Characteristics of community-acquired carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CA-CRE) are an important threat. METHODS: In CRACKLE-2, we defined patients with CA-CRE as admitted from home, without pre-existing conditions, and a positive culture within 48 h of admission. Healthcare-associated CRE (HA-CRE) were those with the lowest likelihood of community acquisition, not admitted from home and cultured \u3e48 h after admission. Specific genetic markers in carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae were evaluated through random forest modelling. RESULTS: CA-CRE and HA-CRE were detected in 83 (10%) and 208 (26%) of 807 patients. No significant differences were observed in bacterial species or strain type distribution. K. pneumoniae (204/291, 70%) was the most common CRE species, of these 184/204 (90%) were carbapenemase producers (CPKP). The top three genetic markers in random forest models were kpi_SA15, fimE, and kpfC. Of these, kpi_SA15 (which encodes a chaperone/usher system) was positively associated (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.13-8.87, P = 0.026), and kpfC negatively associated (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.72, P = 0.015) with CA-CPKP. CONCLUSIONS: Ten percent of CDC-defined CRE were CA. The true proportion of CA-CRE in hospitalized patients is likely lower as patients may have had unrecorded prior healthcare exposure. The kpi_SA15 operon was associated with the CA phenotype

A Desirability of Outcome Ranking Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Seven Versus Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection

Background: Although a short course (7 days) of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be noninferior to a conventional course (14 days) in terms of mortality and infectious complications for patients with a Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection (GNB), it is unknown whether a shorter treatment duration can provide a better overall clinical outcome. Methods: We applied a bloodstream infection-specific desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis to the results of a previously completed, randomized controlled trial comparing short versus conventional course antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with uncomplicated GNB. We determined the probability that a randomly selected participant in the short course group would have a more desirable overall outcome than a participant in the conventional duration group. We performed (1) partial credit analyses allowing for calculated and variable weighting of DOOR ranks and (2) subgroup analyses to elucidate which patients may benefit the most from short durations of therapy. Results: For the 604 patients included in the original study (306 short course, 298 conventional course), the probability of having a more desirable outcome with a short course of antibiotics compared with a conventional course was 51.1% (95% confidence interval, 46.7% to 55.4%), indicating no significant difference. Partial credit analyses indicated that the DOOR results were similar across different patient preferences. Prespecified subgroup analyses using DOOR did not reveal significant differences between short and conventional courses of therapy. Conclusions: Both short and conventional durations of antibiotic therapy provide comparable clinical outcomes when using DOOR to consider benefits and risks of treatment options for GNB

Characteristics of community-acquired carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales

Community-acquired carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CA-CRE) are an important threat. In CRACKLE-2, we defined patients with CA-CRE as admitted from home, without pre-existing conditions, and a positive culture within 48 h of admission. Healthcare-associated CRE (HA-CRE) were those with the lowest likelihood of community acquisition, not admitted from home and cultured >48 h after admission. Specific genetic markers in carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae were evaluated through random forest modelling. CA-CRE and HA-CRE were detected in 83 (10%) and 208 (26%) of 807 patients. No significant differences were observed in bacterial species or strain type distribution. K. pneumoniae (204/291, 70%) was the most common CRE species, of these 184/204 (90%) were carbapenemase producers (CPKP). The top three genetic markers in random forest models were kpi_SA15, fimE, and kpfC. Of these, kpi_SA15 (which encodes a chaperone/usher system) was positively associated (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.13-8.87, P = 0.026), and kpfC negatively associated (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.72, P = 0.015) with CA-CPKP. Ten percent of CDC-defined CRE were CA. The true proportion of CA-CRE in hospitalized patients is likely lower as patients may have had unrecorded prior healthcare exposure. The kpi_SA15 operon was associated with the CA phenotype

Moving beyond mortality: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) are frequently caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Patient-centered endpoints in clinical trials are needed to develop new antibiotics for HABP/VABP. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a paradigm for the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials based on a patient-centered, benefit-risk evaluation. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee created an infectious diseases DOOR endpoint customized for HABP/VABP, incorporating infectious complications, serious adverse events, and mortality. We applied this to two previously completed, large randomized controlled trials for HABP/VABP. ZEPHyR compared vancomycin to linezolid and VITAL compared linezolid to tedizolid. For each trial, we evaluated the DOOR distribution and probability, including DOOR component and partial credit analyses. We also applied DOOR in subgroup analyses. RESULTS: In both trials, the HABP/VABP DOOR demonstrated similar overall clinical outcomes between treatment groups. In ZEPHyR, the probability that a participant treated with linezolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with vancomycin was 50.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.1%--55.3%). In VITAL, the probability that a participant treated with tedizolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with linezolid was 48.7% (95% CI 44.8%-52.6%). The DOOR component analysis revealed that participants treated with tedizolid had a less desirable outcome than those treated with linezolid when considering clinical response alone. However, participants with decreased renal function had improved overall outcomes with tedizolid. CONCLUSION: The HABP/VABP DOOR provided more granular information about clinical outcomes than is typically presented in clinical trials. HABP/VABP trials would benefit from prospectively using DOOR

Improving Traditional Registrational Trial Endpoints: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: Traditional endpoints used in registrational randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often do not allow for complete interpretation of the full range of potential clinical outcomes. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an approach to the design and analysis of clinical trials that incorporates benefits and risks of novel treatment strategies and provides a global assessment of patient experience. METHODS: Through a multidisciplinary committee of experts in infectious diseases, clinical trial design, drug regulation, and patient experience we developed a DOOR endpoint for infectious disease syndromes and demonstrated how this could be applied to three registrational drug trials (ZEUS, APEKS-cUTI, and DORI-05) for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI). ZEUS compared fosfomycin to piperacillin/tazobactam, APEKS-cUTI cefiderocol to imipenem and DORI-05 doripenem to levofloxacin. Using DOOR, we estimated the probability of a more desirable outcome with each investigational antibacterial drug. RESULTS: In each RCT, the DOOR distribution was similar and the probability that a patient in the investigational arm would have a more desirable outcome than a patient in the control arm had a 95% confidence interval containing 50%, indicating no significant difference between treatment arms. DOOR facilitated improved understanding of potential trade-offs between clinical efficacy and safety. Partial credit and subgroup analyses also highlight unique attributes of DOOR. CONCLUSIONS: DOOR can effectively be utilized in registrational cUTI trials. The DOOR endpoint presented here can be adapted for other infectious diseases syndromes and prospectively incorporated into future clinical trials