Safety Of Cefiderocol Research Articles

Cefiderocol Versus Best Available Therapy in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients with Severe Infections Due to Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of cefiderocol in treating severe infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) in critically ill patients, particularly those in intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: A meta-analysis of studies, including randomized clinical trials and observational studies in adult patients, was performed. Studies with at least 50% of critically ill patients were included. Studies with small sample size or without comparison groups were excluded. Sources included PubMed, Scopus, or Google Scholar, up to 14 August 2024. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane tool. The main outcome examined was 30-day mortality, while secondary outcomes assessed included clinical cure rates and adverse effects. Results were expressed with odds ratios. No funding was received for this study. It was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with reference CRD42024563041. Results: eight studies, with 1339 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Cefiderocol treatment was associated with a lower 30-day mortality rate than other available therapies (pooled OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23–0.97, p = 0.04), particularly in cases of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii infections (pooled OR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.14–0.60, p < 0.001). Although there was a non-significant trend toward higher clinical cure rates in the cefiderocol group (OR 1.59; 95% CI: 0.96–2.62, p = 0.07), the drug demonstrated at least non-inferiority when compared to other treatment options. Study limitations included moderate heterogeneity between studies, and a high risk of bias in non-RCT studies. (Five cohort studies were included). Another limitation is that five of the eight studies compared cefiderocol versus colistine, an antibiotic with known toxicity. Conclusions: The findings suggest that cefiderocol is a promising therapeutic option for managing severe MDR-GNB infections in critically ill patients, offering a potential global benefit on mortality and at least non-inferiority in the cure rate when compared with other therapies.

Cefiderocol in Difficult-to-Treat Nf-GNB in ICU Settings

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in ICU patients with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (Nf-GNB) are not as well-established. Consequently, we conducted a cohort study to compare Cefiderocol with the Best Available Therapy (BAT) in ICU patients.MethodsWe included adult patients from 9 different ICUs, including a burn ICU unit, from 2019 to 2023 treated with Cefiderocol for DTR Nf-GNB isolated from the blood or lungs. We matched each patient at a 1:2 ratio based on the same DTR Nf-GBN isolated pathogen, and when possible, within the same type of ICU (burn unit or not). The primary endpoint of the study was the clinical cure at 15 days, with secondary endpoints including clinical cure at 30 days, relapse, and in-ICU mortality. For each outcome, adjusted odds ratios were estimated using bidirectional stepwise regression in a final model, which included 13 preselected confounders.ResultsWe included 27 patients with cefiderocol, matched with 54 patients receiving the BAT. Four patients were not exactly matched on the type of ICU unit. Characteristics were comparable between groups, mostly male with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 [1–5], and 28% had immunosuppression. Cefiderocol patients were most likely to have higher number of antibiotic lines. The main DTR Nf-GNB identified was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (81.5%), followed by Acinetobater baumanii (14.8%) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (3.7%). Pneumonia was the identified infection in 21 (78.8%) patients in the Cefiderocol group and in 51 (94.4%) patients in the BAT group (p = 0.054). Clinical cure at 15 and 30-day and the in-ICU mortality was comparable between groups, however relapse was higher in the cefiderocol group (8-29.6% vs. 4-7.4%;aOR 10.06[1.96;51.53])ConclusionCefiderocol did not show an improvement in clinical cure or mortality rates compared to BAT in the treatment of DTR Nf-GNB, but it was associated with a higher relapse rate.

Real-life use of cefiderocol for salvage therapy of severe infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

Treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB) is challenging and new active antibiotics are needed urgently. This study describes the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in a retrospective series of 13 patients with severe CR-GNB infection and limited treatment options. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the predominant CR-GNB (n=8), followed by Burkholderia cepacia (n=3), Sthenotrophomona maltophilia (n=1) and KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=1). The source of infection was nosocomial pneumonia in 92.3% of cases (12/13), of which 11 cases were ventilator-associated pneumonia. Five patients were lung transplant recipients (38.5%). The median duration of treatment was 10 days (range 6-21 days). No severe adverse effects required reducing the dose or interrupting the treatment. Clinical and microbiological cure were assessed 7 days after the end of treatment, and achieved in 84.6% (11/13) of patients. Crude mortality at day 28 was observed in 23.1% (3/13) of cases. Cefiderocol is a valid alternative for the treatment of susceptible CR-GNB infections in patients with limited therapeutic options.

