scholarly journals Meropenem-Vaborbactam in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Infections

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Chi-Chung Chen ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang

This study reports the integrated analysis of two phase III studies of meropenem-vaborbactam in the treatment of acute bacterial infections. Targeting Antibiotic Non-Susceptible Gram-Negative Organisms (TANGO) I compared the clinical efficacy and tolerability of meropenem-vaborbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/acute pyelonephritis (APN). TANGO II compared the effect and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam and best-available therapy in the treatment confirmed/suspect carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. The clinical cure rates at end of treatment (EOT) and test of cure (TOC) among the meropenem-vaborbactam group were non-inferior to those of the control group (at EOT, 92.5% versus 89.3%, risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.64–2.50; at TOC, 86.2% versus 81.7%, RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.62–3.01). Meropenem-vaborbactam was non-inferior to comparators for microbiological eradication at EOT and TOC (at EOT, 93.3% versus 88.3%, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74–1.97; at TOC, 66.5% versus 59.9%, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97–1.30). In the subgroup of patients with cUTI/APN, meropenem-vaborbactam had similar overall success rate to the control group at EOT (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01–1.09) and at TOC (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93–1.19). Meropenem-vaborbactam had a similar risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, events leading to discontinuation of the study drug, any serious adverse events, life-threatening adverse events, drug-related adverse events, and risk of death to comparators. In conclusion, meropenem-vaborbactam was noninferior to comparators for clinical cure and microbiological eradication in the treatment of acute bacterial infection, particularly cUTI/APN, and meropenem-vaborbactam was as tolerable as comparators.

Antibiotics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Che-Kim Tan ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Chien-Ming Chao

This study reports an integrated analysis of three randomized controlled trials to compare the clinical efficacies and safety of the ceftazidime–avibactam (CAZ–AVI) combination and meropenem in the treatment of adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). Overall, a total of 1677 patients (CAZ–AVI: 835 patients; meropenem: 842 patients) were included in this analysis. CAZ–AVI had a clinical cure rate at test of cure in the clinically evaluable (CE) population similar to that of meropenem (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58–1.32; I2 = 0%). Similar trends were also observed in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59–1.09; I2 = 0%) and microbiological evaluable (ME) population (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.32–1.68; I2 = 0%). In terms of clinical cure rate at the end of treatment, the efficacy of CAZ–AVI was comparable to that of meropenem in the CE population (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47–1.25; I2 = 0%), MITT population (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47–1.06; I2 = 5%), and ME population (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.39–4.08; I2 = 0%). CAZ–AVI had a similar risk of (i) treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79–1.36; I2 = 38%), (ii) any serious adverse events (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67–1.40; I2 = 0%), (iii) discontinuation of study drug due to TEAE (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.00–4.57), and iv) all-cause mortality (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.78–3.53; I2 = 0%) when compared with meropenem. In conclusion, CAZ–AVI had comparable efficacy and safety profile to those of meropenem in the treatment of cIAI.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204209862110270
Author(s):  
Li-Ting Wang ◽  
Wei-Ting Lin ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Ya-Hui Wang ◽  
Cheng-Hsin Chen ◽  
...  

