1561. Omadacycline Pharmacokinetics: Influence of Mortality Risk Score Among Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

Abstract

BackgroundOmadacycline is a novel aminomethylcycline with activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms, including tetracycline-resistant pathogens. Omadacycline was recently approved in the United States for treatment of adult patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Analyses were undertaken to determine whether PORT risk class and CURB-65 score influence the pharmacokinetics of omadacycline in patients with CABP.MethodsOmadacycline pharmacokinetic data were available from omadacycline-treated patients with CABP enrolled in the Phase 3 OPTIC Study. Patients received omadacycline 100 mg IV q12h on Day 1 followed by 100 mg IV q24h. After Day 3, patients could be switched to 300 mg PO q24h if predefined clinical stability criteria were met. Four pharmacokinetic samples per patient were collected between Days 2 and 5. These data were previously utilized in the development of a population pharmacokinetic model describing the disposition of omadacycline [Microbe 2018; Abstr SAT-628]. Individual post-hoc parameter estimates for patients enrolled in the OPTIC study were utilized to compute Day 1 total-drug plasma area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) values following administration of omadacycline 100 mg IV q12h. Differences among these AUC values by PORT risk class and CURB-65 score were assessed using a one-way ANOVA.ResultsA total of 187 pharmacokinetic samples were available from 50 patients. Among the patients classified as PORT risk class II, III, and IV (n = 12, 28, and 10, respectively), mean Day 1 omadacycline AUC values were 10.2, 11.0, and 12.0 mg L/h, respectively. Among patients with CURB-65 scores of 0, 1, and 2 (n = 23, 23, and 4, respectively), mean Day 1 omadacycline AUC values were 10.6, 11.6, and 9.7 mg L/h, respectively. The differences in mean AUC values were not statistically significant among patients by PORT risk class (P = 0.248) and CURB-65 score groups (P = 0.745). Moreover, variability was similar across these groups as displayed in Figure 1.ConclusionOmadacycline exposures were similar across PORT risk class and CURB-65 score groups; thus, omadacycline dose adjustments based on these classifications are likely not warranted. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.