, and Affinivax; and participation on a DSMB for the SNAP Trial and the advisory board for Basilea. C. A. A. reports grant funding to their institution from NIH/NIAID (1 Po1 AI152999, R01AI148342, R01 AI346337, T32 AI141349, K24 Ai121296, U19 AI44297, R01 AI150685, and R21 AI151536), MeMed Diagnostics Ltd, Entasis Therapeutics, Merck Pharmaceuticals, and Harris County Public Health; royalties paid to them from UpToDate; reimbursement from IDSA for attending IDWeek as a speaker and part of the organizing committee; reimbursement from ASM to attend ASM Microbe as a speaker; reimbursement from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) to attend SHEA as a speaker; reimbursement from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases to attend ECCMID as a speaker; reimbursement from Mérieux Foundation to attend ICARE course as faculty; reimbursement from Sociedad Chilea de Infectiologia, Sociedad Colombiana de Infectologia, Pan American Society for Infectious Diseases, and Brazilian Society for Infectious Diseases to attend the annual meeting and act as a speaker; was an unpaid participant on a DSMB with the World Health Organization and Antibacterial Pipeline Advisory Group; received payment for participation with the NIH Grant Review Study Sections; was a voluntary member of the board of directors of IDSA; and is the Editor-in-Chief of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. B. E. M. reports royalties from UpToDate for online chapters; consulting fees from JRD, LLC (J&J), PPD Development, LP (GSK0 and Basilea Pharmaceutical International Ltd); participation on a DSMB with NIH Therapeutic and Prevention; and held the position of Governor of the Academy with the American Academy of Microbiology. C. L. reports grant payments to their institutions from NIAID/NIH (1R01AI151038-01) and Pfizer. M. H. S. reports advisory board fees from DoseMe; consulting fees from GSK and Entasis; and has an issued patent US10688195B2. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is undermining modern medicine, a problem compounded by bacterial adaptation to antibiotic pressures. Phages are viruses that infect bacteria. Their diversity and evolvability offer the prospect of their use as a therapeutic solution. Reported are outcomes of customized phage therapy for patients with difficult-to-treat antimicrobial resistant infections., Methods: We retrospectively assessed 12 cases of customized phage therapy from a phage production center. Phages were screened, purified, sequenced, characterized, and Food and Drug Administration-approved via the IND (investigational new drug) compassionate-care route. Outcomes were assessed as favorable or unfavorable by microbiologic and clinical standards. Infections were device-related or systemic. Other experiences such as time to treatment, antibiotic synergy, and immune responses were recorded., Results: Fifty requests for phage therapy were received. Customized phages were generated for 12 patients. After treatment, 42% (5/12) of cases showed bacterial eradication and 58% (7/12) showed clinical improvement, with two-thirds of all cases (66%) showing favorable responses. No major adverse reactions were observed. Antibiotic-phage synergy in vitro was observed in most cases. Immunological neutralization of phages was reported in 5 cases. Several cases were complicated by secondary infections. Complete characterization of the phages (morphology, genomics, and activity) and their production (methods, sterility, and endotoxin tests) are reported., Conclusions: Customized phage production and therapy was safe and yielded favorable clinical or microbiological outcomes in two-thirds of cases. A center or pipeline dedicated to tailoring the phages against a patient's specific AMR bacterial infection may be a viable option where standard treatment has failed., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. B. W. T. reports grants or contracts, all paid to their institution, from VA Health Services Research & Development; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) R18; Craig H. Neilsen Foundation; Genentech; Peptilogics, Inc; AHRQ R01; Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt) VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) grant no. CIN 13-413, Bacteriophage to Treat Multidrug-Resistant UTI in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury (5I01RX002595-03); payment to the author for a George Washington ID Board Review Course; support for attending meetings and/or travel from the VA Office of Research and Development and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); unpaid participation on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Cooperative Studies Program #2004 VA. G. A. S. reports grants or contracts unrelated to this work from Adaptive Phage Therapeutics and Phagelux; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Wayne State University and SUNY Downstate; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Phage Futures, NIH/NIAID, International Committee of Military Medicine, University of Michigan, University of Pittsburgh, and Mayo Alumni Association; a leadership or fiduciary role on the Antimicrobial Resistance Leadership Group and Phagistry. S. A. reports research grants to their institution from Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Armata Pharmaceuticals, Adaptive Phage Therapeutics, Contrafect, NIAID/NIH, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)/NIH; consulting fees paid to the author from BioMx, and unpaid to the author from Phico; participation as a Medical Advisory Board member for Pherecydes Pharma; a role as an executive committee member for Infection Disease Community of Practice (unpaid) for the American Society of Transplantation and as Chair of the COVID-19 Task Force (unpaid) for the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation. S. B. D. reports grants or contracts to the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) from Gilead, Pfizer, F2G, Regeneron, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and NIAID/NIH; consulting fees to the author from Genentech and Janssen/J+J; support for travel to speak at IDWeek from the IDSA; patent US20100143379A1 for Mif agonists and antagonist and therapeutic uses thereof; a leadership or fiduciary role on the IDSA Antibacterial Resistance Committee, CADPH HAI Advisory Committee and Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations Group, Laboratory Center, Mentorship Committee, Gram Positive Commitee, Immunosuppressed Host Group; payment to the author for clinical events committee/adjudication committee participation from Shinogi, Basilea, and Duke Clinical Research Institute. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. H. W. B. declares consulting fees from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Sanford Guide, and ID Clinics of North America. H. C. reports grant funding from the NIH; participation in a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) for Merck; and stock in Merck and Moderna. D. C. reports grant funding from Apellis Pharmaceuticals, CRUK Cancer Grand Challenges, Kinnate Biopharma, and Incyte; consulting fees from Health Literacy Media and MaxisIT Clinical Science; payment for expert panel session from Pfizer; participation on a patient advisory council and travel support for meetings from M2GEN; and participation in the American Society of Clinical Oncology TAPUR Study DSMB and Parexel patient advisory council. S. B. D. reports grant funding from NIH; grant funding for COVID-19–related clinical trials from Gilead and Regeneron; payments for clinical event adjudication committees from Basilea and Shinogi; and consulting fees from Genentech. S. E. reports grant funding from NIH, Degruyter, and Aceragen; royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genetech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickinson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, and SVB Leerink; payments for lectures from the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); support for attending meetings from FDA, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, and Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; participation on DSMB for NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouous, Appelis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, and Candel; and board membership for the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports grant funding or contracts from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genetech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, and Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genetech, Achaogen, Affinium, The Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer; support from Contrafect to present phase 2 data at 2019 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; a patent for sepsis diagnostics; serving as Associate Editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases in 2017–2022; and stock options from ArcBio and Valanbio. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma K.K; a contract from Aceragen; payment for lectures from Duke University and Johnson & Johnson K.K.; and payment for manuscript preparation from Cancer and Chemotherapy K.K. (Japanese Journal of Cancer and Chemotherapy). T. L. H. reports grant funding from NIH; royalties from UpToDate; consulting fees from Lysovant and Affinivax; and participation on DSMB for SNAP Trial Platform. J. H.-A. reports grant funding from NIH. S. N. is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. U. W. reports support from the American Society for Microbiology to attend ASM Microbe 2022 as a speaker. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

Background: A guideline identifying when inpatients with penicillin or cephalosporin antibiotic allergy labels (PCAAL) can receive β-lactam antibiotics increased β-lactam receipt at a large northeastern US health care system., Objective: To report outcomes of implementing a similar guideline and electronic order set (OS) at an independent academic health care system., Methods: Penicillin/cephalosporin receipt (percentage of inpatients receiving full doses) and alternative antibiotic use (days of therapy per 1000 patient-days [DOT/1000PD]) were compared over 3 periods before (February 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018) and after guideline implementation (February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019), and after OS implementation (February 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020) among inpatients with PCAAL admitted on medical services with access to guideline/OS and education (Medical-PCAAL, n = 8721), surgical services with access to guideline/OS without education (Surgical-PCAAL, n = 5069), and obstetrics/gynecology services without interventions (Ob/Gyn-PCAAL, n = 798) and inpatients without PCAAL admitted on the same services (Medical-No-PCAAL, n = 50,840; Surgical-No-PCAAL, n = 29,845; Ob/Gyn-No-PCAAL, n = 6109). χ 2 tests were used to compare categorical variables, and analysis of variance was used to compare continuous and interrupted time series analyses (ITSA) to investigate the guideline/OS implementation effect on penicillin/cephalosporin receipt., Results: In the Medical-PCAAL group, penicillin/cephalosporin receipt increased (58%-68%, P < .001), specifically for cefazolin (8%-11%, P = .02) and third- to fifth-generation cephalosporins (43%-48%, P = .04), and aztreonam use decreased (12 DOT/1000PD, P = .03). In the Medical-No-PCAAL group, penicillin/cephalosporin receipt increased (88%-90%, P = .004), specifically for penicillin (40%-44%, P < .001), without changes in aztreonam use. Significant changes were not observed in these outcomes on surgical or obstetrics/gynecology services. Per ITSA, guideline/OS implementation was associated with increased penicillin/cephalosporin receipt in the Medical-PCAAL group only., Conclusion: Guideline and OS implementation was associated with improved antibiotic stewardship on inpatient services that also received allergy education., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We report a case of a 53-year-old HIV-negative patient in San Francisco, California, USA, with no classic mpox prodromal symptoms or skin lesions who experienced fulminant, vision-threatening scleritis, keratitis, and uveitis. Deep sequence analysis identified monkeypox virus RNA in the aqueous humor. We confirmed the virus on the cornea and sclera by PCR.

