Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

Exploration of a Potential DOOR Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia Using Six Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach to clinical trial design and analysis that uses an ordinal ranking system to incorporate the overall risks and benefits of a therapeutic intervention into a single measurement. Here, we derived and evaluated a disease-specific DOOR endpoint for registrational trials for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: Through comprehensive examination of data from nearly 4,000 participants enrolled in six registrational trials for HABP/VABP submitted to the FDA between 2005-2022, we derived and applied a HABP/VABP specific endpoint. We estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment arm would have a more favorable overall DOOR or component outcome than a participant assigned to comparator. RESULTS: DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 48.3% to 52.9% and were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the component analyses. Though infectious complications and serious adverse events occurred more frequently in ventilated participants compared to non-ventilated participants, the types of events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Through a data-driven approach, we constructed and applied a potential DOOR endpoint for HABP/VABP trials. The inclusion of syndrome-specific events may help to better delineate and evaluate participant experiences and outcomes in future HABP/VABP trials and could help inform data collection and trial design.

Application of desirability of outcome ranking to the milking in non-vigorous infants trial.

OBJECTIVES: Neonatal trials have traditionally used binary composite short-term (such as death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia) or longer-term (such as death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment) outcomes. We applied the Desirability Of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) method to rank the overall patient outcome by best (no morbidities) to worst (death). STUDY DESIGN: Using a completed large multicenter trial (Milking In Non-Vigorous Infants [MINVI]) of umbilical cord milking (UCM) vs. early cord clamping (ECC), we applied the DOOR methodology to neonatal outcomes. Six outcomes were chosen and ranked: no interventions or NICU admission (most desirable); received initial cardiorespiratory support at birth; neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission for predefined criteria; mild hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE); moderate to severe HIE; and death (least desirable). RESULTS: 1524 non-vigorous newborns born between 35 and 42 weeks' gestation had data for analysis. The DOOR distribution was different between the UCM and ECC arms, with a significantly greater probability (55.8 % [95 % CI 53.1-58.5 %; p < 0.0001]) of a randomly selected neonate having a more desirable outcome if they were in the UCM arm. DOOR probabilities of averting individual adverse outcomes such as NICU admission for predefined criteria (52.8 %; 95%CI 50.5-55.1 %) and cardiorespiratory support (54.0 %; 95%CI 51.6-56.4 %) were significantly higher among those in the UCM group. CONCLUSION: DOOR provides an overall assessment of the benefits and harms with greater insight than typical binary composite measures to clinicians and parents when evaluating an intervention. Future neonatal trials should consider the a priori use of the DOOR methodology to evaluate trial outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes and Bacterial Characteristics of Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Among Patients From Different Global Regions.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAb) is 1 of the most problematic antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. We sought to elucidate the international epidemiology and clinical impact of CRAb. METHODS: In a prospective observational cohort study, 842 hospitalized patients with a clinical CRAb culture were enrolled at 46 hospitals in five global regions between 2017 and 2019. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days from the index culture. The strains underwent whole-genome analysis. RESULTS: Of 842 cases, 536 (64%) represented infection. By 30 days, 128 (24%) of the infected patients died, ranging from 1 (6%) of 18 in Australia-Singapore to 54 (25%) of 216 in the United States and 24 (49%) of 49 in South-Central America, whereas 42 (14%) of non-infected patients died. Bacteremia was associated with a higher risk of death compared with other types of infection (40 [42%] of 96 vs 88 [20%] of 440). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, bloodstream infection and higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Clonal group 2 (CG2) strains predominated except in South-Central America, ranging from 216 (59%) of 369 in the United States to 282 (97%) of 291 in China. Acquired carbapenemase genes were carried by 769 (91%) of the 842 isolates. CG2 strains were significantly associated with higher levels of meropenem resistance, yet non-CG2 cases were over-represented among the deaths compared with CG2 cases. CONCLUSIONS: CRAb infection types and clinical outcomes differed significantly across regions. Although CG2 strains remained predominant, non-CG2 strains were associated with higher mortality. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03646227.

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 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.

Desirability of outcome ranking for obstetrical trials: illustration and application to the ARRIVE trial.

