A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Methods In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, –1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, –7.6%; 97.5% CI: –15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. Conclusions Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02019420.

Download Full-text

2841. A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate (TZD) and Linezolid (LZD) for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive (G+) Nosocomial Pneumonia

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz359.146 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. S67-S67

Author(s):

Richard G Wunderink ◽

Antoine Roquilly ◽

Martin Croce ◽

Daniel Rodriguez Gonzalez ◽

Satoshi Fujimi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Response ◽

Clinical Laboratory ◽

Clinical Success ◽

Incidence Rates ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Intent To Treat ◽

Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are frequently caused by G+ cocci; TZD has potent in vitro activity against these pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The VITAL study compared the efficacy and safety of TZD vs. LZD for the treatment of ventilated patients with G+ HAP/VAP. Methods Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, global, phase 3 study in mechanically ventilated adult patients with presumed G+ HAP/VAP (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02019420). Patients were stratified by region, age, and trauma/nontrauma, then randomized 1:1 to intravenous (IV) TZD 200 mg once daily for 7 days or IV LZD 600 mg every 12 h for 10 d (patients with concurrent G+ bacteremia received 14 d of treatment). The primary efficacy endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) in the intent to treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients; noninferiority [NI] margin, 10%). Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; NI margin, 12.5%). Results In total, 726 patients were randomized (TZD n = 366; LZD n = 360). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the ITT (table). Noninferiority was not demonstrated for TZD vs. LZD for investigator-assessed clinical success at TOC in the ITT. Stratification factors, analysis population, baseline clinical/laboratory signs of HAP/VAP, G+ only vs. mixed G+/gram-negative (G–) HAP/VAP, adjunctive G– therapy, MRSA vs. methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and HAP vs. VAP were evaluated, and no single factor accounted for the observed imbalance in clinical response between treatment arms. Greater than 90% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Anemia, hypokalemia, and diarrhea were the most frequently reported (TEAEs) in both arms. Types and incidence rates of TEAEs overall, and of drug-related TEAEs specifically, were comparable between TZD and LZD. Conclusion TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the treatment of ventilated G+ HAP/VAP. However, TZD was not noninferior to LZD based on the investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC. Both drugs were similarly well tolerated and TEAEs were well balanced between groups, with no new safety signals identified. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

Download Full-text

A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections in the Phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Journal of Medical Microbiology ◽

10.1099/jmm.0.001177 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 69 (4) ◽

pp. 625-630

Author(s):

Stephanie Noviello ◽

G. Ralph Corey ◽

Thomas L. Holland ◽

Thomas Lodise ◽

William O’Riordan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Response ◽

Safety Profile ◽

Wound Infections ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Gram Positive ◽

Two Phase ◽

Double Blind ◽

Skin Structure ◽

Treatment Difference ◽

Vancomycin Treatment

Introduction. Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to Gram-positive pathogens. Aim. This analysis evaluates patients with wound infections from two Phase 3 trials of ABSSSI. Methodology. Six-hundred-two patients with wound infections from two Phase 3, double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active controlled trials (REVIVE-1/–2) were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of iclaprim 80 mg compared with vancomycin 15 mg kg–1 administered intravenously every 12 h for 5–14 days. The primary endpoint was to determine whether iclaprim was non-inferior (10 % margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20 % reduction from baseline in lesion size 48–72 h after starting study drug (early clinical response [ECR]). Safety was assessed. Results. In REVIVE-1, ECR was 83.5 % with iclaprim versus 79.7 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 3.77%, 95 % CI −4.50%, 12.04%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 82.7 % with iclaprim versus 76.3 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 6.38%, 95 % CI −3.35%, 16.12%). In the pooled dataset, iclaprim had similar ECR rates compared with vancomycin among wound infection patients (83.2 % vs 78.2 %) with a treatment difference of 5.01 % (95 % CI −1.29%, 11.32%). The safety profile was similar in iclaprim- and vancomycin-treated patients, except for a higher incidence of diarrhea with vancomycin (n=17) compared with iclaprim (n=6) and fatigue with iclaprim (n=17) compared with vancomycin (n=8). Conclusion. Based on early clinical response, iclaprim achieved non-inferiority to vancomycin with a similar safety profile in patients with wound infections suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for wound infections.

Download Full-text

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study)

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciaa803 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Ivan Titov ◽

Richard G Wunderink ◽

Antoine Roquilly ◽

Daniel Rodríguez Gonzalez ◽

Aileen David-Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Response ◽

Bacterial Pneumonia ◽

Severe Renal Impairment ◽

Apache Ii Score ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Double Blind ◽

Gram Negative ◽

Mitt Population ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Imipenem combined with the β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Methods This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7–14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7–14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. Results Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, −5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, −3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. Conclusions Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02493764.

