GRAvity- versus Wall suction-drIven large volume Thoracentesis: a rAndomized controlled Study (GRAWITAS study).

BACKGROUND: Prior studies found no differences in procedural chest discomfort for patients undergoing manual syringe aspiration or drainage with gravity after thoracentesis. However, whether gravity drainage could protect against chest pain due to the larger negative pressure gradient generated by wall suction has not been investigated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does wall suction drainage result in more chest discomfort compared to gravity drainage in patients undergoing large volume thoracentesis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with large free-flowing effusions of ≥500 mL were assigned to wall suction or gravity drainage in a 1:1 ratio. Wall suction was performed with suction system attached to the suction tubing and with vacuum pressure adjusted to full vacuum. Gravity drainage was performed with a drainage bag placed 100 cm below the catheter insertion site and connected via straight tubing. Patients rated chest discomfort on a 100-mm visual analog scale before, during, and after drainage. The primary outcome was postprocedural chest discomfort at 5 minutes. Secondary outcomes included measures of post procedure chest discomfort, breathlessness, procedure time, volume of fluid drained and complication rates. RESULTS: Of the 228 patients initially randomized, 221 were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome of procedural chest discomfort did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.08), nor did the secondary outcomes of postprocedural discomfort and dyspnea. Similar volumes were drained in both groups, but the procedure duration was longer in the gravity arm by approximately 3 minutes. No differences in rate of pneumothorax or re-expansion pulmonary edema were noted between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Thoracentesis via wall suction and gravity drainage results in similar levels of procedural discomfort and dyspnea improvement.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in the Adult Pulmonary Patient.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: Since its discovery in 1957, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been widely recognized as a common and deadly pathogen. Although early studies focused on the impact of RSV on the health of children, more recent data show that RSV imposes a significant burden on individuals aged ≥ 70 years. RSV also substantially harms the health of individuals with cardiopulmonary diseases. REVIEW FINDINGS: Early efforts to develop an RSV vaccine were hampered by toxicity due to antibody-enhanced viral pneumonia and a lack of efficacy in vaccines that targeted the postfusion configuration of the F fusion protein, which is crucial to the pathogenesis of RSV-mediated injury. A newer wave of vaccines has targeted a stabilized prefusion F protein, generating effective neutralizing antibodies and reducing the burden of mild and severe RSV lower respiratory tract injury. This review focuses on the burden of RSV in patients with pulmonary diseases, highlights the tumultuous path from the early days of RSV vaccine development to the modern era, and offers insights into key gaps in knowledge that must be addressed to adequately protect the vulnerable population of patients with severe pulmonary diseases. SUMMARY: RSV vaccination with bivalent RSVPreF or RSVPreF3OA, which target the stabilized prefusion F protein, can be broadly recommended to adults with pulmonary diseases aged ≥ 60 years. However, more data are needed to understand how these vaccinations affect key clinical outcomes in individuals with pulmonary disease.

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 4000 participants enrolled in six registrational trials for HABP/VABP submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2005 and 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. Although 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.

Corrigendum to "Juxta-articular extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma mistaken for a benign cyst presenting with multiple lung metastases" [Radiology Case Reports 19 (2024) 684-690].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.radcr.2023.10.075.].

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.

Comparison of three rapid diagnostic tests for bloodstream infections using Benefit-risk Evaluation Framework (BED-FRAME).

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for bloodstream infections have the potential to reduce time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy and improve patient outcomes. Previously, an in-house, lipid-based, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) method, Fast Lipid Analysis Technique (FLAT MS), has shown promise as a rapid pathogen identification method. In this study, FLAT MS for direct from blood culture identification was evaluated and compared to FDA-cleared identification methods using the Benefit-risk Evaluation Framework (BED-FRAME) analysis. FLAT MS was evaluated and compared to Bruker Sepsityper and bioMérieux BioFire FilmArray BCID2 using results from a previous study. For this study, 301 positive blood cultures were collected from the University of Maryland Medical Center. The RDTs were compared by their sensitivities, time-to-results, hands-on time, and BED-FRAME analysis. The overall sensitivity of all platforms compared to culture results from monomicrobial-positive blood cultures was 88.3%. However, the three RDTs differed in their accuracy for identifying Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria, and yeast. Time-to-results for FLAT MS, Sepsityper, and BioFire BCID2 were all approximately one hour. Hands-on times for FLAT MS, Sepsityper, and BioFire BCID2 were 10 (±1.3), 40 (±2.8), and 5 (±0.25) minutes, respectively. BED-FRAME demonstrated that each RDT had utility at different pathogen prevalence and relative importance. BED-FRAME is a useful tool that can used to determine which RDT is best for a healthcare center.

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.

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.

Association of Preoperative Lung Function with Complications after Lobectomy Using Race-Neutral and Race-Specific Normative Equations.

Rationale: Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is performed to aid patient selection before surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The interpretation of PFT data relies on normative equations, which vary by race, but the relative strength of association of lung function using race-specific or race-neutral normative equations with postoperative pulmonary complications is unknown. Objectives: To compare the strength of association of lung function, using race-neutral or race-specific equations, with surgical complications after lobectomy for NSCLC. Methods: We studied 3,311 patients who underwent lobectomy for NSCLC and underwent preoperative PFT from 2001 to 2021. We used Global Lung Function Initiative equations to generate race-specific and race-neutral normative equations to calculate percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%). The primary outcome of interest was the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications within 30 days of surgery. We used unadjusted and race-adjusted logistic regression models and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analyses adjusted for relevant comorbidities to measure the association of race-specific and race-neutral FEV1% with pulmonary complications. Results: Thirty-one percent of patients who underwent surgery experienced pulmonary complications. Higher FEV1, whether measured with race-neutral (odds ratio [OR], 0.98 per 1% change in FEV1% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.98-0.99]; P < 0.001) or race-specific (OR, 0.98 per 1% change in FEV1% [95% CI, 0.98-0.98]; P < 0.001) normative equations, was associated with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications. The area under the receiver operator curve for pulmonary complications was similar for race-adjusted race-neutral (0.60) and race-specific (0.60) models. Using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, higher FEV1% was similarly associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications in race-neutral (OR, 0.99 per 1% [95% CI, 0.98-0.99]) and race-specific (OR, 0.99 per 1%; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99) models. The marginal effect of race on pulmonary complications was attenuated in all race-specific models compared with all race-neutral models. Conclusions: The choice of race-specific or race-neutral normative PFT equations does not meaningfully affect the association of lung function with pulmonary complications after lobectomy for NSCLC, but the use of race-neutral equations unmasks additional effects of self-identified race on pulmonary complications.

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.

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.