Patel, Robin

ABSTRACT The activity of a novel β-lactamase inhibitor combination, sulbactam-durlobactam (SUL-DUR), was tested against 87 colistin-resistant and/or cefiderocol-non-susceptible carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates collected from U.S. hospitals between 2017 and 2019. Among them, 89% and 97% were susceptible to SUL-DUR and imipenem plus SUL-DUR, with MIC 50 /MIC 90 values of 2 µg/mL/8 µg/mL and 1 µg/mL/4 µg/mL, respectively. The presence of amino acid substitutions in penicillin-binding protein 3, including previously reported A515V or T526S, was associated with SUL-DUR non-susceptibility.

ABSTRACT The growing threat of antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens necessitates the development of alternative antimicrobial approaches. This is particularly true for chronic wound infections, which commonly harbor biofilm-dwelling bacteria. A novel electrochemical bandage (e-bandage) delivering low-levels of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) was evaluated against Pseudomonas aeruginosa murine wound biofilms. 5 mm skin wounds were created on the dorsum of mice and infected with 10 6 colony-forming units (CFU) of P. aeruginosa . Biofilms were formed over 2 days, after which e-bandages were placed on the wound beds and covered with Tegaderm. Mice were administered Tegaderm-only (control), non-polarized e-bandage (no HOCl production), or polarized e-bandage (using an HOCl-producing potentiostat), with or without systemic amikacin. Purulence and wound areas were measured before and after treatment. After 48 hours, wounds were harvested for bacterial quantification. Forty-eight hours of polarized e-bandage treatment resulted in mean biofilm reductions of 1.4 log 10 CFUs/g ( P = 0.0107) vs non-polarized controls and 2.2 log 10 CFU/g ( P = 0.004) vs Tegaderm-only controls. Amikacin improved CFU reduction in Tegaderm-only ( P = 0.0045) and non-polarized control groups ( P = 0.0312) but not in the polarized group ( P = 0.3876). Compared to the Tegaderm-only group, there was less purulence in the polarized group ( P = 0.009). Wound closure was neither impeded nor improved by either polarized or non-polarized e-bandage treatment. Concurrent amikacin did not impact wound closure or purulence. In conclusion, an HOCl-producing e-bandage reduced P. aeruginosa in wound biofilms with no impairment in wound healing, representing a promising antibiotic-free approach for addressing wound infection.

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.

Biodegradable and all-natural gelatin-based nanoemulsions encapsulate and stabilize antifungal essential oils to provide efficient penetration and eradication of drug-resistant fungal biofilms without resistance generation.

Abstract Background Shotgun and targeted metagenomic sequencing have been shown in separate studies to be potentially useful for culture-free pathogen identification in blood and/or plasma of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However, the 2 approaches have not been directly compared. The aim of this study was to compare shotgun metagenomic sequencing with targeted metagenomic sequencing (tMGS) for organism identification in blood or plasma of patients with IE. Methods Patients with possible or definite IE were prospectively enrolled from October 2020 to July 2021. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was performed with the Karius test, which uses microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA) sequencing to detect, identify, and quantitate DNA-based pathogens in plasma. tMGS was performed using a 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) polymerase chain reaction assay targeting the V1 to V3 regions of the 16S rRNA gene. Results were compared using the McNemar test of paired proportions. Results Samples from 34 patients were investigated. The Karius test was positive in 24/34 (71%), including 3/6 (50%) with blood culture–negative endocarditis (BCNE), which was not significantly different from the positivity rate of tMGS (P = .41). Results of the Karius test were concordant with tMGS in 75% of cases. The Karius test detected 2 cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among the 7 S. aureus detections, in accordance with results of phenotypic susceptibility testing. The combination of blood cultures, the Karius test, and tMGS found a potential causative pathogen in 33/34 (97%), including 5/6 with BCNE. Conclusions The Karius test and tMGS yielded comparable detection rates; however, beyond organism identification, the Karius test generated potentially useful antibiotic resistance data.

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.