Objective(s): The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the clinical safety of ceftolozane-tazobactam for the treatment of acute bacterial infections in adult patients. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception until May 2020 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only RCTs evaluating the risk of adverse events (AEs) for ceftolozane-tazobactam and comparative treatments for acute bacterial infections in adult patients were included. Results: Overall, four RCTs including a total of 2924 patients (1475 in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 1449 in the control group) were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of treatment-emergent AEs was 51.3% (748/1458) in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group, which was comparable to the control group, 49.9% [714/1430; odd’s ratio (OR), 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91–1.25; I2 = 0%]. In addition, no difference was observed between the ceftolozane-tazobactam and control groups in terms of the risk of serious AEs (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.93–1.61; I2 = 15.5%) and the risk of discontinuing the study drug due to AEs (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.55–1.33; I2 = 0%). The rate of all-cause mortality did not significantly differ between the ceftolozane-tazobactam and control groups (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82–1.50; I2 = 0%). The only exception was the risk of Clostridiodes difficile ( C. difficile) colitis, where ceftolozane-tazobactam treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk compared with the control group [0.72% (10/1376) versus 0.14% (2/1391), OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.23–11.97; I2 = 0%]. Conclusion: Ceftolozane-tazobactam treatment is as tolerable as comparative treatment options for acute bacterial infections in adult patients, however it has an increased risk of C. difficile infection. As a novel broad-spectrum antibiotic, ceftolozane-tazobactam could be a safe therapeutic option for use in common clinical practice. Plain language summary The safety of ceftolozane-tazobactam (an antibiotics) for the treatment of acute bacterial infections Objective(s): Ceftolozane-tazobactam is an effective antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial infections. This study conducts a meta-analysis to assess the clinical safety (side effects) of ceftolozane-tazobactam for the treatment of acute bacterial infections in adult patients compared with other drugs. Methods: We extracted data from four randomized controlled trials, including a total of 2924 patients (1475 in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 1449 in the control group). Results: The rate of treatment related adverse events (AEs) was similar in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group (51.3%) and control group (49.9%). There was also no difference in risk of serious adverse events, the risk of discontinuing the study drug due to AEs, and all-cause mortality. The only exception was the risk of Clostridiodes difficile colitis (a cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea), where ceftolozane-tazobactam treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk compared with the control group. Conclusion: In conclusion, as a novel broad-spectrum antibiotic, ceftolozane-tazobactam could be a safe therapeutic option for use in clinical practice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174749302110069
Author(s):  
Heidi Janssen ◽  
Louise Ada ◽  
Sandy Middleton ◽  
Michael Pollack ◽  
Michael Nilsson ◽  
...  

Background: Environmental enrichment involves organisation of the environment and provision of equipment to facilitate engagement in physical, cognitive and social activity. In animals with stroke, it promotes brain plasticity and recovery. Aims: To assess the feasibility and safety of a patient-driven model of environmental enrichment incorporating access to communal and individual environmental enrichment. Methods: A non-randomised cluster trial with blinded measurement involving people with stroke (n=193) in 4 rehabilitation units was carried out. Feasibility was operationalised as activity 10 days after admission to rehabilitation and availability of environmental enrichment. Safety was measured as falls and serious adverse events. Benefit was measured as clinical outcomes at 3 months, by an assessor blinded to group. Results: The experimental group (n=91) spent 7% (95% CI -14 to 0) less time inactive, 9% (95% CI 0 to 19) more time physically, and 6% (95% CI 2 to 10) more time socially active than the control group (n=102). Communal environmental enrichment was available 100% of the time, but individual environmental enrichment was rarely within reach (24%) or sight (39%). There were no between-group differences in serious adverse events or falls at discharge or 3 months nor in clinical outcomes at 3 months. Conclusions: This patient-driven model of environmental enrichment was feasible and safe. However, the very modest increase in activity by people with stroke, and the lack of benefit in clinical outcomes 3 months after stroke do not provide justification for an efficacy trial. Clinical Trial Registration: ANZCTR 12613000796785 Words: 245


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 132-132
Author(s):  
Liliana P. Ferreira ◽  
Núria Santos ◽  
Nuno Fernandes ◽  
Carla Ferreira

