Fowler, Vance G.

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.

Abstract Background Drug-resistant E. coli is a leading cause of antimicrobial resistance-associated deaths globally. Specifically, resistance to ceftriaxone (CRO-R) is increasing in E. coli. High-risk clonal group ST131 and its pandemic H30 subclone are of high concern yet studies characterizing these infections are limited. We evaluated baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with H30 ST131, non-H30 ST131 and non-ST131 E. coli bloodstream infections (BSI). Methods Patients with monomicrobial carbapenem-susceptible E. coli BSI that were matched 1:1 by study site (CRO-R and CRO-susceptible community-acquired and hospital onset cases) were prospectively enrolled from 14 United States hospitals between November 12, 2020 to April 28, 2021 in the multicenter Study of Highly Resistant E. coli (SHREC). Isolates underwent whole genome sequencing. The primary outcome was a 30-day Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) after index culture including clinical response to treatment and all-cause mortality. Results There were 92 (33%) H30 ST131, 29 (10%) non-H30 ST131, and 161 (57%) non-ST131 isolates in 282 E. coli BSI (Table 1). Most ceftriaxone resistance was conferred by CTX-M-15 produced by H30 ST131 isolates (Figure 1, Table 1). H30 ST131 BSI patients were older (median age [IQR] 70.5 [63,76] vs. 67 [56,77] vs 65 [51,74] years, p = 0.017), had higher Charlson comorbidity indices (3 [2,5] vs. 2 [1,4] vs. 2 [1,4], p=0.009), and were more often admitted from long-term care facilities (18/92 [20%] vs. 3/29 [10%] vs. 7/161 [4%], p = 0.003) compared to non-H30 ST131 and non-ST131 BSI patients. Among H30 ST131 isolates, high rates of antibiotic resistance were observed to cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones, resulting in significantly more carbapenem use compared with non-H30 ST131 and non-ST131 isolates (75/92 [82%] vs. 14/29 [48%] vs. 50/161 [31%], p &lt; 0.001) (Figure 2). 30-day DOOR and hospital length of stay did not differ between groups (Table 2). Conclusion Compared with non-H30 ST131 and non-ST131 E. coli BSI, H30 ST131 E. coli BSI have a unique epidemiology with more healthcare exposures, comorbidities and antibiotic resistance and are more likely to be treated with carbapenems, though no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed. Disclosures Yohei Doi, MD, PHD, AbbVie: Honoraria|Entasis: Grant/Research Support|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|GSK: Advisor/Consultant|Meiji Seika: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Honoraria Elie Saade, MD, MPH, FIDSA, Janssen Global Services: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen Global Services: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen Research and Development: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen Research and Development: Advisor/Consultant Loren G. Miller, MD MPH, Armata: Grant/Research Support|Contrafect: Grant/Research Support|GSK: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Paratek: Grant/Research Support Michael J. Satlin, MD, AbbVie: DSMB participant|bioMerieux: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Selux Diagnostics: Grant/Research Support|SNIPRBiome: Grant/Research Support W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics: Advisor/Consultant|Bristol Myers Squibb: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)|Zimmer Biomet: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Carol Hill, PhD, Glaxo SmithKline: Retirement Health, Cash Balance Plan|Glaxo SmithKline: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Robin Patel, MD, a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, a: See above|MicuRx Pharmaceuticals and BIOFIRE: Grant/Research Support|PhAST, Day Zero Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Sysmex, DEEPULL DIAGNOSTICS, S.L., Netflix, Oxford Nanopore Technologies and CARB-X: Advisor/Consultant|Up-to-Date and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course.: Honoraria Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, Affinergy: Advisor/Consultant|ArcBio: Stocks/Bonds (Private Company)|Armata: Advisor/Consultant|Astra Zeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Astra Zeneca: Grant/Research Support|Basilea: Advisor/Consultant|Basilea: Grant/Research Support|ContraFect: Advisor/Consultant|ContraFect: Grant/Research Support|Debiopharm: Advisor/Consultant|Destiny: Advisor/Consultant|EDE: Grant/Research Support|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Grant/Research Support|GSK: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen: Advisor/Consultant|Karius: Grant/Research Support|MedImmune: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|sepsis diagnostics: Patent pending|UptoDate: Royalties|Valanbuio: Stocks/Bonds (Private Company)|Valanbuio: Stocks/Bonds (Private Company) David van Duin, MD, PhD, Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Qpex: Advisor/Consultant|Roche: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Grant/Research Support

