Citations

ABSTRACT Novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (βL/βLIs) are important therapies for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA). However, the global extent of resistance to these agents and the impact of resistance on patient outcomes are unclear. We therefore evaluated patients with CRPA isolates at 35 hospitals (nine countries) from December 2018 to November 2019. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed at a central laboratory by agar dilution for ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T) and ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) and by broth microdilution for imipenem-relebactam (I/R). Characteristics and outcomes, including desirability of outcome rankings (DOOR), were compared between patients infected with isolates not susceptible vs susceptible to each agent. Of 800 CRPA isolates, susceptibility to C/T, CZA, and I/R was 69%, 67%, and 33%, respectively. USA isolates ( n = 526) were more frequently susceptible to these agents than isolates from other countries ( n = 274; C/T: 83% vs 42%; CZA: 77% vs 47%; I/R: 37% vs 23%; P < 0.001 for each comparison) and isolates with carbapenemases ( n = 157) were less frequently susceptible than isolates without carbapenemases ( n = 643; C/T: 7% vs 84%; CZA: 24% vs 77%; I/R: 6% vs 39%; P < 0.001 for each comparison). Thirty-day mortality and DOOR were similar overall in patients infected with isolates not susceptible vs susceptible to each βL/βLI. However, the adjusted probability of a better DOOR outcome for a randomly selected patient with bacteremia due to a C/T-not susceptible vs -susceptible isolate was 38.2% (95% confidence interval, 25.6%–52.7%). Resistance to novel βL/βLIs, especially I/R, is common in CRPA, particularly outside the USA and in carbapenemase-producing isolates. Additional treatment options are needed for CRPA infections.

Importance Novel blood culture diagnostics provide rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results for bacteria causing bloodstream infections (BSIs) but have unclear clinical impact. Objective To evaluate clinical outcomes of blood culture testing using a rapid AST method compared with standard AST in patients with BSIs caused by gram-negative bacilli in regions with high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance. Design, Setting, and Participants Open-label randomized clinical trial that enrolled participants from December 2023 to May 2025 (final follow-up, June 18, 2025) at 7 medical centers in Greece (n = 2), India (n = 1), Israel (n = 3), and Spain (n = 1). Hospitalized patients (adults and children) with BSIs caused by gram-negative bacilli were eligible. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2025 to January 2026. Intervention Patients were randomized to undergo blood culture evaluation using rapid, phenotypic AST directly from positive blood cultures plus standard susceptibility testing (n = 413) vs standard susceptibility testing alone (n = 437). Local antimicrobial stewardship teams reviewed all patients and provided treatment recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 3 categories (alive without deleterious events, alive with deleterious events, and death). The difference between rapid and standard testing was summarized as the probability that the DOOR outcomes were more desirable in the rapid testing group. Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded 50%. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, acquisition of hospital-acquired infections, time to effective antibiotic therapy within 3 days, and time to antibiotic escalation or deescalation within 3 days. Results Of the 899 patients randomized, 850 were included in the primary outcome analysis (median [IQR] age, 72 [21] years; 43% female). The probability that DOOR outcomes were more favorable in the rapid testing group was 48.8% (95% CI, 45.3%-52.4%). Median time to effective antibiotic therapy was not different between the groups in the as-randomized population. Median time to antibiotic escalation or deescalation was faster in the rapid testing group by 14 hours (95% CI, 6-22) in the as-randomized population. There were no differences between the groups in other secondary outcomes. In the prespecified subgroup with carbapenem-resistant infections, median time to effective therapy was 9.5 hours in the rapid testing group vs 28 hours in the standard testing group (difference, −18 hours [95% CI, −42 to 6]). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with gram-negative bacilli BSIs, rapid blood culture AST was not superior to standard testing by DOOR. When considered with other efficacy and safety outcomes, these findings may help inform the use of rapid susceptibility testing in clinical practice. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06174649

