Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 78(2): 259-268, 2024 02 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37740559

ABSTRACT

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 2 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.


Subject(s)
Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia , Pneumonia, Bacterial , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Humans , Linezolid/therapeutic use , Vancomycin/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Bacterial/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Bacterial/microbiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacteria , Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/microbiology , Hospitals , Ventilators, Mechanical
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(3): e1157-e1165, 2023 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36031403

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Traditional end points 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 end point for infectious disease syndromes and demonstrated how this could be applied to 3 registrational drug trials (ZEUS, APEKS-cUTI, and DORI-05) for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). ZEUS compared fosfomycin to piperacillin/tazobactam, APEKS-cUTI compared cefiderocol to imipenem, and DORI-05 compared 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 used in registrational cUTI trials. The DOOR end point presented here can be adapted for other infectious disease syndromes and prospectively incorporated into future clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Urinary Tract Infections , Humans , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Urinary Tract Infections/drug therapy , Urinary Tract Infections/microbiology , Levofloxacin/therapeutic use , Doripenem/therapeutic use , Imipenem
3.
NEJM Evid ; 2(2): EVIDctw2200220, 2023 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38320039

ABSTRACT

The DSMB: The Toughest Job in Clinical TrialsIn this review article, the authors discuss methods that DSMBs can use to compare the absolute and relative risks of benefits and adverse effects between trial interventions and illustrate how the DSMB can use this approach to evaluate the balance of these competing risks. Two approaches are discussed - the win ratio and the DOOR probability on one treatment relative to another.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees
4.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 77(10): 2763-2771, 2022 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36179278

ABSTRACT

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 >48 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.


Subject(s)
Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae , Enterobacteriaceae Infections , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Proteins/genetics , Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae/genetics , Carbapenems/pharmacology , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/microbiology , Genetic Markers , Humans , Klebsiella pneumoniae/genetics , beta-Lactamases/genetics
5.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(6): ofac140, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35615299

ABSTRACT

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.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...