Meropenem Arm Research Articles

QSOFA combined with suPAR for early risk detection and guidance of antibiotic treatment in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundSepsis guidelines suggest immediate start of resuscitation for patients with quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) 2 or 3. However, the interpretation of qSOFA 1 remains controversial. We investigated whether measurements of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) may improve risk detection when qSOFA is 1.MethodsThe study had two parts. At the first part, the combination of suPAR with qSOFA was analyzed in a prospective cohort for early risk detection. At the second part, the double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) SUPERIOR evaluated the efficacy of the suPAR-guided medical intervention. SUPERIOR took place between November 2018 and December 2020. Multivariate stepwise Cox regression was used for the prospective cohort, while univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used for the RCT. Consecutive admissions at the emergency department (ED) with suspected infection, qSOFA 1 and suPAR ≥ 12 ng/mL were allocated to single infusion of placebo or meropenem. The primary endpoint was early deterioration, defined as at least one-point increase of admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score the first 24 h.ResultsMost of the mortality risk was for patients with qSOFA 2 and 3. Taking the hazard ratio (HR) for death of patients with qSOFA = 1 and suPAR < 12 ng/mL as reference, the HR of qSOFA = 1 and suPAR ≥ 12 ng/mL for 28-day mortality was 2.98 (95% CI 2.11–3.96). The prospective RCT was prematurely ended due to pandemia-related ED re-allocations, with 91 patients enrolled: 47 in the placebo and 44 in the meropenem arm. The primary endpoint was met in 40.4% (n = 19) and 15.9% (n = 7), respectively (difference 24.5% [5.9–40.8]; odds ratio 0.14 [0.04–0.50]). One post hoc analysis showed significant median changes of SOFA score after 72 and 96 h equal to 0 and − 1, respectively.ConclusionsCombining qSOFA 1 with the biomarker suPAR improves its prognostic performance for unfavorable outcome and can help decision for earlier treatment.Trial registration EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT, 2018-001008-13) and Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT03717350). Registered 24 October 2018.

Iron serum levels and iron homeostasis parameters in patients with nosocomial pneumonia treated with cefiderocol: post hoc analysis of the APEKS-NP study

Critically ill patients often present with low serum iron levels or anemia. We evaluated the impact of iron levels and iron homeostasis on the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol, an iron-chelator siderophore cephalosporin, in patients with nosocomial pneumonia in a post hoc analysis of the randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 APEKS-NP study (NCT03032380). Patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia received cefiderocol 2 g, 3-h infusion, q8h, or high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem 2 g, 3-h infusion, q8h, for 7–14 days. Efficacy and safety parameters, including specific iron homeostasis parameters (i.e., hepcidin, iron, total iron binding capacity, transferrin saturation), were analyzed according to baseline iron levels. In the cefiderocol and meropenem arms, 79.1% (117/148) and 83.3% (125/150) randomized patients, respectively, had low baseline serum iron levels. Rates of 14-day (12.3% [14/114] vs 11.6% [14/121]) and 28-day all-cause mortality (20.5% [23/112] vs 19.0% [23/121]), clinical cure (63.2% [72/114] vs 67.2% [82/122]), and microbiological eradication (43.6% [41/94] vs 48.1% [51/106]) at test of cure were similar in cefiderocol vs meropenem arms, respectively. In the overall safety population, rates of anemia-related adverse events were similar (cefiderocol arm 18.2% [27/148], meropenem arm 18.7% [28/150]). Changes from baseline to test of cure in hepcidin, iron, total iron binding capacity, and transferrin saturation were similar between treatment arms. Cefiderocol treatment did not affect iron homeostasis, and its efficacy and safety were not influenced by baseline serum iron levels. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03032380. Date of registration: 26 January 2017.