Abstract Background Ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli infections are increasingly common, partially because of the emergence of E. coli sequence type 131 (ST131), including its subclade C2/H30Rx, which produce extended-spectrum β-lactamases. Methods A prospective cohort including 14 US sites, which enrolled monomicrobial ceftriaxone-resistant and susceptible E. coli bloodstream infection (BSI) cases in a 1:1 ratio, was used to compare ST131 versus non-ST131 E. coli BSI, with specific attention to E. coli ST131 C2/H30Rx. Desirability of outcome ranking was determined at 30 days after infection onset. Results This analysis included 282 patients with E. coli BSI; 43% (121/282) were E. coli ST131 and 23% (66/282) belonged to the C2/H30Rx subclade. Resistance to ceftriaxone was present in 79% (96/121) ST131, 86% (57/66) E. coli ST131 C2/H30Rx, and 27% (43/161) E. coli non-ST131. Compared to patients with non-ST131 E. coli BSI, patients with ST131 BSI were older (median 70 years, [Q1 62, Q3 76] years vs 65 years, [51, 74]; P = .005) and more often admitted from long-term care facilities (21/121 [17%] vs 7/161 [4%], P &lt; .001). Overall and empiric carbapenem use was more frequent in the treatment of patients with ST131 BSI compared with non-ST131 BSI (overall 89/121 [74%] vs 50/161 [31%]; empiric: 58/121 [48%] vs 31/161 [19%], P &lt; .001). Desirability of outcome ranking outcomes were similar between groups. Conclusions Most ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli from US patients with E. coli BSI belong to ST131, particularly E. coli ST131 C2/H30Rx, serving as an important driver of carbapenem use.

Abstract Background The CDC reported a 35% increase in hospital-onset (HO) carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated patient outcomes following HO and community-onset (CO) CRE bloodstream infections (BSI). Methods Patients prospectively enrolled in CRACKLE-2 from 56 hospitals in 10 countries between 30 April 2016 and 30 November 2019 with a CRE BSI were eligible. Infections were defined as CO or HO by CDC guidelines, and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) 30 days after index culture. Difference in 30-day mortality was calculated with 95% CI. Results Among 891 patients with CRE BSI, 65% were HO (582/891). Compared to those with CO CRE, patients with HO CRE were younger [median 60 (Q1 42, Q3 70) years versus 65 (52, 74); P &lt; 0.001], had fewer comorbidities [median Charlson comorbidity index 2 (1, 4) versus 3 (1, 5); P = 0.002] and were more acutely ill (Pitt bacteraemia score ≥4: 47% versus 32%; P &lt; 0.001). The probability of a better DOOR outcome in a randomly selected patient with CO BSI compared to a patient with HO BSI was 60.6% (95% CI: 56.8%–64.3%). Mortality at 30-days was 12% higher in HO BSI (192/582; 33%) than CO BSI [66/309 (21%); P &lt; 0.001]. Conclusion We found a disproportionately greater impact on patient outcomes with HO compared to CO CRE BSIs; thus, the recently reported increases in HO CRE infections by CDC requires rigorous surveillance and infection prevention methods to prevent added mortality.

ABSTRACT Standardized approaches to phage susceptibility testing (PST) are essential to inform selection of phages for study in patients with bacterial infections. There is no reference standard for assessing bacterial susceptibility to phage. We compared agreement between PST performed at three centers: two centers using a liquid assay standardized between the sites with the third, a plaque assay. Four Pseudomonas aeruginosa phages: PaWRA01ø11 (EPa11), PaWRA01ø39 (EPa39), PaWRA02ø83 (EPa83), PaWRA02ø87 (EPa87), and a cocktail of all four phages were tested against 145 P . aeruginosa isolates. Comparisons were made within measurements at the two sites performing the liquid assay and between these two sites. Agreement was assessed based on coverage probability (CP 8 ), total deviation index, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), measurement accuracy, and precision. For the liquid assay, there was satisfactory agreement among triplicate measurements made on different days at site 1, and high agreement based on accuracy and precision between duplicate measurements made on the same run at site 2. There was fair accuracy between measurements of the two sites performing the liquid assay, with CCCs below 0.6 for all phages tested. When compared to the plaque assay (performed once at site 3), there was less agreement between results of the liquid and plaque assays than between the two sites performing the liquid assay. Similar findings to the larger group were noted in the subset of 46 P . aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis. Results of this study suggest that reproducibility of PST methods needs further development.