Background: Large-scale wildfires in California, USA, are increasing in both size and frequency, with substantial health consequences. The capacity for wildfire smoke to displace microbes and cause clinically significant fungal infections is poorly understood. We aimed to determine whether exposure to wildfire smoke was associated with an increased risk of hospital admissions for systemic fungal infections., Methods: In this population-based, retrospective study, we used hospital administrative data from 22 hospitals in California, USA, to analyse the association between wildfire smoke exposure and monthly hospital admissions for aspergillosis and coccidioidomycosis. We included hospitals that were members of the Vizient Clinical Data Base or Resource Manager during the study and excluded those that did not have complete reporting into Vizient during the study period. Smoke exposure was estimated using satellite-imaged smoke plumes in the hospital county. Incident rate ratios were calculated for all infection types 1 month and 3 months after smoke exposure., Findings: Between Oct 1, 2014, and May 31, 2018, there were a median of 1638 annual admissions per hospital in the study sample. Individual patient demographics were not collected. We did not observe an association between smoke exposure and rate of hospital admission for aspergillosis. However, hospital admission for coccidioidomycosis increased by 20% (95% CI 5-38) in the month following any smoke exposure. Hospital admission increased by 2% (0-4) for every day that there had been smoke exposure in the previous month, after adjustment for temperature and temporal trend. Similar results were obtained with smoke exposure data from the 3 months before admission., Interpretation: In the months following wildfire smoke exposure, California hospitals saw increased coccidioidomycosis infections. Given the projected increase in California wildfires and their expansion in endemic territories of soil-dwelling fungi, the ability for wildfire smoke to carry microbes and cause human disease warrants further research., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Lack of a gold standard can present a challenge for evaluation of diagnostic test accuracy of some infectious diseases tests, particularly when the test's accuracy potentially exceeds that of its predecessors. This approach may measure agreement with an imperfect reference, rather than correctness, because the right answer is unknown. Solutions consist of multitest comparators, including those that involve a test under evaluation if multiple new tests are being evaluated together, using latent class modeling, and clinically adjudicated reference standards. Clinically adjudicated reference standards may be considered as comparator methods when no predefined test or composite of tests is sufficiently accurate; they emulate clinical practice in that multiple data pieces are clinically assessed together., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. V. G. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Novadigm, Durata, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., Cerexa, Tetraphase, Trius, MedImmune, Bayer, Theravance, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, xBiotech, Contrafect, Regeneron, Basilea, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche, and Pfizer; grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), MedImmune, Cerexa/Forest/Actavis/Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Cubist/Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Basilea, Janssen, from Green Cross, Cubist, Cerexa, Durata, Theravance, and Debiopharm. Royalties from UpToDate. V. G. F. also reports support for attending meetings and/or travel from Contrafect to present phase 2 data at 2019 ECCMID; patents planned, issued, or pending (Sepsis Diagnostics); a role as Associate Editor, Clinical Infectious Diseases (2017–2022); and stock or stock options from ArcBio and Valanbio. R. P. reports grants from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, and BioFire. R. P. is a consultant to Curetis, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, and Qvella; monies are paid to Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic and R. P. have a relationship with Pathogenomix. R. P. has research supported by Adaptive Phage Therapeutics. Mayo Clinic has a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics. R. P. is also a consultant to Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, and CARB-X. In addition, R. P. has a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis polymerase chain reaction issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an antibiofilm substance issued. R. P. receives honoraria from the NBME, Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course. E. L. T. reports grants or contracts from NIAID, DTRA, Sanofi, NIGMS, DARPA, Karius, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense. E. L. T. has patents issued or pending for methods for characterizing infections and methods for developing tests for the same; host based molecular signatures of human infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; transcriptional signature for candidemia, gene expression signature useful to predict or diagnose sepsis and