Microbiologically Evaluable Population Research Articles

637. Treatment Outcomes in Secondary Analysis Populations of Adult Patients the ALLIUM Phase 3 study Comparing Cefepime-Enmetazobactam to Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Complicated Urinary Tract Infections (cUTI) or Acute Pyelonephritis (AP)

BackgroundSuperior treatment outcomes were observed with the β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination of cefepime-enmetazobactam (FPE) compared to piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) in the primary efficacy population (m-MITT) of the ALLIUM phase 3 study of adult patients with cUTI/AP. We present here the outcomes in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) and ME+Resistant (ME+R) populations.Methods1034 cUTI/AP patients randomized 1:1 in a double-blind, multicenter trial received either 2 g cefepime/0.5 g enmetazobactam or 4 g piperacillin/0.5 g tazobactam q8h by 2h infusion for 7 to 14 days. Patients in m-MITT had a Gram-negative urinary baseline pathogen (BP) at >105 CFU/ml with FPE MIC ≤8 µg/ml and PTZ MIC ≤64 µg/ml. ME included patients in m-MITT who received ≥15 consecutive doses of study drug or were classified as clinical failures after receiving ≥9 doses; had a clinical assessment at test-of-cure (TOC) unless clinical failure occurred earlier; did not receive concomitant antibiotics with a non-study agent; and did not have any other protocol violation. ME+R included patients in ME along with those who had BP resistant to either FPE (MIC >8 µg/ml) or PTZ (MIC >64 µg/ml), or a missing MIC value. Overall success was the composite of clinical cure and microbiological eradication (< 103 CFU/ml in urine). Two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed using the stratified Newcombe method.ResultsIn the ME population, superiority in overall success of FPE (87.0%; 268/308) compared to PTZ (65.4%; 195/298) was demonstrated as the lower bound of the CI (16.6%) of the treatment difference (TD; 23.3%) was greater than 0 (Table). Higher rates of microbiological eradication with FPE contributed to the superior treatment outcomes. In the ME+R population in which BP susceptibility was not an exclusion criterion, favorable outcomes with FPE in overall success (TD 21.6%; 95% CI [15.3, 27.8]) and microbiological eradication (TD 21.0%; 95% CI [14.8, 27.0]) were also observed. ConclusionThe confirmation of superior treatment outcomes with FPE in the ME and ME+R populations supports the robustness of the corresponding superiority observed in adult cUTI/AP patients in m-MITT.Disclosures Adam Belley, PhD, Allecra Therapeutics SAS (Consultant) Philip Barth, MD, Allecra Therapeutics SAS (Consultant) Omar Lahlou, PhD, Allecra Therapeutics SAS (Employee) Patrick Velicitat, MD, Allecra Therapeutics SAS (Employee)

The safety and efficacy of relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin in Japanese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection or complicated urinary tract infection: A multicenter, open-label, noncomparative phase 3 study

IntroductionRelebactam, a novel class A/C β-lactamase inhibitor developed as a fixed-dose combination with imipenem/cilastatin, restores imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. MethodsThis phase 3, multicenter, open-label, noncomparative study (NCT03293485) evaluated relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin (250 mg/500 mg/500 mg) dosed every 6 h for 5–14 days in Japanese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) or complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including those with secondary sepsis. Sepsis was defined as an infection-induced systemic inflammatory response syndrome, with a documented positive blood culture; patients meeting these protocol-defined criteria were evaluated for efficacy against sepsis. ResultsOf 83 patients enrolled, 81 patients (cIAI, n = 37; cUTI, n = 44) received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Escherichia coli was the most common baseline pathogen isolated in both patients with cIAI and cUTI. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 74.1% (n = 60/81) of patients, and drug-related AEs occurred in 18.5% (n = 15/81). The most common AEs were diarrhea and nausea (8.6%). Serious AEs occurred in nine patients, including one death, but none were considered treatment related. The primary efficacy endpoint for patients with cIAI was clinical response at end of treatment (EOT) in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population, and for patients with cUTI was microbiological response at EOT in the ME population. The proportion of cIAI and cUTI patients achieving favorable responses were 85.7% (n = 24/28) and 100.0% (n = 39/39), respectively. All patients with sepsis (cIAI, n = 1; cUTI, n = 5) achieved a favorable composite clinical and microbiological response at EOT. ConclusionsA favorable safety and efficacy profile for relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin was observed in Japanese patients with cIAI and cUTI.