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

BackgroundCeftolozane/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.MethodsASPECT-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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionsThere 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Evaluating the emergence of nonsusceptibility among Pseudomonas aeruginosa respiratory isolates from a phase-3 clinical trial for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (ASPECT-NP)

Objectives: The emergence of nonsusceptibility to ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem was evaluated among Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) lower respiratory tract isolates obtained from participants in the ASPECT-NP clinical trial.Methods: ASPECT-NP was a phase-3, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial that demonstrated noninferiority of 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam q8h versus 1 g meropenem q8h for treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Molecular resistance mechanisms among postbaseline nonsusceptible P. aeruginosa isolates and clinical outcomes associated with participants with emergence of nonsusceptibility were examined. Baseline susceptible and postbaseline nonsusceptible P. aeruginosa isolate pairs from the same participant underwent molecular typing.Results: Emergence of nonsusceptibility was not observed among the 59 participants with baseline susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates in the ceftolozane/tazobactam arm. Among 58 participants with baseline susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates in the meropenem arm, emergence of nonsusceptibility was observed in 13 (22.4%). Among participants who received ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, 5.1% and 3.4% had a new infection with a nonsusceptible strain, respectively. None of the isolates with emergence of nonsusceptibility to meropenem developed co-resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam. The molecular mechanisms associated with emergence of nonsusceptibility to meropenem were decreased expression or loss of OprD and overexpression of MexXY.Conclusions: Among participants with emergence of nonsusceptibility to meropenem, clinical outcomes were similar to overall clinical outcomes in the ASPECT-NP meropenem arm. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was more stable to emergence of nonsusceptibility versus meropenem; emergence of nonsusceptibility was not observed in any participants with baseline susceptible P. aeruginosa who received ceftolozane/tazobactam in ASPECT-NP.

1266. Characterization of Shifts in Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations During Treatment with Cefiderocol or Comparators in the Phase 3 CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP Studies

BackgroundCefiderocol (CFDC) is a novel siderophore cephalosporin developed to treat serious carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative (GN) infections.MethodsIn CREDIBLE-CR (NCT02714595), adults with serious infections caused by CR GN pathogens received CFDC 2 g, q8h, 3-h infusion, or best available therapy (BAT). In APEKS-NP (NCT03032380), adults with nosocomial pneumonia received CFDC or high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem (each 2 g, q8h, 3-h infusion). All treatments were given for 7‒14 days (extendable to 21 days). Biospecimens were collected before the first dose of study drug and at subsequent visits for assessments, and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to various antibiotics, including CFDC and carbapenems, were determined. Isolates with an increased MIC were evaluated by RT-PCR or whole genome sequencing (WGS) for CFDC resistance-related genes or mutations. Results for genetically related isolates with an elevated MIC during therapy are shown.ResultsOn-therapy ≥4-fold CFDC MIC increase was found in 12 out of 106 (CREDIBLE-CR; Table 1) and 7 out of 159 (APEKS-NP; Table 2) isolates, respectively. For most isolates, CFDC MIC increased by 4–8-fold but remained ≤4 µg/mL. Specific mutations which could explain CFDC MIC increases were found in only 3 isolates. Mutations in iron-transport related genes were not identified. Mutation in CFDC target gene PBP-3 was identified in 1 A. baumannii isolate. Class-C enzyme mutation was observed in 2 isolates (CREDIBLE-CR: PDC-30 in P. aeruginosa; APEKS-NP: ACT-17 in E. cloacae), although the contribution to CFDC MIC increase has not been confirmed. In the BAT arm in CREDIBLE-CR, 6 out of 46 isolates had ≥4-fold MIC increase; all post-treatment isolates were resistant to BAT agents (Table 1), although WGS was not conducted for these isolates. In the meropenem arm in APEKS-NP, 5 out of 164 isolates had ≥4-fold MIC increase (Table 2).Table 1. MIC changes in CREDIBLE-CR Table 2. MIC changes in APEKS-NP ConclusionAmong isolates with ≥4-fold MIC increase during CFDC treatment, actual CFDC MIC values remained relatively low for most isolates. Frequency of MIC increase in BAT or meropenem arms was similar to that of CFDC, but the magnitude was greater. Acquisition of contributory mechanism has not been identified except for the mutation in PBP 3 and some β-lactamases.DisclosuresMiki Takemura, MSc, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Yoshinori Yamano, PhD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Yuko Matsunaga, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Employee) Mari Ariyasu, BPharm, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Roger Echols, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Consultant) Tsutae Den Nagata, MD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee)