methods of using the same; methods to diagnose and treat acute respiratory infections; and biomarkers for the molecular classification of bacterial infection; E. L. T. is an employee of Danaher Corp and previously received consulting fees from Biomeme and has stock or stock options for Biomeme and Danaher. S. R. E. reports grant support from NIH; a contract with DeGruyter; royalties from Taylor & Francis; honoraria from the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION); meeting support from the Food and Drug Administration, Deming Conference on Applied Statistics, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship Conference; unpaid board membership from the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, Frontier Science Foundation; consulting fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Dickenson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, and SVB Leerink; data and safety monitoring board or advisory board service for NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouos, Apellis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, Abbvie, GSK, Eli Lilly, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, and Advantagene/Candel. S. B. D. reports research funding related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from Gilead, Regeneron, Shinogi, and the NIH and non–COVID-19-related consulting and research funding from Genentech, Basilea, Shinogi, J + J, and the NIH; support for travel from IDSA, and patents issued (WO2006116688A3). All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. H. W. B. declares consulting fees from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Sanford Guide, and ID Clinics of North America. T. B. is an employee of and holds stock in Shionogi & Co and reports a nondisclosure agreement between Duke University and Shionogi (to share the analysis conducted by Shionogi with the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group [ARLG]). H. F. C. reports grant funding from NIH; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson; participation on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) for Merck; and stock in Merck and Moderna. S. B. D. reports research funding from Gilead, Regeneron, and NIH; payments for clinical event adjudication committees from Basilea and Shionogi (pending); and consulting fees from Genentech. S. R. E. reports grant funding from NIH and Degruyter; royalties from Taylor & Francis; consulting fees from Genetech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Microbiotix, Johnson & Johnson, Endologix, ChemoCentryx, Becton Bickenson, Atricure, Roivant, Neovasc, Nobel Pharma, Horizon, International Drug Development Institute, and SVB Leerink; payments for lectures from the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks; support for attending meetings from FDA, Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative, Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences, International Chinese Statistical Association, participation on DSMBs for NIH, Breast International Group, University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Akouous, Appelis, Teva, Vir, DayOneBio, Alexion, Tracon, Rakuten, AbbVie, Nuvelution, Clover, FHI Clinical, Lung Biotech, SAB Biopharm, and Advantagene; and being a board member for the American Statistical Association, Society for Clinical Trials, and Frontier Science Foundation. V. G. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co, MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics, C3J, Armata, Valanbio, Akagera, Aridis, Roche; grants from NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck, Medical Biosurfaces, Locus, Affinergy, Contrafect, Karius, Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen; royalties from UpToDate; stock options from Valanbio and ArcBio; honoraria from the Infectious Diseases of America for service as associate editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases; and a patent for sepsis diagnostics is pending. S. P. G. is an employee of Nabriva Therapeutics and holds stock in Nabriva Therapeutics. T. H. reports consulting fees from Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma and payment for lectures from Johnson & Johnson and Duke University. T. L. H. declares royalties from UpToDate and consulting fees from Basilea Pharmaceutica, MotifBio, Genentech, and Lysovant. D. M. is an employee of Nabriva Therapeutics and holds stock in Nabriva Therapeutics. S. N. is an employee of Johnson & Johnson and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. J. H.-A. report grants from NIH (funding to ARLG, payments made to institution). S. B. D. reports grants or contracts from NIH funding to the ARLG; research funding from Gilead, Regeneron, and NIH; payments for clinical event adjudication committees from Basilea and Shionogi (pending); and consulting fees from Genentech. All remaining authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. F. receives research funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID; U01AI138897) and Vatic Health Limited. S. B. D. serves as consultant for Johnson & Johnson, Basilea, Genentech, and Shionogi and receives research funding from Gilead, Regeneron, and NIAID (UM1AI104681). All other authors report no potential conflicts.