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 Taniborbactam, a bicyclic boronate β-lactamase inhibitor with activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC), Verona integron–encoded metallo-β-lactamase (VIM), New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (NDM), extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), OXA-48, and AmpC β-lactamases, is under clinical development in combination with cefepime. Susceptibility of 200 previously characterized carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and 197 multidrug-resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa to cefepime-taniborbactam and comparators was determined by broth microdilution. For K. pneumoniae (192 KPC; 7 OXA-48-related), MIC 90 values of β-lactam components for cefepime-taniborbactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam were 2, 2, and 1 mg/L, respectively. For cefepime-taniborbactam, 100% and 99.5% of isolates of K. pneumoniae were inhibited at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively, while 98.0% and 95.5% of isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, respectively. For P. aeruginosa , MIC 90 values of β-lactam components of cefepime-taniborbactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam were 16, >8, >8, and >4 mg/L, respectively. Of 89 carbapenem-susceptible isolates, 100% were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, and cefepime-taniborbactam at ≤8 mg/L. Of 73 carbapenem-intermediate/resistant P. aeruginosa isolates without carbapenemases, 87.7% were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam, 79.5% to ceftazidime-avibactam, and 95.9% and 83.6% to cefepime-taniborbactam at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively. Cefepime-taniborbactam at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively, was active against 73.3% and 46.7% of 15 VIM- and 60.0% and 35.0% of 20 KPC-producing P. aeruginosa isolates. Of all 108 carbapenem-intermediate/resistant P. aeruginosa isolates, cefepime-taniborbactam was active against 86.1% and 69.4% at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively, compared to 59.3% for ceftolozane-tazobactam and 63.0% for ceftazidime-avibactam. Cefepime-taniborbactam had in vitro activity comparable to ceftazidime-avibactam and greater than meropenem-vaborbactam against carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and carbapenem-intermediate/resistant MDR P. aeruginosa .

Abstract Background The 2023 Duke–International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) criteria for infective endocarditis (IE) were introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes. External validation studies are required. Methods We studied consecutive patients with suspected IE referred to the IE team of Amsterdam University Medical Center (from October 2016 to March 2021). An international expert panel independently reviewed case summaries and assigned a final diagnosis of “IE” or “not IE,” which served as the reference standard, to which the “definite” Duke-ISCVID classifications were compared. We also evaluated accuracy when excluding cardiac surgical and pathologic data (“clinical” criteria). Finally, we compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID with the 2000 modified Duke criteria and the 2015 and 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria. Results A total of 595 consecutive patients with suspected IE were included: 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE; 111 (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, and 48 (8%) had a cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than either the modified Duke or 2015 ESC criteria (84.2% vs 74.9% and 80%, respectively; P &lt; .001) without significant loss of specificity. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were similarly sensitive but more specific than the 2023 ESC criteria (94% vs 82%; P &lt; .001). The same pattern was seen for the clinical criteria (excluding surgical/pathologic results). New modifications in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria related to “major microbiological” and “imaging” criteria had the most impact. Conclusions The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients with suspected IE.