Phase 2, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Two Dose Regimens of Eravacycline versus Ertapenem for Adult Community-Acquired Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections

Eravacycline is a novel fluorocycline, highly active against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens in vitro, including those with tetracycline and multidrug resistance. This phase 2, randomized, double-blind study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dose regimens of eravacycline compared with ertapenem in adult hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). Patients with confirmed cIAI requiring surgical or percutaneous intervention and antibacterial therapy were randomized (2:2:1) to receive eravacycline at 1.5 mg/kg of body weight every 24 h (q24h), eravacycline at 1.0 mg/kg every 12 h (q12h), or ertapenem at 1 g (q24h) for a minimum of 4 days and a maximum of 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical response in microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit 10 to 14 days after the last dose of study drug therapy. Overall, 53 patients received eravacycline at 1.5 mg/kg q24h, 56 received eravacycline at 1.0 mg/kg q12h, and 30 received ertapenem. For the ME population, the clinical success rate at the TOC visit was 92.9% (39/42) in the group receiving eravacycline at 1.5 mg/kg q24h, 100% (41/41) in the group receiving eravacycline at 1.0 mg/kg q12h, and 92.3% (24/26) in the ertapenem group. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were 35.8%, 28.6%, and 26.7%, respectively. Incidence rates of nausea and vomiting were low in both eravacycline groups. Both dose regimens of eravacycline were as efficacious as the comparator, ertapenem, in patients with cIAI and were well tolerated. These results support the continued development of eravacycline for the treatment of serious infections, including those caused by drug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01265784.).

Telavancin: A Review of Its Use in Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia

Telavancin (Vibativ(®)), a lipoglycopeptide antibacterial agent, exhibits potent in vitro activity against Gram-positive bacteria associated with nosocomial pneumonia infections, including meticillin/oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates and S. aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin. In two multinational trials in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by Gram-positive bacteria, including infections caused by MRSA isolates, a 1-h intravenous infusion of telavancin 10 mg/kg once daily was noninferior to intravenous vancomycin 1 g every 12 h in terms of clinical cure rates in the all-treated (AT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations at the follow-up/test-of-cure (FU/TOC) visit. At this visit, clinical cure rates in the AT populations of both groups were approximately 60 %, with rates increasing to ≥80 % in the CE population. Pooled analyses of these trials also generally showed no significant between-group differences in clinical cure rates at the FU/TOC visit in the AT, CE and microbiologically evaluable (ME) populations. In the ME population, clinical cure rates were generally similar in the telavancin and vancomycin groups, irrespective of whether infections were mono- or polymicrobial, or caused by MRSA or methicillin/oxacillin-susceptible S. aureus isolates. Telavancin was generally well tolerated in patients with nosocomial pneumonia participating in clinical trials, with a tolerability profile that was generally similar to that of vancomycin. Telavancin offers an alternative treatment option in patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by Gram-positive S. aureus, including those caused by MRSA and S. aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized adults: results of a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial

Avibactam, a novel non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor, restores the in vitro activity of ceftazidime against class A, C and some class D β-lactamase-producing pathogens, including those commonly associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). This randomized, active-controlled, double-blind, Phase II trial (NCT00752219) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole compared with meropenem in hospitalized patients with cIAI. Adults with confirmed cIAI requiring surgical intervention and antibiotics were randomized 1 : 1 to receive intravenously either (i) 2000 mg of ceftazidime plus 500 mg of avibactam plus a separate infusion of 500 mg of metronidazole or (ii) 1000 mg of meropenem plus placebo every 8 h for a minimum of 5 days and a maximum of 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical response in microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit 2 weeks after the last dose of study therapy. Overall, 101 patients received ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole; 102 received meropenem. The median duration of treatment was 6.0 and 6.5 days, respectively. Favourable clinical response at the TOC visit in the ME population was observed in 91.2% (62/68) and 93.4% (71/76) of patients in the ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem groups, respectively (observed difference: -2.2%; 95% CI: -20.4%, 12.2%). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole (64.4%) and meropenem (57.8%). Ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole was effective and generally well tolerated in patients with cIAI, with a favourable clinical response rate in the ME population of >90%, similar to that of meropenem.

Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime–avibactam versus imipenem–cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis, in hospitalized adults: results of a prospective, investigator-blinded, randomized study

Objectives:The aim of this prospective phase II, randomized, investigator-blinded study (NCT00690378) was to compare the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime–avibactam and imipenem–cilastatin in hospitalized adults with serious complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) due to Gram-negative pathogens.Patients and methods:Patients aged between 18 and 90 years with cUTI were enrolled and stratified by infection type (acute pyelonephritis or other cUTI) and randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous ceftazidime 500 mg plus avibactam 125 mg every 8 hours or imipenem–cilastatin 500 mg every 6 hours. Patients meeting pre-specified improvement criteria after 4 days could be switched to oral ciprofloxacin. Patients were treated for a total of 7–14 days. The primary efficacy objective was a favorable microbiological response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit 5–9 days post-therapy in microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients.Results:Overall, 135 patients received study therapy (safety population); 62 were included in the ME population (ceftazidime–avibactam, n = 27; imipenem–cilastatin, n = 35). The predominant uropathogen was Escherichia coli. Favorable microbiological response was achieved in 70.4% of ME patients receiving ceftazidime–avibactam and 71.4% receiving imipenem–cilastatin at the TOC visit (observed difference −1.1% [95% CI: −27.2%, 25.0%]). Among ME patients with ceftazidime-resistant uropathogens, response was observed in 6/7 (85.7%) receiving ceftazidime–avibactam. Adverse events were observed in 67.6% and 76.1% of patients receiving ceftazidime–avibactam and imipenem–cilastatin, respectively. Limitations of the study include the small number of patients in the ME population.Conclusion:The results suggest that the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime–avibactam may be similar to that of imipenem–cilastatin.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00690378.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are causing serious nosocomial infections. Tigecycline was evaluated in hospitalized patients with MRSA or VRE infection. A randomized (3:1), double-blind, multicentre, Phase 3 study compared the safety and efficacy of tigecycline with vancomycin or linezolid in hospitalized patients with MRSA or VRE infection, respectively. Patients were treated for 7-28 days and the test-of-cure (TOC) assessment was made 12-37 days after the last dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical response (cure, failure and indeterminate) in the co-primary, microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations at the TOC assessment. For MRSA infection, clinical cure rates in the ME population (n = 117) were 81.4% (70 of 86 patients) with tigecycline and 83.9% (26 of 31 patients) with vancomycin. In the m-mITT population (n = 133), clinical cure occurred in 75 of 100 tigecycline-treated patients (75.0%) and in 27 of 33 vancomycin-treated patients (81.8%). In patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA, cure rates were similar with tigecycline or vancomycin (86.4% versus 86.9% in ME population; and 78.6% versus 87.0% in m-mITT population). In patients with MRSA infection, nausea or vomiting occurred more frequently with tigecycline than with vancomycin (41.0% versus 17.9%); most cases were mild, with only three patients discontinuing treatment. In patients with VRE (total enrollment, 15), 3 of 3 and 3 of 8 patients in the ME and m-mITT populations, respectively, were cured by tigecycline, compared with 2 of 3 patients in the ME and m-mITT populations treated with linezolid. Tigecycline is safe and effective in hospitalized patients with serious infection caused by MRSA. There were too few cases of VRE to draw any conclusions.