Meropenem vs standard of care for treatment of neonatal late onset sepsis (NeoMero1): A randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundThe early use of broad-spectrum antibiotics remains the cornerstone for the treatment of neonatal late onset sepsis (LOS). However, which antibiotics should be used is still debatable, as relevant studies were conducted more than 20 years ago, recruited in single centres or countries, evaluated antibiotics not in clinical use anymore and had variable inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures. Moreover, antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become a major problem in many countries worldwide. We hypothesized that efficacy of meropenem as a broad-spectrum antibiotic is superior to standard of care regimens (SOC) in empiric treatment of LOS and aimed to compare meropenem to SOC in infants aged <90 days with LOS.Methods and findingsNeoMero-1 was a randomized, open-label, phase III superiority trial conducted in 18 neonatal units in 6 countries. Infants with post-menstrual age (PMA) of ≤44 weeks with positive blood culture and one, or those with negative culture and at least with two predefined clinical and laboratory signs suggestive of LOS, or those with PMA >44 weeks meeting the Goldstein criteria of sepsis, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive meropenem or one of the two SOC regimens (ampicillin+gentamicin or cefotaxime+gentamicin) chosen by each site prior to the start of the study for 8–14 days. The primary outcome was treatment success (survival, no modification of allocated therapy, resolution/improvement of clinical and laboratory markers, no need of additional antibiotics and presumed/confirmed eradication of pathogens) at test-of-cure visit (TOC) in full analysis set. Stool samples were tested at baseline and Day 28 for meropenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms (CRGNO). The primary analysis was performed in all randomised patients and in patients with culture confirmed LOS. Proportions of participants with successful outcome were compared by using a logistic regression model adjusted for the stratification factors. From September 3, 2012 to November 30th 2014, total of 136 patients (instead of planned 275) in each arm were randomized; 140 (52%) were culture positive. Successful outcome at TOC was achieved in 44/136 (32%) in the meropenem arm vs. 31/135 (23%) in the SOC arm (p = 0.087). The respective numbers in patients with positive cultures were 17/63 (27%) vs. 10/77 (13%) (p = 0.022). The main reason of failure was modification of allocated therapy. Treatment emergent adverse events occurred in 72% and serious adverse events in 17% of patients, the Day 28 mortality was 6%. Cumulative acquisition of CRGNO by Day 28 occurred in 4% of patients in the meropenem and 12% in the SOC arm (p = 0.052).ConclusionsWithin this study population, we found no evidence that meropenem was superior to SOC in terms of success at TOC, short term hearing disturbances, safety or mortality were similar in both treatment arms but the study was underpowered to detect the planned effect. Meropenem treatment did not select for colonization with CRGNOs. We suggest that meropenem as broad-spectrum antibiotic should be reserved for neonates who are more likely to have Gram-negative LOS, especially in NICUs where microorganisms producing extended spectrum- and AmpC type beta-lactamases are circulating.