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 Background Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown that short-course (∼7 days) antibiotic treatment is non-inferior to longer antibiotic courses (∼14 days) in patients with uncomplicated bloodstream infection (BSI) with mostly susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. Here, we evaluate short-course therapy in ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli BSI. Methods In a prospective cohort of 300 patients with E. coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021, each patient with ceftriaxone-R E. coli BSI, and the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-S E. coli BSI was included. Patients who received 5-8 days (“short”) or 9-21 days (“long”) of antibiotics were included in this analysis. Patients who died before day 9 were excluded. Primary outcome was a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR, Table 1) based on disposition at day 30 after collection of the index blood culture. Ceftriaxone susceptibility was centrally determined using broth microdilution for all bacterial isolates. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) categories Results Of 300 patients in the original cohort, 227 were included; 44 patients (24 ceftriaxone-S, 20 ceftriaxone-R) received short (median 8 days, range 5-8 days), and 183 patients (96 ceftriaxone-S, 87 ceftriaxone-R) received long duration (median 15 days, range 9-21 days). Age (median 68 years, IQR 57-77 years), sex (125/227 [55%] female), and Charlson comorbidity index (median 2, IQR 1-4) were similar between groups. Notably, almost all patients (18/19, 95%) with solid organ or stem cell transplant were in the long duration group. The median Pitt bacteremia score was 2 (IQR 1-3) in the short duration group vs. 1 (IQR 0-3) in the long duration group (Wilcoxon Rank Sum p=0.07). DOOR outcomes were similar in both groups (Figure and Table 2). Numerically more patients in the ceftriaxone-resistant group on short treatment were in category 3; 4/20 (20%) vs 5/87 (6%) in the long duration group. These 4 patients all had unsuccessful discharge combined with renal failure (n=2), and/or lack of clinical response (n=3). Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysesFigure.DOOR outcomes Shown are the percentages of patients in each group with a specific DOOR category outcome. Conclusion Short duration of therapy was less frequently used than long duration of therapy in this prospective cohort of E. coli BSI. Further studies are needed to determine whether short-course therapy is appropriate for ceftriaxone-R E. coli BSI. Disclosures Yohei Doi, MD, PHD, bioMerieux: Advisor/Consultant|FujiFilm: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Honoraria|GSK: Advisor/Consultant|Meiji Seika Pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Honoraria|MSD: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Honoraria|Shionogi: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Grant/Research Support|Shionogi: Honoraria Owen Albin, MD, Charles River Laboratories: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Advisor/Consultant Elie Saade, MD, MPH, FIDSA, Envision Pharma: Speaker, Presenter|Johnson and Johnson: Speaker, Travel, Lodging|Protein Sciences Corp: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Speaker, Travel and Lodging Loren G. Miller, MD MPH, ContraFect: Grant/Research Support|GSK: Grant/Research Support|Medline: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Paratek: Grant/Research Support Michael J. Satlin, MD, AbbVie: IDMC member|Biomerieux: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Shionogi: Advisor/Consultant|SNIPRBiome: Grant/Research Support Martin Krsak, MD, MSc, FASAM, AbbVie: Grant/Research Support|Melinta: Honoraria W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics: Advisor/Consultant|Bristol Myers Squibb: Stocks/Bonds|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Stocks/Bonds|Zimmer Biomet: Stocks/Bonds Robin Patel, MD, Abbott Laboratories: Advisor/Consultant|Adaptive Phage Therapeutics: Grant/Research Support|Adaptive Phage Therapeutics: Mayo Clinic has a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics.|BIOFIRE: Grant/Research Support|CARB-X: Advisor/Consultant|ContraFect: Grant/Research Support|Day Zero Diagnostics: Advisor/Consultant|HealthTrackRx: Advisor/Consultant|Mammoth Biosciences: Advisor/Consultant|Netflix: Advisor/Consultant|Oxford Nanopore Technologies: Advisor/Consultant|PhAST: Advisor/Consultant|See details: Patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic|See details: continued, patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued|TenNor Therapeutics Limited: Grant/Research Support|Torus Biosystems: Advisor/Consultant|Trellis Bioscience, Inc.: Advisor/Consultant Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Roche, Astra Zeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen;: Grant/Research Support|Infectious Diseases Society of America: Honoraria|MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius;: Grant/Research Support|Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny,: Advisor/Consultant|Sepsis diagnostic: Patent pending|UpToDate: Royalties|Valanbio and ArcBio: Stock Options David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Honoraria|Qpex: Advisor/Consultant|Roche: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi: Grant/Research Support|Union: Advisor/Consultant|Utility: Advisor/Consultant