A Phase 3, open-label, non-comparative study of tigecycline in the treatment of patients with selected serious infections due to resistant Gram-negative organisms including Enterobacter species, Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tigecycline in patients with selected serious infections caused by resistant Gram-negative bacteria, or failures who had received prior antimicrobial therapy or were unable to tolerate other appropriate antimicrobials. Secondary objectives included an evaluation of the microbiological efficacy of tigecycline and in vitro activity of tigecycline for resistant Gram-negative bacteria. This open-label, Phase 3, non-comparative, multicentre study assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous tigecycline (100 mg initially, then 50 mg 12 hourly for 7-28 days) in hospitalized patients with serious infections including complicated intra-abdominal infection; complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI); community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia; or bacteraemia, including catheter-related bacteraemia. All patients had infections due to resistant Gram-negative organisms, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing strains, or had failed on prior therapy or could not receive (allergy or intolerance) one or more agents from three classes of commonly used antibiotics. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical response in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population at test of cure (TOC). Safety data included vital signs, laboratory tests and adverse events (AEs). In the ME population at TOC, the clinical cure rate was 72.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 54.8-85.8], and the microbiological eradication rate was 66.7% (95% CI: 13.7-78.8). The most commonly isolated resistant Gram-negative pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii (47%), Escherichia coli (25%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (16.7%) and Enterobacter spp. (11.0%); the most commonly diagnosed serious infection was cSSSI (67%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were nausea (29.5%), diarrhoea (16%) and vomiting (16%), which were mild or moderate in severity. In this non-comparative study, tigecycline appeared safe and efficacious in patients with difficult-to-treat serious infections caused by resistant Gram-negative organisms.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: Results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial

To compare the effect of tigecycline monotherapy, a first-in-class, expanded broad spectrum glycylcycline, with the combination of vancomycin and aztreonam (V + A) in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI). A phase 3, double-blind study conducted in 8 countries enrolled adults with cSSSI who required intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy for > or =5 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either tigecycline or V + A for up to 14 days. Primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure visit. Secondary endpoints included microbiologic efficacy and in vitro susceptibility to tigecycline of bacteria that cause cSSSI. Safety was assessed by physical examination, laboratory analyses, and adverse event reporting. A total of 596 patients were screened for enrollment, 573 were analyzed for safety, 537 were included in the clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) population, 397 were clinically evaluable (CE), and 228 were microbiologically evaluable (ME). At test-of-cure, cure rates were similar between tigecycline and V + A groups in the CE population (82.9% versus 82.3%, respectively) and in the c-mITT population (75.5% versus 76.9%, respectively). Microbiologic eradication rates (subject level) at test-of-cure in the ME population were also similar between tigecycline and V + A. Frequency of adverse events was similar between groups, although patients receiving tigecycline had higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and anorexia, while increased ALT/SGPT, pruritus, and rash occurred significantly more often in V + A-treated patients. This study demonstrates that the efficacy of tigecycline monotherapy for the treatment of patients with cSSSI is statistically noninferior to the combination of V + A.

Tigecycline is efficacious in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections

BackgroundEmpiric treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) represents a clinical challenge because of the diverse bacteriology and the emergence of bacterial resistance. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline (TGC), a first-in-class, expanded broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, were compared with imipenem/cilastatin (IMI/CIS) in patients with cIAI. MethodsIn this prospective, double-blind, phase 3, multinational trial, patients were randomly assigned to intravenous (IV) TGC (100mg initial dose, then 50mg every 12h) or IV IMI/CIS (500/500mg every 6h) for 5–14 days. Clinical response was assessed at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (14–35 days after therapy) for microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations (co-primary efficacy endpoint populations in which cure/failure response rates were determined). ResultsOf 817 mITT patients (i.e., received≥1 dose of study drug), 641 (78%) comprised the m-mITT cohort (322 TGC, 319 IMI/CIS) and 523 (64%) were ME (266 TGC, 256 IMI/CIS). Patients were predominantly white (88%) and male (59%) with a mean age of 49 years. The primary diagnoses for the mITT group were complicated appendicitis (41%), cholecystitis (22%), and intra-abdominal abscess (11%). For the ME population, clinical cure rates at TOC were 91.3% (242/265) for TGC versus 89.9% (232/258) for IMI/CIS (95% CI −4.0, 6.8; P<0.001). Corresponding clinical cure rates within the m-mITT population were 86.6% (279/322) for TGC versus 84.6% (270/319) for IMI/CIS (95% CI −3.7, 7.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority TGC versus IMI/CIS). The most commonly reported adverse events for TGC and IMI/CIS were nausea (17.6% TGC versus 13.3% IMI/CIS; P=0.100) and vomiting (12.6% TGC versus 9.2% IMI/CIS; P=0.144). ConclusionsTGC is efficacious in the treatment of patients with cIAIs and TGC met per the protocol-specified statistical criteria for noninferiority to the comparator, IMI/CIS.