BACKGROUND: In randomized trials, 1 primary outcome is typically chosen to evaluate the consequences of an intervention, whereas other important outcomes are relegated to secondary outcomes. This issue is amplified for many obstetrical trials in which an intervention may have consequences for both the pregnant person and the child. In contrast, desirability of outcome ranking, a paradigm shift for the design and analysis of clinical trials based on patient-centric evaluation, allows multiple outcomes-including from >1 individual-to be considered concurrently. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe desirability of outcome ranking methodology tailored to obstetrical trials and to apply the methodology to maternal-perinatal paired (dyadic) outcomes in which both individuals may be affected by an intervention but may experience discordant outcomes (eg, an obstetrical intervention may improve perinatal but worsen maternal outcomes). STUDY DESIGN: This secondary analysis applies the desirability of outcome ranking methodology to data from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network ARRIVE trial. The original analysis found no substantial difference in the primary (perinatal composite) outcome, but a decreased risk of the secondary outcome of cesarean delivery with elective induction at 39 weeks. In the present desirability-of-outcome-ranking analysis, dyadic outcomes ranging from spontaneous vaginal delivery without severe neonatal complication (most desirable) to cesarean delivery with perinatal death (least desirable) were classified into 8 categories ranked by overall desirability by experienced investigators. Distributions of the desirability of outcome ranking were compared by estimating the probability of having a more desirable dyadic outcome with elective induction at 39 weeks of gestation than with expectant management. To account for various perspectives on these outcomes, a complementary analysis, called the partial credit strategy, was used to grade outcomes on a 100-point scale and estimate the difference in overall treatment scores between groups using a t test. RESULTS: All 6096 participants from the trial were included. The probability of a better dyadic outcome for a randomly selected patient who was randomized to elective induction was 53% (95% confidence interval, 51-54), implying that elective induction led to a better overall outcome for the dyad when taking multiple outcomes into account concurrently. Furthermore, the desirability-of-outcome-ranking probability of averting cesarean delivery with elective induction was 52% (95% confidence interval, 51-53), which was not at the expense of an operative vaginal delivery or a poorer outcome for the perinate (ie, survival with a severe neonatal complication or perinatal death). Randomization to elective induction was also advantageous in most of the partial credit score scenarios. CONCLUSION: Desirability-of-outcome-ranking methodology is a useful tool for obstetrical trials because it provides a concurrent view of the effect of an intervention on multiple dyadic outcomes, potentially allowing for better translation of data for decision-making and person-centered care.

Interlaboratory comparison of Pseudomonas aeruginosa phage susceptibility testing.

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 (CP8), 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.

Evaluating the balance of benefits and harms in chronic pain clinical trials: prioritizing individual participants over individual outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) generally assess efficacy and safety separately, with the conclusion of whether a treatment is beneficial based solely on the efficacy endpoint. However, assessing and combining efficacy and safety domains, using a single composite outcome measure, can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the overall effect of a treatment. Furthermore, composite outcomes can incorporate information regarding the relationship between the individual outcomes. In fact, such outcomes have been suggested in the clinical trials literature for at least 15 years. OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify whether recent primary publications of chronic pain RCTs from major pain journals included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms and (2) discuss the potential benefits of such outcomes in various stages of treatment development, including as outcome measures in RCTs, and to support decisions of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards and ordering of treatments in the context of treatment guidelines. EVIDENCE REVIEW: RCTs published in 6 major pain journals published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were reviewed. FINDINGS: Of 73 RCTs identified, only 2 included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms. Both of these articles compared 2 active treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Composite outcomes of benefits and harms are underutilized in chronic pain RCTs. The advantages and challenges of using such outcomes are discussed.

Priorities and Progress in Gram-negative Bacterial Infection Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

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.

Priorities and Progress in Gram-positive Bacterial Infection Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group: A Narrative Review.

The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) has prioritized infections caused by gram-positive bacteria as one of its core areas of emphasis. The ARLG Gram-positive Committee has focused on studies responding to 3 main identified research priorities: (1) investigation of strategies or therapies for infections predominantly caused by gram-positive bacteria, (2) evaluation of the efficacy of novel agents for infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and (3) optimization of dosing and duration of antimicrobial agents for gram-positive infections. Herein, we summarize ARLG accomplishments in gram-positive bacterial infection research, including studies aiming to (1) inform optimal vancomycin dosing, (2) determine the role of dalbavancin in MRSA bloodstream infection, (3) characterize enterococcal bloodstream infections, (4) demonstrate the benefits of short-course therapy for pediatric community-acquired pneumonia, (5) develop quality of life measures for use in clinical trials, and (6) advance understanding of the microbiome. Future studies will incorporate innovative methodologies with a focus on interventional clinical trials that have the potential to change clinical practice for difficult-to-treat infections, such as MRSA bloodstream infections.

Under the Hood: The Scientific Leadership, Clinical Operations, Statistical and Data Management, and Laboratory Centers of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

Developing 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.

Priorities and Progress in Diagnostic Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

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.

The Future Ain't What It Used to Be Out With the Old In With the Better: Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations.

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.

The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group: Scientific Advancements and Future Directions.

In 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.

Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin in acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: an economic evaluation of the THALES trial.

