BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of treatments for serious infections commonly use the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. However, many trial participants survive their infection and this endpoint may not truly reflect important benefits and risks of therapy. The win ratio uses a hierarchical composite endpoint that can incorporate and prioritize outcome measures by relative clinical importance. METHODS: The win ratio methodology was applied post hoc to outcomes observed in the MERINO trial, which compared piperacillin-tazobactam with meropenem. We quantified the win ratio with a primary hierarchical composite endpoint, including all-cause mortality, microbiological relapse, and secondary infection. A win ratio of 1 would correspond to no difference between the 2 antibiotics, while a ratio <1 favors meropenem. Further analyses were performed to calculate the win odds and to introduce a continuous outcome variable in order to reduce ties. RESULTS: With the hierarchy of all-cause mortality, microbiological relapse, and secondary infection, the win ratio estimate was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], .22-.71]; P = .002), favoring meropenem over piperacillin-tazobactam. However, 73.4% of the pairs were tied due to the small proportion of events. The win odds, a modification of the win ratio accounting for ties, was 0.79 (95% CI, .68-.92). The addition of length of stay to the primary composite greatly minimized the number of ties (4.6%) with a win ratio estimate of 0.77 (95% CI, .60-.99; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The application of the win ratio methodology to the MERINO trial data illustrates its utility and feasibility for use in antimicrobial trials.