Abstract Background The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria for IE were recently introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes (Table 1). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the new criteria with the 2000 modified Duke criteria, the 2015 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria and a clinically adjudicated reference standard by a panel of international experts on IE.Table 1:Overview of changes in criteria from 2000 modified Duke to 2023 Duke-ISCVIDAdapted from: Fowler et al, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2023 Methods The study population consisted of consecutively enrolled patients suspected to have IE and discussed by the IE team of the Amsterdam University Medical Center (AMC) between October 2016 and March 2021. A panel of international experts on IE assigned a final diagnosis, which served as the reference standard. We compared the definite classification of the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria against this reference standard. We also evaluated accuracy of the new criteria, excluding data obtained from cardiac surgery and pathology (“Clinical Criteria”). Lastly, we quantified the added value of the proposed changes to the criteria, and compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID to previous criteria using the McNemar test. We performed sensitivity analyses in patients who underwent cardiac surgery and patients who underwent TEE. Results 595 patients with suspected IE were included, of whom 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE. 111 patients (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, 48 (8%) had cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than the modified Duke or ESC criteria (84.2 vs 74.9 vs 80%,respectively, p &lt; 0.001 for ISCVID vs ESC criteria) without significant loss of specificity (Table 2). After excluding cardiac surgery/pathology results, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID Clinical Criteria also had significantly better sensitivity than the modified Duke and ESC criteria, again without losing specificity. The changes in the 'major microbiological' and 'imaging' criteria had the most impact (Figure 1). Findings were robust in sensitivity analyses (Table 3). When classifying ‘definite’ and ‘possible’ IE as a positive test, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria had 99% sensitivity compared to the reference standard, but specificity decreased to 21%.Table 2:Diagnostic accuracy of modified Duke, ESC and Duke-ISCVID criteria Sensitivity and specificity are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). The Clinical Criteria classification is the Duke-ISCVID classification when results from surgery or post-mortem studies are not used to determine classification.Table 3:Sensitivity analyses of accuracy of Duke-ISCVID criteria In the Definite + Possible analysis, patients with possible IE according to the Duke-ISCVID criteria were also considered as having IE. All comparisons are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). Conclusion In this cohort, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients suspected of IE. Added value of new Duke-ISCVID criteria compared to modified Duke criteria Each point (red square for sensitivity, blue circle for specificity) provides the diagnostic accuracy measure for the 2000 modified Duke Criteria with addition of a specific change from the Duke-ISCVID criteria. The horizontal bars represent the 95% confidence interval for the point estimate. The top points represent the modified Duke criteria without addition, the bottom points are the complete Duke-ISCVID criteria. Disclosures Larry M. Baddour, MD, Boston Scientific: Advisor/Consultant|Roivant Sciences: Advisor/Consultant Arnold S. Bayer, MD, Akagera Medicines: Grant/Research Support|ContraFect Corporation: Grant/Research Support Emanuele Durante Mangoni, MD,, PhD, Advanz pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Advanz pharma: Grant/Research Support|Advanz pharma: Honoraria|Angelini: Grant/Research Support|Angelini: Honoraria|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Board Member|Genentech: Honoraria|Infectopharm: Grant/Research Support|Menarini: Board Member|Menarini: Honoraria|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Board Member|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roche: Advisor/Consultant|Roche: Board Member|Roche: Honoraria Thomas L. Holland, MD, Aridis: Advisor/Consultant|Basilea Pharmaceutica: Advisor/Consultant|Karius: Advisor/Consultant|Lysovant: Advisor/Consultant Adolf W. Karchmer, MD, Karius: Grant/Research Support|Up To Date: Honoraria Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Roche, Astra Zeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen;: Grant/Research Support|Infectious Diseases Society of America: Honoraria|MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius;: Grant/Research Support|Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny,: Advisor/Consultant|Sepsis diagnostic: Patent pending|UpToDate: Royalties|Valanbio and ArcBio: Stock Options

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.