Download Full-text

Ceftobiprole Compared With Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind Trial (TARGET)

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciaa974 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

J Scott Overcash ◽

Charles Kim ◽

Richard Keech ◽

Illia Gumenchuk ◽

Borislav Ninov ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Response ◽

Clinical Success ◽

Laboratory Data ◽

European Medicines Agency ◽

Success Rates ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Gram Positive ◽

Double Blind ◽

Gram Negative ◽

Skin Structure

Abstract Background The development of novel broad-spectrum antibiotics, with efficacy against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, has the potential to enhance treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation intravenous cephalosporin with broad in vitro activity against gram-positive (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and gram-negative pathogens. Methods TARGET was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 noninferiority study that compared ceftobiprole with vancomycin plus aztreonam. The Food and Drug Administration-defined primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response 48–72 hours after treatment initiation in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and the European Medicines Agency-defined primary endpoint was investigator-assessed clinical success at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Noninferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in success rates (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin/aztreonam) >−10%. Safety was assessed through adverse event and laboratory data collection. Results In total, 679 patients were randomized to ceftobiprole (n = 335) or vancomycin/aztreonam (n = 344). Early clinical success rates were 91.3% and 88.1% in the ceftobiprole and vancomycin/aztreonam groups, respectively, and noninferiority was demonstrated (adjusted difference: 3.3%; 95% CI: −1.2, 7.8). Investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit was similar between the 2 groups, and noninferiority was demonstrated for both the ITT (90.1% vs 89.0%) and clinically evaluable (97.9% vs 95.2%) populations. Both treatment groups displayed similar microbiological success and safety profiles. Conclusions TARGET demonstrated that ceftobiprole is noninferior to vancomycin/aztreonam in the treatment of ABSSSIs, in terms of early clinical response and investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit. Clinical Trials Registration NCT03137173.

Download Full-text

Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind Noninferiority (NI) Study of Ceftazidime–Avibactam (CAZ-AVI) vs. Meropenem (MER) in the Treatment of Patients with Hospital-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (HABP/VABP): Analyses of the REPROVE Study per US FDA Endpoints

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1394 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽

pp. S535-S535 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Antoni Torres ◽

Doug Rank ◽

Ludmyla Rekeda ◽

Xiang Chen ◽

Todd Riccobene ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bacterial Pneumonia ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Us Fda ◽

Hospital Acquired

Download Full-text

Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial

Critical Care ◽

10.1186/s13054-021-03694-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jean-François Timsit ◽

Jennifer A. Huntington ◽

Richard G. Wunderink ◽

Nobuaki Shime ◽

Marin H. Kollef ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bacterial Pneumonia ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Hospital Acquired ◽

The Impact ◽

Treat Population

Abstract Background Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. Methods ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. Results Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI − 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. Conclusions There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Download Full-text

1230. Clinical and Microbiologic Outcomes by Causative Pathogen in Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (HABP/VABP) Treated with Imipenem/Cilastatin (IMI)/Relebactam (REL) Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam (PIP/TAZ)

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1415 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S635-S635

Author(s):

Maria C Losada ◽

Alok Maniar ◽

Jiejun Du ◽

Michelle L Brown ◽

Katherine Young ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Response ◽

Study Drug ◽

Empiric Therapy ◽

Causative Pathogen ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Mitt Population ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Intent To Treat ◽

Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background IMI/REL is a combination of IMI and the novel class A and class C β-lactamase inhibitor REL. Here we present per-pathogen outcomes from a recent phase 3 clinical trial (RESTORE-IMI 2), in which IMI/REL was shown to be non-inferior to piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) for empiric therapy of HABP/VABP, in both primary and key secondary endpoints. Methods Randomized, controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in adults with HABP/VABP. Lower respiratory tract specimens were obtained ≤48 hours prior to screening. Participants (pts) were randomized 1:1 to IMI/REL 500 mg/250 mg or PIP/TAZ 4 g/500 mg, given intravenously every 6 h for 7-14 d. Pts also received empiric linezolid until baseline cultures confirmed absence of MRSA. This analysis evaluated outcomes by causative LRT pathogen in modified intent to treat (MITT) pts (randomized pts with ≥1 dose of study drug, excluding pts with only gram-positive cocci present on baseline Gram stain) who had ≥1 baseline LRT pathogen susceptible (according to CLSI criteria) to both study drugs. Outcomes assessed were microbiologic response at end of therapy (EOT), clinical response at early follow-up (EFU; 7-14 d after EOT), and Day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM). Results Of 531 MITT pts, 51.4% (130 IMI/REL, 143 PIP/TAZ) had ≥1 baseline LRT pathogen susceptible to both study drugs. The most common causative pathogens in this analysis population were Klebsiella spp (30.4% of patients), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (22.3%), Escherichia coli (22.0%), and Haemophilus influenzae (9.2%), consistent with other recent trials in HABP/VABP and with surveillance data. Outcomes by pathogen were generally comparable between IMI/REL and PIP/TAZ (Table). In a separate subgroup analysis of the microbiologic MITT population, in pts with ≥1 ESBL-positive LRT pathogen (45 IMI/REL, 35 PIP/TAZ), microbiologic response at EOT was 82.2% (IMI/REL) vs 68.6%% (PIP/TAZ), clinical response at EFU was 64.4% vs 60.0%, and Day 28 ACM was 20.0% and 22.9%, respectively. In the IMI/REL arm, 8 pts had ≥1 confirmed KPC-positive baseline LRT pathogen; KPC status was not assessed in the PIP/TAZ arm. Conclusion IMI/REL is an efficacious treatment option for HABP/VABP, regardless of causative pathogen. Table. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes in patients who were in the MITT population and had at least 1 baseline LRT pathogen susceptible to both study drugs Disclosures Maria C. Losada, BA, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Jiejun Du, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Michelle L. Brown, BS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Katherine Young, MS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert Tipping, MS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) C. Andrew DeRyke, PharmD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Joan R. Butterton, MD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Amanda Paschke, MD MSCE, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Luke F. Chen, MBBS MPH MBA FRACP FSHEA FIDSA, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

