Search

BackgroundCeftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort of patients with E coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. For each patient with a CRO-R E coli BSI enrolled, the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) E coli BSI was included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 50% probability of worse outcomes in the CRO-R group as the null hypothesis. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to reduce confounding.ResultsNotable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-S E coli BSI included the proportion with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (23% vs 15%, P = .079) and the median time to active antibiotic therapy (12 hours [interquartile range {IQR}, 1-35 hours] vs 1 hour [IQR, 0-6 hours]; P < .001). Unadjusted DOOR analyses indicated a 58% probability (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%-63%) for a worse clinical outcome in CRO-R versus CRO-S BSI. In the IPW-adjusted cohort, no difference was observed (54% [95% CI, 47%-61%]). Secondary outcomes included unadjusted and adjusted differences in the proportion of 30-day mortality between CRO-R and CRO-S BSIs (-5.3% [95% CI, -10.3% to -.4%] and -1.8 [95% CI, -6.7% to 3.2%], respectively), postculture median length of stay (8 days [IQR, 5-13 days] vs 6 days [IQR, 4-9 days]; P < .001), and incident admission to a long-term care facility (22% vs 12%, P = .045).ConclusionsPatients with CRO-R E coli BSI generally have poorer outcomes compared to patients infected with CRO-S E coli BSI, even after adjusting for important confounders.

BackgroundCarbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) is a global threat. We therefore analysed the bacterial characteristics of CRKP infections and the clinical outcomes of patients with CRKP infections across different countries.MethodsIn this prospective, multicentre, cohort study (CRACKLE-2), hospitalised patients with cultures positive for CRKP were recruited from 71 hospitals in Argentina, Australia, Chile, China, Colombia, Lebanon, Singapore, and the USA. The first culture positive for CRKP was included for each unique patient. Clinical data on post-hospitalisation death and readmission were collected from health records, and whole genome sequencing was done on all isolates. The primary outcome was a desirability of outcome ranking at 30 days after the index culture, and, along with bacterial characteristics and 30-day all-cause mortality (a key secondary outcome), was compared between patients from China, South America, and the USA. The desirability of outcome ranking was adjusted for location before admission, Charlson comorbidity index, age at culture, Pitt bacteremia score, and anatomical culture source through inverse probability weighting; mortality was adjusted for the same confounders, plus region where relevant, through multivariable logistic regression. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03646227, and is complete.FindingsBetween June 13, 2017, and Nov 30, 2018, 991 patients were enrolled, of whom 502 (51%) met the criteria for CRKP infection and 489 (49%) had positive cultures that were considered colonisation. We observed little intra-country genetic variation in CRKP. Infected patients from the USA were more acutely ill than were patients from China or South America (median Pitt bacteremia score 3 [IQR 2-6] vs 2 [0-4] vs 2 [0-4]) and had more comorbidities (median Charlson comorbidity index 3 [IQR 2-5] vs 1 [0-3] vs 1 [0-2]). Adjusted desirability of outcome ranking outcomes were similar in infected patients from China (n=246), South America (n=109), and the USA (n=130); the estimates were 53% (95% CI 42-65) for China versus South America, 50% (41-61) for the USA versus China, and 53% (41-66) for the USA versus South America. In patients with CRKP infections, unadjusted 30-day mortality was lower in China (12%, 95% CI 8-16; 29 of 246) than in the USA (23%, 16-30; 30 of 130) and South America (28%, 20-37; 31 of 109). Adjusted 30-day all-cause mortality was higher in South America than in China (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4·82, 95% CI 2·22-10·50) and the USA (aOR 3·34, 1·50-7·47), with the mortality difference between the USA and China no longer being significant (aOR 1·44, 0·70-2·96).InterpretationGlobal CRKP epidemics have important regional differences in patients' baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes, and in bacterial characteristics. Research findings from one region might not be generalisable to other regions.FundingThe National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundCarbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are a global threat. We aimed to describe the clinical and molecular characteristics of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-defined CRE in the USA.MethodsCRACKLE-2 is a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Patients hospitalised in 49 US hospitals, with clinical cultures positive for CDC-defined CRE between April 30, 2016, and Aug 31, 2017, were included. There was no age exclusion. The primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at 30 days after index culture. Clinical data and bacteria were collected, and whole genome sequencing was done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03646227.Findings1040 patients with unique isolates were included, 449 (43%) with infection and 591 (57%) with colonisation. The CDC-defined CRE admission rate was 57 per 100 000 admissions (95% CI 45-71). Three subsets of CDC-defined CRE were identified: carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (618 [59%] of 1040), non-carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (194 [19%]), and unconfirmed CRE (228 [22%]; initially reported as CRE, but susceptible to carbapenems in two central laboratories). Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing clonal group 258 K pneumoniae was the most common carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales. In 449 patients with CDC-defined CRE infections, DOOR outcomes were not significantly different in patients with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, non-carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, and unconfirmed CRE. At 30 days 107 (24%, 95% CI 20-28) of these patients had died.InterpretationAmong patients with CDC-defined CRE, similar outcomes were observed among three subgroups, including the novel unconfirmed CRE group. CDC-defined CRE represent diverse bacteria, whose spread might not respond to interventions directed to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales.FundingNational Institutes of Health.