Background: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear., Objective: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial)., Design: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4])., Setting: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants)., Participants: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19., Intervention: SOC., Measurements: 28-day mortality and recovery., Results: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages., Limitation: Unmeasured confounding., Conclusion: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas., Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

We carried out integrated host and pathogen metagenomic RNA and DNA next generation sequencing (mNGS) of whole blood (n = 221) and plasma (n = 138) from critically ill patients following hospital admission. We assigned patients into sepsis groups on the basis of clinical and microbiological criteria. From whole-blood gene expression data, we distinguished patients with sepsis from patients with non-infectious systemic inflammatory conditions using a trained bagged support vector machine (bSVM) classifier (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.81 in the training set; AUC = 0.82 in a held-out validation set). Plasma RNA also yielded a transcriptional signature of sepsis with several genes previously reported as sepsis biomarkers, and a bSVM sepsis diagnostic classifier (AUC = 0.97 training set; AUC = 0.77 validation set). Pathogen detection performance of plasma mNGS varied on the basis of pathogen and site of infection. To improve detection of virus, we developed a secondary transcriptomic classifier (AUC = 0.94 training set; AUC = 0.96 validation set). We combined host and microbial features to develop an integrated sepsis diagnostic model that identified 99% of microbiologically confirmed sepsis cases, and predicted sepsis in 74% of suspected and 89% of indeterminate sepsis cases. In summary, we suggest that integrating host transcriptional profiling and broad-range metagenomic pathogen detection from nucleic acid is a promising tool for sepsis diagnosis., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2&#95; infections in healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical for healthcare delivery. We aimed to estimate and characterize the prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a US HCW cohort and to identify risk factors associated with infection., Methods: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of HCWs at 3 Bay Area medical centers using serial surveys and SARS-CoV-2 viral and orthogonal serological testing, including measurement of neutralizing antibodies. We estimated baseline prevalence and cumulative incidence of COVID-19. We performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations of baseline factors with incident infections and evaluated the impact of time-varying exposures on time to COVID-19 using marginal structural models., Results: A total of 2435 HCWs contributed 768 person-years of follow-up time. We identified 21 of 2435 individuals with prevalent infection, resulting in a baseline prevalence of 0.86% (95% confidence interval [CI], .53%-1.32%). We identified 70 of 2414 incident infections (2.9%), yielding a cumulative incidence rate of 9.11 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI, 7.11-11.52). Community contact with a known COVID-19 case was most strongly correlated with increased hazard for infection (hazard ratio, 8.1 [95% CI, 3.8-17.5]). High-risk work-related exposures (ie, breach in protective measures) drove an association between work exposure and infection (hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3-4.8). More cases were identified in HCWs when community case rates were high., Conclusions: We observed modest COVID-19 incidence despite consistent exposure at work. Community contact was strongly associated with infections, but contact at work was not unless accompanied by high-risk exposure., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . S. B. D. has received coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research funding from Gilead and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and has served as a consultant to and received non–COVID-19 research funding from Genentech, Basilea, and the NIH. G. W. R. has received grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the California Department of Public Health, has served as a consultant regarding adverse events for Moderna, and has provided expert declarations and depositions for the California Department of Justice. Y. M. has received funding from Pfizer (grants C3671008 and C4591007), the NIH (grants U54 MD010724, U54 MD010724-05S1, R21AI148810, P30AG059307, and 000522211-022), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant OPP1113682), and the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation (grant 12089sc); has served as an advisor for and received payment or honoraria from the American Academy of Pediatrics; and has served on a data safety monitoring board for Pfizer. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Current clinical trials of new antibiotics facilitate bringing new drugs to market but often fail to provide useful information for clinical decision making., Methods: Literature review of desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) in antibiotic clinical trials and description how DOOR can fit into design, administration, and assessment of clinical trials., Results: DOOR is an approach that addresses many of the shortcomings of current trials by incorporating efficacy and safety into a single outcome to analyze the patient experience in its entirety. Application of partial credit, tiebreaker strategies including response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR), and DOOR for Management of Antimicrobial Therapy (DOOR MAT) provides additional nuance and granularity. To address pitfalls of DOOR, investigators must develop the DOOR a priori, ideally with input from and incorporation of patient voices, and should perform component analysis to ensure that imbalances in key components are detected., Conclusion: Inclusion of DOOR in clinical trials will enrich our understanding of how new antibiotics might benefit patients who have had transplantation. Additional work to develop best practices for DOOR selection, analysis, and interpretation must continue, and incorporation of the patient perspective is essential., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012)., Interpretation: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered., Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is rising at an alarming rate and complicating the management of infectious diseases including lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is a recently established method for culture-independent LRTI diagnosis, but its utility for predicting AMR has remained unclear. We aimed to assess the performance of mNGS for AMR prediction in bacterial LRTI and demonstrate proof of concept for epidemiological AMR surveillance and rapid AMR gene detection using Cas9 enrichment and nanopore sequencing., Methods: We studied 88 patients with acute respiratory failure between 07/2013 and 9/2018, enrolled through a previous observational study of LRTI. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18, need for mechanical ventilation, and respiratory specimen collection within 72 h of intubation. Exclusion criteria were decline of study participation, unclear LRTI status, or no matched RNA and DNA mNGS data from a respiratory specimen. Patients with LRTI were identified by clinical adjudication. mNGS was performed on lower respiratory tract specimens. The primary outcome was mNGS performance for predicting phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility and was assessed in patients with LRTI from culture-confirmed bacterial pathogens with clinical antimicrobial susceptibility testing (n = 27 patients, n = 32 pathogens). Secondary outcomes included the association between hospital exposure and AMR gene burden in the respiratory microbiome (n = 88 patients), and AMR gene detection using Cas9 targeted enrichment and nanopore sequencing (n = 10 patients)., Results: Compared to clinical antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the performance of respiratory mNGS for predicting AMR varied by pathogen, antimicrobial, and nucleic acid type sequenced. For gram-positive bacteria, a combination of RNA + DNA mNGS achieved a sensitivity of 70% (95% confidence interval (CI) 47-87%) and specificity of 95% (CI 85-99%). For gram-negative bacteria, sensitivity was 100% (CI 87-100%) and specificity 64% (CI 48-78%). Patients with hospital-onset LRTI had a greater AMR gene burden in their respiratory microbiome versus those with community-onset LRTI (p = 0.00030), or those without LRTI (p = 0.0024). We found that Cas9 targeted sequencing could enrich for low abundance AMR genes by > 2500-fold and enabled their rapid detection using a nanopore platform., Conclusions: mNGS has utility for the detection and surveillance of resistant bacterial LRTI pathogens., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

We sought to assess the characteristics and outcomes of neutropenic hematologic patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) bloodstream infection (BSI) treated with ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). We conducted a multicenter, international, matched-cohort study of PA BSI episodes in neutropenic hematologic patients who received C/T. Controls were patients with PA BSI treated with other antibiotics. Risk factors for overall 7-day and 30-day case fatality rates were analyzed. We compared 44 cases with 88 controls. Overall, 91% of episodes were caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains. An endogenous source was the most frequent BSI origin (35.6%), followed by pneumonia (25.8%). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between groups. C/T was given empirically in 11 patients and as definitive therapy in 41 patients. Treatment with C/T was associated with less need for mechanical ventilation (13.6% versus 33.3%; P = 0.021) and reduced 7-day (6.8% versus 34.1%; P = 0.001) and 30-day (22.7% versus 48.9%; P = 0.005) mortality. In the multivariate analysis, pneumonia, profound neutropenia, and persistent BSI were independent risk factors for 30-day mortality, whereas lower mortality was found among patients treated with C/T (adjusted OR [aOR] of 0.19; confidence interval [CI] 95% of 0.07 to 0.55; P = 0.002). Therapy with C/T was associated with less need for mechanical ventilation and reduced 7-day and 30-day case fatality rates compared to alternative agents in neutropenic hematologic patients with PA BSI. IMPORTANCE Ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T) has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of difficult to treat infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) in the general nonimmunocompromised population. However, the experience of this agent in immunosuppressed neutropenic patients is very limited. Our study is unique because it is focused on extremely immunosuppressed hematological patients with neutropenia and bloodstream infection (BSI) due to PA (mainly multidrug resistant [MDR]), a scenario which is often associated with very high mortality rates. In our study, we found that the use of C/T for the treatment of MDR PA BSI in hematological neutropenic patients was significantly associated with improved outcomes, and, in addition, it was found to be an independent risk factor associated with increased survival. To date, this is the largest series involving neutropenic hematologic patients with PA BSI treated with C/T.

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

This post hoc analysis of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) shows a treatment effect of remdesivir (RDV) on progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Additionally, we create a risk profile that better predicts progression than baseline oxygen requirement alone. The highest risk group derives the greatest treatment effect from RDV., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Passive reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, potentially representing an emerging source of spread. We analyzed CPO prevalence in wards where SOT recipients receive inpatient care to inform public health action to prevent transmission., Methods: From September 2019 to June 2020, five US hospitals conducted consecutive point prevalence surveys (PPS) of all consenting patients admitted to transplant units, regardless of transplant status. We used the Cepheid Xpert Carba-R assay to identify carbapenemase genes (bla KPC , bla NDM , bla VIM , bla IMP , bla OXA-48 ) from rectal swabs. Laboratory-developed molecular tests were used to retrospectively test for a wider range of bla IMP and bla OXA variants., Results: In total, 154 patients were screened and 92 (60%) were SOT recipients. CPOs were detected among 7 (8%) SOT recipients, from two of five screened hospitals: four bla KPC , one bla NDM , and two blaOXA -23 . CPOs were detected in two (3%) of 62 non-transplant patients. In three of five participating hospitals, CPOs were not identified among any patients admitted to transplant units., Conclusions: Longitudinal surveillance in transplant units, as well as PPS in areas with diverse CPO epidemiology, may inform the utility of routine screening in SOT units to prevent the spread of CPOs., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Antibiotics are among the most common medications prescribed in nursing homes. The annual prevalence of antibiotic use in residents of nursing homes ranges from 47% to 79%, and more than half of antibiotic courses initiated in nursing-home settings are unnecessary or prescribed inappropriately (wrong drug, dose, or duration). Inappropriate antibiotic use is associated with a variety of negative consequences including Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), adverse drug effects, drug-drug interactions, and antimicrobial resistance. In response to this problem, public health authorities have called for efforts to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing in nursing homes.