Objective: THALES demonstrated that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death but increased bleeding versus aspirin during the 30 days following a mild-to-moderate acute non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke (AIS) or high-risk transient ischaemic attack (TIA). There are no cost-effectiveness analyses supporting this combination in Europe. To address this, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Methods: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a decision tree and Markov model with a short-term and long-term (30-year) horizon. Stroke, mortality, bleeding and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) data from THALES were used to estimate short-term outcomes. Model transitions were based on stroke severity (disabling stroke was defined as modified Rankin Scale >2). Healthcare resource utilisation and EQ-5D data beyond 30 days were based on SOCRATES, another trial in AIS/TIA that compared ticagrelor with aspirin. Long-term costs, survival and disutilities were based on published literature. Unit costs were derived from national databases and discounted at 3% annually from a Swedish healthcare perspective. Results: One-month treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin resulted in 12 fewer strokes, 4 additional major bleeds and cost savings of €95 000 per 1000 patients versus aspirin from a Swedish healthcare perspective. This translated into increased quality-adjusted life-years (0.04) and reduced societal costs (-€1358) per patient over a lifetime horizon. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were number of patients experiencing subsequent disabling stroke and degree of disability. Findings were robust over a range of input assumptions. Conclusion: One month of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin is likely to improve outcomes and reduce costs versus aspirin in mild-to-moderate AIS or high-risk TIA. Trial registration number: NCT03354429.

Desirability of Outcome Ranking for Status Epilepticus: A Benefit-Risk Approach to Design and Analyses of Clinical SE Trials.

Most clinical trials of treatment efficacy evaluate benefits and harms separately. Investigators generally rate the primary outcome of a trial with a binary outcome measure and consider harms separately as adverse events. This approach fails to recognize finer gradations of patient response, correlations between benefits and harms, and the overall effects on individual patients. For example, in status epilepticus trials, efficacy is often defined as the absence of clinically apparent seizures with recovery of consciousness. Such an efficacy outcome fails to recognize that some causes of status epilepticus, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage or stroke, may not be accompanied by return of consciousness, and the need to intubate a patient may be classified as treatment failure even if status was successfully terminated. The Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) method uses a different approach. The DOOR method involves comparing the experiences of trial participants in different treatment arms by the desirability of the overall patient outcome. Using status epilepticus treatment as an example, a patient who experiences successful termination of status epilepticus but with major side effects would have a less desirable outcome than a patient with treatment success and minor side effects, who in turn would have a less desirable outcome than a patient with treatment success but no side effects. This is a patient-centered approach because it considers treatment efficacy in the context of the costs borne by the patient, for example, toxicity in achieving efficacy. Thus, DOOR considers both the benefits and harms to individual patients in assessing the outcome of a clinical trial. In this article, we present the rationale for the use of DOOR, the issues involved in the development of and statistical analyses of an ordinal outcome, and an example of the potential application of the DOOR method to a clinical trial of convulsive status epilepticus.

Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections associated with low procalcitonin: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Lower respiratory tract infections are frequently treated with antibiotics, despite a viral cause in many cases. It remains unknown whether low procalcitonin concentrations can identify patients with lower respiratory tract infection who are unlikely to benefit from antibiotics. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections in patients with low procalcitonin. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at five health centres in the USA. Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically suspected non-pneumonia lower respiratory tract infection and symptom duration from 24 h to 28 days were eligible for enrolment. Participants with a procalcitonin concentration of 0·25 ng/mL or less were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four with stratification by site, to receive over-encapsulated oral azithromycin 250 mg or matching placebo (two capsules on day 1 followed by one capsule daily for 4 days). Participants, non-study clinical providers, investigators, and study coordinators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was efficacy of azithromycin versus placebo in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin was -12·5%. Solicited adverse events (abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, allergic reaction, or yeast infections) were recorded as a secondary outcome. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03341273. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2017, and March 9, 2020, 691 patients were assessed for eligibility and 499 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive azithromycin (n=249) or placebo (n=250). Clinical improvement at day 5 was observed in 148 (63%, 95% CI 54 to 71) of 238 participants with full data in the placebo group and 155 (69%, 61 to 77) of 227 participants with full data in the azithromycin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference -6%, 95% CI -15 to 2). The 95% CI for the difference did not meet the non-inferiority margin. Solicited adverse events and the severity of solicited adverse events were not significantly different between groups at day 5, except for increased abdominal pain associated with azithromycin (47 [23%, 95% CI 18 to 29] of 204 participants) compared with placebo (35 [16%, 12 to 21] of 221; between-group difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 0]; p=0·066). INTERPRETATION: Placebo was not non-inferior to azithromycin in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in adults with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. After accounting for both the rates of clinical improvement and solicited adverse events at day 5, it is unclear whether antibiotics are indicated for patients with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux.

Improving Traditional Registrational Trial End Points: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking End Point for Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Clinical Trials.

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.