Objectives: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and it is associated with increased mortality. The use of antipsychotics is common among the elderly, especially in those with dementia. Evidence suggests an increased risk of mortality associated with antipsychotic use. Despite the short-term benefit of antipsychotic treatment to reduce the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, it increases the risk of mortality in patients with AD. Our aim is to discuss the findings from the literature about risk of mortality associated with the use of antipsychotics in AD.Methods: We searched Internet databases indexed at MEDLINE using following MeSH terms: "Antipsychotic Agents" AND "Alzheimer Disease" OR "Dementia" AND "Mortality" and selected articles published in the last 5 years.Results: Antipsychotics are widely used in the pharmacological treatment of agitation and aggression in elderly patients with AD, but their benefit is limited. Serious adverse events associated with antipsychotics include increased risk of death. The risk of mortality is associated with both typical and atypical antipsychotics. Antipsychotic polypharmacy is associated with a higher mortality risk than monotherapy and should be avoided. The mortality risk increases after the first few days of treatment, gradually reducing but continues to increase after two years of treatment. Haloperidol is associated with a higher mortality risk and quetiapine with a lower risk than risperidone.Conclusions: If the use of antipsychotics is considered necessary, the lowest effective dose should be chosen and the duration should be limited because the mortality risk remains high with long-term use. The risk / benefit should be considered when choosing the antipsychotic. Further studies on the efficacy and risk of adverse events with antipsychotics are needed for a better choice of treatment and adequate monitoring with risk reduction.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110458
Author(s):  
Mark A. Socinski ◽  
Cornelius F. Waller ◽  
Tazeen Idris ◽  
Igor Bondarenko ◽  
Alexander Luft ◽  
...  

Purpose: This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks). Results: A total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was −1.6 (CI −9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%). Conclusions: MYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints. Trial Registry Information EU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32 https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32 Plain language summary Previous studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O ( n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab ( n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was −1.6 (95% CI −9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months ( p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (9) ◽  
pp. 1799-1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann Motsch ◽  
Cláudia Murta de Oliveira ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
Iftihar Köksal ◽  
Olexiy Lyulko ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. Methods Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5–21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. Results Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, –27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, –46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. Conclusions Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02452047.


2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianca Vora ◽  
Elizabeth A E Green ◽  
Natalia Khuri ◽  
Frida Ballgren ◽  
Marina Sirota ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background Transporter-mediated drug–nutrient interactions have the potential to cause serious adverse events. However, unlike drug–drug interactions, these drug–nutrient interactions receive little attention during drug development. The clinical importance of drug–nutrient interactions was highlighted when a phase III clinical trial was terminated due to severe adverse events resulting from potent inhibition of thiamine transporter 2 (ThTR-2; SLC19A3). Objective In this study, we tested the hypothesis that therapeutic drugs inhibit the intestinal thiamine transporter ThTR-2, which may lead to thiamine deficiency. Methods For this exploration, we took a multifaceted approach, starting with a high-throughput in vitro primary screen to identify inhibitors, building in silico models to characterize inhibitors, and leveraging real-world data from electronic health records to begin to understand the clinical relevance of these inhibitors. Results Our high-throughput screen of 1360 compounds, including many clinically used drugs, identified 146 potential inhibitors at 200 μM. Inhibition kinetics were determined for 28 drugs with half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values ranging from 1.03 μM to >1 mM. Several oral drugs, including metformin, were predicted to have intestinal concentrations that may result in ThTR-2–mediated drug–nutrient interactions. Complementary analysis using electronic health records suggested that thiamine laboratory values are reduced in individuals receiving prescription drugs found to significantly inhibit ThTR-2, particularly in vulnerable populations (e.g., individuals with alcoholism). Conclusions Our comprehensive analysis of prescription drugs suggests that several marketed drugs inhibit ThTR-2, which may contribute to thiamine deficiency, especially in at-risk populations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (38) ◽  
pp. 3702-3710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Mathur ◽  
Francisco Fernández-Avilés ◽  
Jozef Bartunek ◽  
Ann Belmans ◽  
Filippo Crea ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims  Bone marrow-derived mononuclear cell (BM-MNC) therapy may improve myocardial recovery in patients following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), though existing trial results are inconsistent. Methods and results  Originally an open-label, multicentre Phase III trial, BAMI was designed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of intracoronary infusion of BM-MNCs in reducing the time to all-cause mortality in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, ≤45%) after primary angioplasty (PPCI) for ST-elevation AMI. Unexpectedly low recruitment means the trial no longer qualifies as a hypothesis-testing trial, but is instead an observational study with no definitive conclusions possible from statistical analysis. In total, 375 patients were recruited: 185 patients were randomized to the treatment arm (intracoronary infusion of BM-MNCs 2–8 days after PPCI) and 190 patients to the control arm (optimal medical therapy). All-cause mortality at 2 years was 3.26% [6 deaths; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.48–7.12%] in the BM-MNC group and 3.82% (7 deaths; 95% CI: 1.84–7.84%) in the control group. Five patients (2.7%, 95% CI: 1.0–5.9%) in the BM-MNC group and 15 patients (8.1%, CI : 4.7–12.5%) in the control group were hospitalized for heart failure during 2 years of follow-up. Neither adverse events nor serious adverse events differed between the two groups. There were no patients hospitalized for stroke in the control group and 4 (2.2%) patients hospitalized for stroke in the BM-MNC group. Conclusions  Although BAMI is the largest trial of autologous cell-based therapy in the treatment of AMI, unexpectedly low recruitment and event rates preclude any meaningful group comparisons and interpretation of the observed results.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
pp. 1073-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Niemeijer ◽  
Hans Lund ◽  
Signe Nilssen Stafne ◽  
Thomas Ipsen ◽  
Cathrine Luhaäär Goldschmidt ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative risk (RR) of serious and non-serious adverse events in patients treated with exercise therapy compared with those in a non-exercising control group.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPrimary studies were identified based on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews investigating the effect of exercise therapy.Eligibility criteriaAt least two of the authors independently evaluated all identified reviews and primary studies. Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared any exercise therapy intervention with a non-exercising control. Two authors independently extracted data. The RR of serious and non-serious adverse events was estimated separately.Results180 Cochrane reviews were included and from these, 773 primary studies were identified. Of these, 378 studies (n=38 368 participants) reported serious adverse events and 375 studies (n=38 517 participants) reported non-serious adverse events. We found no increase in risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.96 (95%CI 0.90 to 1.02, I2: 0.0%) due to exercise therapy. There was, however, an increase in non-serious adverse events (RR=1.19 (95%CI 1.09 to 1.30, I2: 0.0%). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome for non-serious adverse events was 6 [95%CI 4 to 11).ConclusionParticipating in an exercise intervention increased the relative risk of non-serious adverse events, but not of serious adverse events. Exercise therapy may therefore be recommended as a relatively safe intervention.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014014819.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S958-S959
Author(s):  
Michael W Simon ◽  
Donald Brandon ◽  
Shane Christensen ◽  
Carmen Baccarini ◽  
Emilia Jordanov ◽  
...  

