1473. Structured Patient Interview in Complicated Urinary Tract Infections to Assess Clinical Outcomes vs. Investigator’s Evaluation in the APEKS-cUTI Study

BACKGROUND: Based on the 2009 US FDA guidance, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are recommended in clinical study designs for certain indications to evaluate response to therapy from the patient’s perspective, and a PRO was recommended in the final complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) guidance in 2014. Several PRO tools have been rigorously validated, but currently, no tool exists for evaluating cUTI. We included a “structured patient interview (SPI)“ while conducting a randomized, double-blind, study (NCT02321800) investigating cefiderocol (CFDC) vs. imipenem–cilastatin (IPM/CS) in cUTI patients to support the physician’s assessment of clinical response. METHODS: Patients, who were fully alert and oriented, were interviewed at randomization, end of treatment, test of cure (TOC), and follow-up (FUP) by the same interviewer. The questionnaire identified the presence or absence of relevant symptoms pertinent to cUTI. Responses were graded as none, or if present, mild, moderate, or severe. Investigator assessment included objective measures of clinical outcome(s) and was performed independently from the patient-reported symptoms collected in the SPI. Changes in the patient’s responses were compared with the investigator’s assessment at randomization and at each study visit. A kappa correlation coefficient comparing the SPI and physician’s clinical assessment was calculated at each evaluation time point. RESULTS: Based on investigator assessment, 89.7% (226 out of 252 patients) in the CFDC arm and 87.4% (104 out of 119 patients) in the IPM/CS arm achieved clinical cure (adjusted treatment difference: 2.39%; 95% CI: –4.66; 9.44) at TOC. Based on the SPI responses, 89.7% (226 out of 252 patients) in the CFDC arm and 84.9% (101 out of 119 patients) in the IPM/CS arm achieved clinical cure (adjusted treatment difference: 4.96%; 95% CI: –2.48; 12.39) in favor of CFDC. The correlation between SPI evaluation and physician’s assessment of clinical outcomes was very high at TOC and FUP visits (Kappa coefficients: 0.820 and 0.766, respectively). CONCLUSION: The strong correlation between patients’ reported symptoms collected in the SPI and investigator assessment showed that SPI responses could be a useful alternative measure of clinical outcomes in cUTI studies. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.