Download Full-text

A Phase-3 Study to Compare Delafloxacin to Moxifloxacin for the Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (DEFINE-CABP)

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz514 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Juan P Horcajada ◽

Robert A Salata ◽

Rodolfo Álvarez-Sala ◽

Floarea Mimi Nitu ◽

Laura Lawrence ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Response ◽

Bacterial Pneumonia ◽

Study Drug ◽

The United States ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Success Rates ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Atypical Pathogens ◽

Intent To Treat

Abstract Background The clinical and economic burden of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is significant and is anticipated to increase as the population ages and pathogens become more resistant. Delafloxacin is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Delafloxacin’s shape and charge profile uniquely impacts its spectrum of activity and side effect profile. This phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin to moxifloxacin for the treatment of CABP. Methods A randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, multicenter, global Phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin 300 mg BID or moxifloxacin 400 mg QD in adults with CABP. The primary endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) defined as improvement at 96 (± 24) hours after first dose of study drug. Clinical response at test of cure (TOC) and microbiologic response were also assessed. Results In the intent-to-treat analysis population (ITT), ECR rates were 88.9% in the delafloxacin group and 89.0% in the moxifloxacin group. Noninferiority of delafloxacin compared with moxifloxacin was demonstrated. At TOC in the ITT population, the success rates were similar between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events considered at least possibly related to the study drug occurred in 65 subjects (15.2%) in the delafloxacin group and 54 (12.6%) in the moxifloxacin group. Conclusions IV/oral delafloxacin monotherapy is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of adults with CABP, providing coverage for grampositive, gramnegative, and atypical pathogens.

Download Full-text

Outcomes in Participants with Renal Impairment from a Phase 3 Clinical Trial for Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia (ASPECT-NP)

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy ◽

10.1128/aac.00731-20 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 64 (12) ◽

Author(s):

Jennifer A. Huntington ◽

Brian Yu ◽

Linping Li ◽

Erin Jensen ◽

Christopher Bruno ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Function ◽

Renal Impairment ◽

Bacterial Pneumonia ◽

Small Sample ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Dosing Regimens ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Small Sample Sizes ◽

Hospital Acquired

ABSTRACT In the phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial (NCT02070757), ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) was noninferior to meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we report outcomes in participants from ASPECT-NP with renal impairment (RI). Participants were categorized by their baseline renal function as follows: normal renal function (NRF; creatinine clearance [CLCR], ≥80 ml/min), mild RI (CLCR, >50 to <80 ml/min), moderate RI (CLCR, ≥30 to ≤50 ml/min), and severe RI (CLCR, ≥15 to <30 ml/min). Dosing of both study drugs was adjusted based on renal function. The following C/T doses were administered every 8 h: NRF or mild RI, 3 g; moderate RI, 1.5 g; and severe RI, 0.75 g. The primary and key secondary endpoints were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) and clinical response at the test-of-cure visit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. In the ITT population, day 28 ACM rates for the C/T arm versus the meropenem arm were 17.6% versus 19.1% (NRF), 36.6% versus 28.6% (mild RI), 31.4% versus 38.5% (moderate RI), and 35.3% versus 61.9% (severe RI). Rates of clinical cure in the ITT population for the C/T arm versus the meropenem arm were 58.1% versus 58.5% (NRF), 54.9% versus 45.5% (mild RI), 37.1% versus 42.3% (moderate RI), and 41.2% versus 47.6% (severe RI). Small sample sizes in the RI groups resulted in large 95% confidence intervals (CIs), limiting conclusive interpretation of the analysis. Both drugs were well tolerated across all renal function groups. Overall, these results support the use of the study dosing regimens of C/T for treatment of vHABP/VABP in patients with RI. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02070757.)

Download Full-text