Background: Persons who use drugs (PWUD) face substantial risk of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Limited data exist describing clinical and substance use characteristics of PWUD with invasive S. aureus infections or comparing treatment and mortality outcomes in PWUD vs non-PWUD. These are needed to inform optimal care for this marginalized population., Methods: We identified adults hospitalized from 2013 to 2018 at 2 medical centers in San Francisco with S. aureus bacteremia or International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses of endocarditis, epidural abscess, or vertebral osteomyelitis with compatible culture. In addition to demographic and clinical characteristic comparison, we constructed multivariate Cox proportional hazards models for 1-year infection-related readmission and mortality, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, housing, comorbidities, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)., Results: Of 963 hospitalizations for S. aureus infections in 946 patients, 372 of 963 (39%) occurred in PWUD. Among PWUD, heroin (198/372 [53%]) and methamphetamine use (185/372 [50%]) were common. Among 214 individuals using opioids, 98 of 214 (46%) did not receive methadone or buprenorphine. PWUD had lower antibiotic completion than non-PWUD (70% vs 87%; P < .001). While drug use was not associated with increased mortality, 1-year readmission for ongoing or recurrent infection was double in PWUD vs non-PWUD (28% vs 14%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.0 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.3-2.9]). MRSA was independently associated with 1-year readmission for infection (aHR, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.1-2.2])., Conclusions: Compared to non-PWUD, PWUD with invasive S. aureus infections had lower rates of antibiotic completion and twice the risk of infection persistence/recurrence at 1 year. Among PWUD, both opioid and stimulant use were common. Models for combined treatment of substance use disorders and infections, particularly MRSA, are needed., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Despite the high burden of Staphylococcus aureus infections among persons who use drugs, limited data exist comparing outcomes of patient-directed discharge (known as discharge against medical advice) compared with standard discharge among persons who use drugs hospitalized with S. aureus infection., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of hospitalizations among adults with S. aureus bacteremia, endocarditis, epidural abscess, or vertebral osteomyelitis at 2 San Francisco hospitals between 2013 and 2018. We compared odds of 1-year readmission for infection persistence or recurrence and 1-year mortality via multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and homelessness., Results: Overall, 80 of 340 (24%) of hospitalizations for invasive S. aureus infections among persons who use drugs involved patient-directed discharge. More than half of patient-directed discharges 41 of 80 (51%) required readmission for persistent or recurrent S. aureus infection compared with 54 of 260 (21%) patients without patient-directed discharge (adjusted odds ratio 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-6.7). One-year cumulative mortality was 15% after patient-directed discharge compared with 11% after standard discharge (P = .02); however, this difference was not significant after adjustment for mortality risk factors. More than half of deaths in the patient-directed discharge group (7 of 12, 58%) were due to drug overdose; none was due to S. aureus infection., Conclusions: Among persons who use drugs hospitalized with invasive S. aureus infection, odds of hospital readmission for infection were almost 4-fold higher following patient-directed discharge compared with standard discharge. All-cause 1-year mortality was similarly high in both groups, and drug overdose was a common cause of death in patient-directed discharge group., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19., Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475., Findings: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group., Interpretation: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo., Funding: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The study was designed to compare intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race-ethnicity, to identify beliefs that may mediate the association between race-ethnicity and intention to receive the vaccine and to identify the demographic factors and beliefs most strongly predictive of intention to receive a vaccine., Design: Cross-sectional survey conducted from November 2020 to January 2021, nested within a longitudinal cohort study of the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 among a general population-based sample of adults in six San Francisco Bay Area counties (called TrackCOVID). Study Cohort: In total, 3161 participants among the 3935 in the TrackCOVID parent cohort responded., Results: Rates of high vaccine willingness were significantly lower among Black (41%), Latinx (55%), Asian (58%), Multi-racial (59%), and Other race (58%) respondents than among White respondents (72%). Black, Latinx, and Asian respondents were significantly more likely than White respondents to endorse lack of trust of government and health agencies as a reason not to get vaccinated. Participants' motivations and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination only partially explained racial-ethnic differences in vaccination willingness. Concerns about a rushed government vaccine approval process and potential bad reactions to the vaccine were the two most important factors predicting vaccination intention., Conclusions: Vaccine outreach campaigns must ensure that the disproportionate toll of COVID-19 on historically marginalized racial-ethnic communities is not compounded by inequities in vaccination. Efforts must emphasize messages that speak to the motivations and concerns of groups suffering most from health inequities to earn their trust to support informed decision making.

