Citations

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.

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.

RATIONALE: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL DESIGN: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements. RESULTS: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue—including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

Optimal care of patients requiring long-term outpatient parenteral or oral antimicrobial therapy by infectious diseases (ID) specialists is facilitated by an accurate microbiologic diagnosis. Close collaboration between ID specialists and the clinical microbiology laboratory for routine or specialized molecular testing can result in more accurate diagnoses, streamlined antimicrobial regimens, and improved patient outcomes.