PCV155 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF SECOND-LINE CEFTAZIDIME-AVIBACTAM IN PATIENTS WITH HOSPITAL-ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA INCLUDING VENTILATOR-ASSOCIATED PNEUMONIA IN TAIWAN

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI), a novel combination antibiotic, as first-line therapy for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in Taiwan. A previously developed patient-level simulation model evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI in complicated urinary tract infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and HAP (incl. VAP), was localized to Taiwan. HAP (incl. VAP)-causing pathogens E. coli, K. pneumonia, E. Cloacae, and P. aeruginosa were included using prevalence rates from the 2015 Taiwan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance report. CAZ-AVI was evaluated as first-line treatment compared against meropenem, second-line treatment with colistin + tigecycline was used for both arms. Pathogen-specific resistance and effectiveness rates for each antibiotic were sourced from a mix of the REPROVE trial, the literature, a report from the Taiwan CDC, or KOL opinion. The model considered costs for antibiotics, hospitalizations, and recurrence, which were localized to Taiwan. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3%, over the 5-year time horizon, and the model took the perspective of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MoHW). Compared to meropenem arm, the CAZ-AVI was associated with higher incremental costs (NT$82,856), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.06) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of NT$1,328,745 per QALY gained. Incremental total costs were primarily driven by higher costs associated with antibiotics (NT$87,073). However, a decrease in incremental hospitalization costs of NT$4,216 was observed. CAZ-AVI reduced the percentage of patients resistant to first-line therapy and mortality by 6.84%, and 1.02%, respectively. The percentage of patients with overall clinical cure increased by 2.56% in the CAZ-AVI arm compared to the meropenem arm. CAZ-AVI was cost-effective as a first-line treatment for patients with HAP (incl. VAP) in Taiwan.

PRO162 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CEFTAZIDIME-AVIBACTAM IN PATIENTS WITH COMPLICATED INTRA-ABDOMINAL INFECTIONS OR HOSPITAL-ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA AND CARBAPENEM-RESISTANT ENTEROBACTERIACEAE IN CHINA

Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are infections subject to the increasing antimicrobial resistance. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) a novel combination antibiotic in China for cIAI or HAP/VAP infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). A previously developed patient-level simulation model was localized to China. CAZ-AVI was evaluated as a first-line antibiotic and compared against meropenem for both the cIAI and HAP/VAP scenarios. CAZ-AVI was paired with metronidazole in patients with CRE cIAI. The second-line treatments for both comparator arms were colistin + tigecycline + high dose meropenem and colistin + high dose carbapenem (CBP) for cIAI and HAP/VAP, respectively. The resistance rate for CAZ-AVI was 2.5% for both indications. Resistance to meropenem was 84.91% in cIAI, and 81.83% in HAP/VAP. Effectiveness rates from the core model were weighted according to the prevalence of pathogens in the data used to calculate resistance rates. Costs for antibiotics, hospitalization (ICU and general ward), adverse events, and recurrence were localized to China. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3%, over the 5-year time horizon. CAZ-AVI was cost-effective in both cIAI and HAP/VAP for infections caused by CRE. In CRE cIAI, CAZ-AVI + metronidazole resulted in 0.59 additional QALYs and ¥16,341 incremental costs compared to meropenem for an ICER of ¥27,577 per additional QALY gained. For patients with CRE HAP/VAP CAZ-AVI resulted in 0.83 additional QALYs and ¥21,683 additional costs compared to meropenem for an ICER of ¥26,006 per additional QALY gained. Overall clinical cure was 28.80% and 27.31% higher for the CAZ-AVI arm compared to the meropenem arm in CRE cIAI and HAP/VAP, respectively. CAZ-AVI is a cost-effective alternative to the standard of care as a first-line antibiotic for patients with CRE cIAI or HAP/VAP in China.

2226. Impact of Prior and Concomitant Antibacterial Therapy on Outcomes in the ASPECT-NP Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam (C/T) vs. Meropenem (MEM) in Patients with Ventilated Nosocomial Pneumonia (NP)