Objective: To evaluate broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic use before and after the implementation of a revised febrile neutropenia management algorithm in a population of adults with hematologic malignancies., Design: Quasi-experimental study., Setting and Population: Patients admitted between 2014 and 2018 to the Adult Malignant Hematology service of an acute-care hospital in the United States., Methods: Aggregate data for adult malignant hematology service were obtained for population-level antibiotic use: days of therapy (DOT), C. difficile infections, bacterial bloodstream infections, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. All rates are reported per 1,000 patient days before the implementation of an febrile neutropenia management algorithm (July 2014-May 2016) and after the intervention (June 2016-December 2018). These data were compared using interrupted time series analysis., Results: In total, 2,014 patients comprised 6,788 encounters and 89,612 patient days during the study period. Broad-spectrum intravenous (IV) antibiotic use decreased by 5.7% with immediate reductions in meropenem and vancomycin use by 22 (P = .02) and 15 (P = .001) DOT per 1,000 patient days, respectively. Bacterial bloodstream infection rates significantly increased following algorithm implementation. No differences were observed in the use of other antibiotics or safety outcomes including C. difficile infection, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital mortality., Conclusions: Reductions in vancomycin and meropenem were observed following the implementation of a more stringent febrile neutropenia management algorithm, without evidence of adverse outcomes. Successful implementation occurred through a collaborative effort and continues to be a core reinforcement strategy at our institution. Future studies evaluating patient-level data may identify further stewardship opportunities in this population.

We characterized the antibody composition of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) and the immunologic responses of hospitalized COVID-19 patients after receiving CCP or nonimmune fresh frozen plasma. Despite selection of CCP with significantly higher total immunoglobulin G than recipients, neutralizing antibody levels did not differ between donor plasma and CCP recipients., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Rapid blood culture diagnostics are of unclear benefit for patients with gram-negative bacilli (GNB) bloodstream infections (BSIs). We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with GNB BSIs who had blood culture testing with standard-of-care (SOC) culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) vs rapid organism identification (ID) and phenotypic AST using the Accelerate Pheno System (RAPID)., Methods: Patients with positive blood cultures with Gram stains showing GNB were randomized to SOC testing with antimicrobial stewardship (AS) review or RAPID with AS. The primary outcome was time to first antibiotic modification within 72 hours of randomization., Results: Of 500 randomized patients, 448 were included (226 SOC, 222 RAPID). Mean (standard deviation) time to results was faster for RAPID than SOC for organism ID (2.7 [1.2] vs 11.7 [10.5] hours; P < .001) and AST (13.5 [56] vs 44.9 [12.1] hours; P < .001). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to first antibiotic modification was faster in the RAPID arm vs the SOC arm for overall antibiotics (8.6 [2.6-27.6] vs 14.9 [3.3-41.1] hours; P = .02) and gram-negative antibiotics (17.3 [4.9-72] vs 42.1 [10.1-72] hours; P < .001). Median (IQR) time to antibiotic escalation was faster in the RAPID arm vs the SOC arm for antimicrobial-resistant BSIs (18.4 [5.8-72] vs 61.7 [30.4-72] hours; P = .01). There were no differences between the arms in patient outcomes., Conclusions: Rapid organism ID and phenotypic AST led to faster changes in antibiotic therapy for gram-negative BSIs., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03218397., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Pharyngeal and rectal Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis play important roles in infection and antibacterial resistance transmission, but no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared assays for detection at these sites existed prior to this study. The objective was to estimate performance of assays to detect those infections in pharyngeal and rectal specimens to support regulatory submission., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, single-visit study of adults seeking sexually transmitted infection testing at 9 clinics in 7 states. We collected pharyngeal and rectal swabs from participants. The primary outcome was positive and negative percent agreement for detection of N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis for 3 investigational assays compared to a composite reference. Secondary outcomes included positivity as well as positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios. Subgroup analyses included outcomes by symptom status and sex., Results: A total of 2598 participants (79% male) underwent testing. We observed N. gonorrhoeae positivity of 8.1% in the pharynx and 7.9% in the rectum and C. trachomatis positivity of 2.0% in the pharynx and 8.7% in the rectum. Positive percent agreement ranged from 84.8% to 96.5% for different anatomic site infection combinations, whereas negative percent agreement was 98.8% to 99.6%., Conclusions: This study utilized a Master Protocol to generate diagnostic performance data for multiple assays from different manufacturers in a single study population, which ultimately supported first-in-class FDA clearance for extragenital assays. We observed very good positive percent agreement when compared to a composite reference method for the detection of both pharyngeal and rectal N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02870101., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)