Ferroptosis is a death program executed via selective oxidation of arachidonic acid-phosphatidylethanolamines (AA-PE) by 15-lipoxygenases. In mammalian cells and tissues, ferroptosis has been pathogenically associated with brain, kidney, and liver injury/diseases. We discovered that a prokaryotic bacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, that does not contain AA-PE can express lipoxygenase (pLoxA), oxidize host AA-PE to 15-hydroperoxy-AA-PE (15-HOO-AA-PE), and trigger ferroptosis in human bronchial epithelial cells. Induction of ferroptosis by clinical P. aeruginosa isolates from patients with persistent lower respiratory tract infections was dependent on the level and enzymatic activity of pLoxA. Redox phospholipidomics revealed elevated levels of oxidized AA-PE in airway tissues from patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) but not with emphysema or CF without P. aeruginosa. We believe that the evolutionarily conserved mechanism of pLoxA-driven ferroptosis may represent a potential therapeutic target against P. aeruginosa-associated diseases such as CF and persistent lower respiratory tract infections.

With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, there is growing interest in utilizing adaptive platform clinical trials (APTs), in which multiple drugs are compared with a single common control group, such as a placebo or standard‐of‐care group. APTs evaluate several drugs for one disease and accept additions or exclusions of drugs as the trials progress; however, little is known about the efficiency of APTs over multiple stand‐alone trials. In this study, we simulated the total development period, total sample size, and statistical operating characteristics of APTs and multiple stand‐alone trials in drug development settings for hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Simulation studies using selected scenarios reconfirmed several findings regarding the efficiency of APTs. The APTs without staggered addition of drugs showed a shorter total development period than stand‐alone trials, but the difference rapidly diminished if patient's enrollment was accelerated during the trials owing to the spread of infection. APTs with staggered addition of drugs still have the possibility of reducing the total development period compared with multiple stand‐alone trials in some cases. Our study demonstrated that APTs could improve efficiency relative to multiple stand‐alone trials regarding the total development period and total sample size without undermining statistical validity; however, this improvement varies depending on the speed of patient enrollment, sample size, presence/absence of family‐wise error rate adjustment, allocation ratio between drug and placebo groups, and interval of staggered addition of drugs. Given the complexity of planning and implementing APT, the decision to implement APT during a pandemic must be made carefully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This phase 2b/3, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial explored the efficacy and evaluated the safety of ensitrelvir. This trial involved individuals with asymptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Methods: The trial was conducted at 57 medical institutions in Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam (study period: January 6–August 14, 2022). Eligible participants were randomized (1:1:1) to the ensitrelvir 125‐mg, ensitrelvir 250‐mg, or placebo group, received the allocated intervention orally, and were followed up until Day 28. Participants self‐rated the severity of 14 typical COVID‐19 symptoms and recorded the data in an electronic diary. Results: In total, 572 participants (194, 189, and 189 in the ensitrelvir 125‐mg, ensitrelvir 250‐mg, and placebo groups, respectively) were included in the intention‐to‐treat population. Ensitrelvir 125‐mg group observed a 77% reduction in the risk of developing any of the 14 COVID‐19 symptoms or fever and a 29% reduction in the risk of worsening of such symptoms or fever versus placebo (statistically nonsignificant). The viral RNA, viral titer, and time to infectious viral clearance observed a statistically significant decrease versus placebo. Most treatment‐related adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate in severity, and the most common TEAE observed across groups was a decrease in high‐density lipoprotein. Conclusions: Our exploratory results suggest a potential reduction in the risk of development or worsening of COVID‐19 symptoms with ensitrelvir. Ensitrelvir showed antiviral efficacy and was well tolerated. Trial Registration: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: jRCT2031210350. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe effect of procalcitonin-guided use of antibiotics on treatment for suspected lower respiratory tract infection is unclear.MethodsIn 14 U.S. hospitals with high adherence to quality measures for the treatment of pneumonia, we provided guidance for clinicians about national clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections and the interpretation of procalcitonin assays. We then randomly assigned patients who presented to the emergency department with a suspected lower respiratory tract infection and for whom the treating physician was uncertain whether antibiotic therapy was indicated to one of two groups: the procalcitonin group, in which the treating clinicians were provided with real-time initial (and serial, if the patient was hospitalized) procalcitonin assay results and an antibiotic use guideline with graded recommendations based on four tiers of procalcitonin levels, or the usual-care group. We hypothesized that within 30 days after enrollment the total antibiotic-days would be lower - and the percentage of patients with adverse outcomes would not be more than 4.5 percentage points higher - in the procalcitonin group than in the usual-care group.ResultsA total of 1656 patients were included in the final analysis cohort (826 randomly assigned to the procalcitonin group and 830 to the usual-care group), of whom 782 (47.2%) were hospitalized and 984 (59.4%) received antibiotics within 30 days. The treating clinician received procalcitonin assay results for 792 of 826 patients (95.9%) in the procalcitonin group (median time from sample collection to assay result, 77 minutes) and for 18 of 830 patients (2.2%) in the usual-care group. In both groups, the procalcitonin-level tier was associated with the decision to prescribe antibiotics in the emergency department. There was no significant difference between the procalcitonin group and the usual-care group in antibiotic-days (mean, 4.2 and 4.3 days, respectively; difference, -0.05 day; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.5; P=0.87) or the proportion of patients with adverse outcomes (11.7% [96 patients] and 13.1% [109 patients]; difference, -1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 1.7; P

BackgroundOveruse of antibiotics is a major public health problem, contributing to growing antibiotic resistance. Procalcitonin has been reported to be commonly elevated in bacterial, but not viral infection. Multiple European trials found procalcitonin-guided care reduced antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infection, with no apparent harm. However, applicability to US practice is limited due to trial design features impractical in the US, between-country differences, and residual safety concerns.MethodsThe Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT) is a multicenter randomized trial to determine the impact of a procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline, implemented with basic reproducible strategies, in US patients with lower respiratory tract infection.DiscussionWe describe the trial methods using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) framework, and the rationale for key design decisions, including choice of eligibility criteria, choice of control arm, and approach to guideline implementation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02130986 . Registered May 1, 2014.