BackgroundNP is a frequent healthcare-acquired infection associated with high mortality; rising resistance rates among causative Gram-negative pathogens require new treatment options. In the randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial, C/T (at double the initially approved dose) was noninferior to MEM for ventilated NP in both primary and key secondary endpoints. Here we evaluate the impact of prior and concomitant Gram-negative antibacterial therapy on outcomes in that trial.MethodsMechanically ventilated patients with ventilator-associated or hospital-acquired pneumonia were randomized 1:1 to 3 g C/T or 1 g MEM, both by 1-h IV infusion every 8 hours for 8–14 days. Patients could receive ≤24 hours of active antibacterial therapy within ≤72 hours prior to first dose; longer durations were permitted in case of prior treatment failure (i.e., signs and/or symptoms of the current episode of ventilated NP persisted/worsened despite ≥48 hours of treatment). At sites with MEM-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa rates ≥15%, patients could optionally receive up to 72 h of adjunctive empiric aminoglycoside (amikacin was recommended) until study drug susceptibility was confirmed. Primary and key secondary endpoints, respectively, were 28-d all-cause mortality and clinical response at test of cure (TOC; 7–14 days after the end of therapy) in the intent to treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients).ResultsIn the C/T arm, 285/362 (79%) ITT patients received prior systemic Gram-negative therapy and 103/362 (28%) received adjunctive aminoglycoside, compared with 288/364 (79%) and 112/364 (31%) patients, respectively, in the MEM arm. In the microbiologic ITT population, causative pathogens in patients failing prior therapy at the time of enrollment (C/T 15%, MEM 11%) were mainly Klebsiella spp (33%), P. aeruginosa (17%), Escherichia coli (14%), and Acinetobacter baumannii (8%). Mortality and cure rates were comparable between C/T and MEM regardless of receipt of prior systemic or adjunctive Gram-negative therapy (table).ConclusionPrior and adjunctive Gram-negative antibacterial therapy did not affect the relative efficacy of C/T (at the 3-g dose) vs. MEM in these high-risk patients with Gram-negative ventilated NP. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Plazomicin: A New Aminoglycoside

Plazomicin (ACHN-490) is a novel parenteral aminoglycoside developed to target multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. It has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the management of complicated urinary tract infections and pyelonephritis caused by susceptible organisms. When compared with meropenem, plazomicin was not inferior. The adverse-event profile for plazomicin was comparable to meropenem except for an increased additional rise in serum creatinine in the plazomicin arm compared with the meropenem arm. This review focuses on the mode of action, antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical indications, and safety profile of this drug. Considerations for formulary addition and its place in therapy are also discussed.

Benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside versus meropenem in neutropenic lymphoma and leukaemia patients with a suspected bacterial infection: a randomized, controlled trial

ObjectivesIn Norway, initial treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) has traditionally been benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside. Internationally, FN is often treated with a broad-spectrum β-lactam antibiotic. We aimed to compare these two regimens in a prospective, randomized, trial in patients with lymphoma or leukaemia with an expected period of neutropenia ≥7 days, and a suspected bacterial infection. MethodsAdult neutropenic patients with lymphoma or leukaemia, and a suspected bacterial infection, were randomized for treatment with benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside or meropenem. The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined as no modification of antibiotics and clinical stability 72 h after randomization. ResultsAmong 322 randomized patients, 297 proved evaluable for analyses. Fifty-nine per cent (95% CI 51%–66%), (87/148) of the patients given benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside were clinically stable, and had no antibiotic modifications 72 h after randomization, compared with 82% (95% CI 75%–87%), (122/149) of the patients given meropenem (p <0.001). When the antibiotic therapy was stopped, 24% (95% CI 18%–32%), (36/148) of the patients given benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside, compared with 52% (95% CI 44%–60%), (78/149) of the patients given meropenem, had no modifications of their regimens (p <0.001). In the benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside arm, the all-cause fatality within 30 days of randomization was 3.4% (95% CI 1.2%–7.9%), (5/148) of the patients, compared with 0% (95% CI 0.0%–3.0%), (0/149) of the patients in the meropenem arm (p 0.03). ConclusionClinical success was more common in FN patients randomized to meropenem compared with the patients randomized to benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside. The all-cause fatality was higher among the patients given benzylpenicillin plus an aminoglycoside.