Gallagher, Jason C

Abstract Background Use of anti-carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (anti-CRE) agents such as ceftazidime/avibactam has been associated with improved clinical outcome in cohorts that primarily include patients infected with CRE that are resistant to meropenem (MCRE). Objectives To clarify whether patients with CRE resistant to ertapenem but susceptible to meropenem (ertapenem-only-resistant Enterobacterales; EORE) benefit from therapy with anti-CRE agents. Methods Patients treated for CRE infection in hospitals in the USA between 2016 and 2019 and enrolled in the CRACKLE-2 study were included. The primary outcome was the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) assessed at 30 days after index cultures. Results The EORE group included 213 patients and the MCRE group included 643. The demographics were similar between the groups except for the patients’ race and origin before admission. The MCRE group received anti-CRE agents for definitive therapy significantly more frequently compared with the EORE group (30% versus 5% for ceftazidime/avibactam). We did not observe a significant difference between the groups in the adjusted DOOR probability of a more desirable outcome for a randomly selected patient in the EORE group compared with the MCRE group (52.5%; 95% CI, 48.3%–56.7%). The MCRE group had a similar proportion of patients who died at 30 days (26% versus 21%) and who were discharged to home (29% versus 40%), compared with the EORE group. Conclusions Patients with clinical EORE infection rarely received anti-CRE agents, but attained similar outcomes compared with patients with MCRE infection. The findings support current IDSA treatment guidance for meropenem- or imipenem-based therapy for treatment of EORE infections.

Abstract Background Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAb) is 1 of the most problematic antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. We sought to elucidate the international epidemiology and clinical impact of CRAb. Methods In a prospective observational cohort study, 842 hospitalized patients with a clinical CRAb culture were enrolled at 46 hospitals in five global regions between 2017 and 2019. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days from the index culture. The strains underwent whole-genome analysis. Results Of 842 cases, 536 (64%) represented infection. By 30 days, 128 (24%) of the infected patients died, ranging from 1 (6%) of 18 in Australia-Singapore to 54 (25%) of 216 in the United States and 24 (49%) of 49 in South-Central America, whereas 42 (14%) of non-infected patients died. Bacteremia was associated with a higher risk of death compared with other types of infection (40 [42%] of 96 vs 88 [20%] of 440). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, bloodstream infection and higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Clonal group 2 (CG2) strains predominated except in South-Central America, ranging from 216 (59%) of 369 in the United States to 282 (97%) of 291 in China. Acquired carbapenemase genes were carried by 769 (91%) of the 842 isolates. CG2 strains were significantly associated with higher levels of meropenem resistance, yet non-CG2 cases were over-represented among the deaths compared with CG2 cases. Conclusions CRAb infection types and clinical outcomes differed significantly across regions. Although CG2 strains remained predominant, non-CG2 strains were associated with higher mortality. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03646227.

Abstract There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Abstract Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Abstract Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Abstract Background Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and specifically Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKp) are a global threat. CRE rapidly spreading in a healthcare network may infect a distinct patient cohort or have higher virulence. We determined the impact of cluster assignment of CRKp on transmission dynamics and clinical outcomes. Methods CRACKLE-2 is a multi-site, prospective, observational cohort study of hospitalized patients with a clinical CRE culture from any anatomic site. We analyzed 351 patients enrolled 4/30/2016–8/31/2017 in 42 US hospitals with clonal group 258 CRKp. Static clusters were set as ≤ 21 core single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), identified by Snippy, and sharing a recent common ancestor, using a maximum likelihood phylogeny (RAxML v8.2.4). Dynamic clusters were set as > 80% probability of being within 3 transmissions by the R program transcluster (λ = 4, β = 1.6). Clinical outcome was assessed by desirability of outcome ranking with best outcome as alive without events and worst outcome as death. Events were no clinical response, unsuccessful discharge, and adverse events. We compared patients in and out of clusters. For patients in clusters, we also compared intra- vs inter-hospital clusters. Results In total, there were 49 static (median: 5, IQR: 2, 8) and 45 dynamic clusters (median: 5, IQR: 2, 20). For static clusters, 176 patients (50%) were in clusters with 82 (47%) patients in intra-hospital clusters. A higher proportion of patients in clusters, vs not in clusters, had a CRKp culture > 3 days from admission (P = 0.037). More patients in inter-hospital, vs intra-hospital, clusters had diabetes (P = 0.02). For dynamic clusters, 179 patients (51%) were in clusters with 69 (39%) patients in intra-hospital clusters. A lower proportion of patients in clusters, vs not in clusters, had CRKp isolated from urine (P = 0.04). More patients in inter-hospital, vs intra-hospital, clusters had a CRKp culture 3 days from admission (P = 0.04). Clinical outcomes were the same for patients in clusters vs not in clusters for static and dynamic clusters. Conclusion This analysis shows that clinical outcomes are independent of clustering assignment. Static clustering better represented nosocomial spread, based on a higher proportion of patients in clusters having a later CRKp culture. Disclosures Gregory Weston, MD MSCR, Allergan (Grant/Research Support) W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics (Consultant)Pfizer, Inc (Consultant) Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, Allergan (Consultant)Astellas (Consultant)Merck (Consultant)Nabriva (Consultant)Qpex (Consultant)scPharmaceuticals (Consultant)Shionogi (Consultant)Spero (Consultant)Tetraphase (Consultant) Robert A. Bonomo, MD, Entasis, Merck, Venatorx (Research Grant or Support) Cesar A. Arias, MD, MSc, PhD, FIDSA, Entasis Therapeutics (Scientific Research Study Investigator)MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Grant/Research Support) David van Duin, MD, PhD, Achaogen (Advisor or Review Panel member)Allergan (Advisor or Review Panel member)Astellas (Advisor or Review Panel member)MedImmune (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member)NeuMedicine (Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Roche (Advisor or Review Panel member)Sanofi-Pasteur (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Advisor or Review Panel member)T2 Biosystems (Advisor or Review Panel member)Tetraphase (Advisor or Review Panel member)