Abstract Background MenACYW-TT is an investigational quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine that contains tetanus toxoid as carrier protein. The vaccine is intended for global use in individuals 6 weeks of age and older. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of MenACYW-TT compared with a licensed quadrivalent conjugate meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY-CRM [Menveo®]) in US children 2–9 years of age. Methods In a modified double-blind Phase III study (NCT03077438), 1000 children were randomized to receive one dose of either MenACYW-TT vaccine or MenACWY-CRM vaccine. Serum bactericidal assays with human (hSBA) and baby rabbit (rSBA) complement were used to measure antibodies against representative meningococcal serogroup strains at baseline and 30 days after vaccination. Safety data were collected up to 6 months post-vaccination. Results Non-inferiority of immune responses for all four serogroups, based on percentages of participants achieving hSBA vaccine seroresponse, was demonstrated for MenACYW-TT compared with MenACWY-CRM at Day 30 compared with baseline. The proportions of individuals with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 following MenACYW-TT administration were higher than those after MenACWY-CRM administration for all four serogroups (A: 86.4% vs 79.3%; C: 97.8% vs 67.1%; W: 94.8% vs 86.3%; Y: 98.5% vs 90.8%). Similar results were observed in two age substrata (2 to 5 years and 6 to 9 years). Percentages of participants with post-vaccination rSBA titers ≥ 1:128 were comparable between both groups. The safety profiles of MenACYW-TT and MenACWY-CRM were comparable. Reactogenicity at the MenACYW-TT injection site was lower than at the MenACWY-CRM injection site. There were no immediate adverse events (AEs), no AEs leading to study discontinuation, and no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported in the study. Conclusion MenACYW-TT vaccine was well tolerated and demonstrated a non-inferior immune response compared with that for the licensed MenACWY-CRM vaccine when administered as a single dose to meningococcal vaccine-naïve children. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document