Abstract Clinical research networks conduct important studies that would not otherwise be performed by other entities. In the case of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), such studies include diagnostic studies using master protocols, controlled phage intervention trials, and studies that evaluate treatment strategies or dynamic interventions, such as sequences of empiric and definitive therapies. However, the value of a clinical research network lies not only in the results from these important studies but in the creation of new approaches derived from collaborative thinking, carefully examining and defining the most important research questions for clinical practice, recognizing and addressing common but suboptimal approaches, and anticipating that the standard approaches of today may be insufficient for tomorrow. This results in the development and implementation of new methodologies and tools for the design, conduct, analyses, and reporting of research studies. These new methodologies directly impact the studies conducted within the network and have a broad and long-lasting impact on the field, enhancing the scientific value and efficiency of generations of research studies. This article describes innovations from the ARLG in diagnostic studies, observational studies, and clinical trials evaluating interventions for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

AbstractDeveloping and implementing the scientific agenda of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) by soliciting input and proposals, transforming concepts into clinical trials, conducting those trials, and translating trial data analyses into actionable information for infectious disease clinical practice is the collective role of the Scientific Leadership Center, Clinical Operations Center, Statistical and Data Management Center, and Laboratory Center of the ARLG. These activities include shepherding concept proposal applications through peer review; identifying, qualifying, training, and overseeing clinical trials sites; recommending, developing, performing, and evaluating laboratory assays in support of clinical trials; and designing and performing data collection and statistical analyses. This article describes key components involved in realizing the ARLG scientific agenda through the activities of the ARLG centers.

AbstractIn this overview, we describe important contributions from the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) to patient care, clinical trials design, and mentorship while outlining future priorities. The ARLG research agenda is focused on 3 key areas: gram-positive infections, gram-negative infections, and diagnostics. The ARLG has developed an innovative approach to clinical trials design, the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR), which uses an ordinal measure of global outcome to assess both benefits and harms. DOOR was initially applied to observational studies to determine optimal dosing of vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylcococcus aureus bacteremia and the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infection. DOOR is being successfully applied to the analysis of interventional trials and, in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for use in registrational trials. In the area of diagnostics, the ARLG developed Master Protocol for Evaluating Multiple Infection Diagnostics (MASTERMIND), an innovative design that allows simultaneous testing of multiple diagnostic platforms in a single study. This approach will be used to compare molecular assays for the identification of fluoroquinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (MASTER GC) and to compare rapid diagnostic tests for bloodstream infections. The ARLG has initiated a first-in-kind randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in participants with cystic fibrosis who are chronically colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa to assess the pharmacokinetics and antimicrobial activity of bacteriophage therapy. Finally, an engaged and highly trained workforce is critical for continued and future success against antimicrobial drug resistance. Thus, the ARLG has developed a robust mentoring program targeted to each stage of research training to attract and retain investigators in the field of antimicrobial resistance research.

Abstract Addressing the treatment and prevention of antibacterial-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections is a priority area of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). The ARLG has conducted a series of observational studies to define the clinical and molecular global epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant and ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, with the goal of optimizing the design and execution of interventional studies. One ongoing ARLG study aims to better understand the impact of fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative gut bacteria in neutropenic patients, which threatens to undermine the effectiveness of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in these vulnerable patients. The ARLG has conducted pharmacokinetic studies to inform the optimal dosing of antibiotics that are important in the treatment of drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, including oral fosfomycin, intravenous minocycline, and a combination of intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam. In addition, randomized clinical trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of step-down oral fosfomycin for complicated urinary tract infections and single-dose intravenous phage therapy for adult patients with cystic fibrosis who are chronically colonized with P. aeruginosa in their respiratory tract. Thus, the focus of investigation in the ARLG has evolved from improving understanding of drug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections to positively affecting clinical care for affected patients through a combination of interventional pharmacokinetic and clinical studies, a focus that will be maintained moving forward.

Abstract 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.