Snapshots of ID Week 2022

Snapshots of ID Week 2022

Real-Life Data on the Effectiveness and Safety of Cefiderocol in Severely Infected Patients: A Case Series.

Real-life data about cefiderocol use to treat extensively drug-resistant bacteria are scarce. We aim to report our early experience in patients with difficult-to-treat infections and limited therapeutic options. Patients treated with cefiderocol from March 2018 to April 2022 in a tertiary-care hospital in Spain were included. Demographic, clinical, and microbiological data were collected up to 90days after the end of treatment or until death. Survival status was recorded at 30 and 90days. Ten patients were included, seven of them critically ill. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (40%) and bacteremia (40%) were the main infections. Multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant P. aeruginosa was the most frequently isolated pathogen (70%, of which six patients were infected with bacteria with difficult-to-treat resistance), followed by A. baumannii, E. coli, and A. xylosoxidans (10% each). Seven patients received combination therapy. Clinical and microbiological cures were achieved in 90% and 80% of patients, respectively. Two previously susceptible strains (20%) developed resistance to cefiderocol. Overall, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were 10% and 50%, respectively, although two out of five patients died due to the infection. No serious adverse events were reported, except for one patient who developed thrombocytopenia. Cefiderocol seems to be an effective and safe rescue therapy for patients infected with difficult-to-treat pathogens, although there is a definite risk of the emergence of resistance.

Cefiderocol, a Siderophore Cephalosporin, as a Treatment Option for Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales.

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) remain a significant public health threat, and, despite recent approvals, new antibiotics are needed. Severe infections caused by CRE, such as nosocomial pneumonia and bloodstream infections, are associated with a relatively high risk of morbidity and mortality. The recent approval of ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, plazomicin, eravacycline and cefiderocol has broadened the armamentarium for the treatment of patients with CRE infections. Cefiderocol is a siderophore cephalosporin with overall potent in vitro activity against CRE. It is taken up via iron transport channels through active transport, with some entry into bacteria through traditional porin channels. Cefiderocol is relatively stable against hydrolysis by most serine- and metallo-beta-lactamases, including KPC, NDM, VIM, IMP and OXA carbapenemases-the most frequent carbapenemases detected in CRE. The efficacy and safety of cefiderocol has been demonstrated in three randomised, prospective, parallel group or controlled clinical studies in patients at risk of being infected by multidrug-resistant or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. This paper reviews the in vitro activity, emergence of resistance, preclinical effectiveness, and clinical experience for cefiderocol, and its role in the management of patients with CRE infections.

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.

Does cefiderocol heteroresistance explain the discrepancy between the APEKS-NP and CREDIBLE-CR clinical trial results?

Does cefiderocol heteroresistance explain the discrepancy between the APEKS-NP and CREDIBLE-CR clinical trial results?

Clinical efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in the treatment of acute bacterial infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in the treatment of acute bacterial infections. MethodsThe PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases as well as the clinical trials registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to 8 November 2020. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the treatment efficacy of cefiderocol with that of other antibiotics for adult patients with acute bacterial infections were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcome was clinical response at test of cure (TOC). ResultsThree RCTs, including one phase 2 and two phase 3 trials, were included. No significant difference in clinical response rate was observed between cefiderocol and comparators [odds ratio (OR)=1.04]. In a subgroup analysis, no significant difference was observed in the clinical response at TOC between cefiderocol and comparators in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (OR=0.92) or complicated urinary tract infection (OR=1.28). In addition, all-cause mortality at Days 14 and 28 did not differ between the cefiderocol and control groups (14-day mortality, OR=1.25; 28-day mortality, OR=1.12). Furthermore, cefiderocol was associated with similar microbiological response to comparators at the TOC assessment (OR=1.44). Finally, cefiderocol was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as comparators. ConclusionCefiderocol can achieve similar clinical and microbiological responses as comparators for patients with serious bacterial infections. In addition, cefiderocol shares a safety profile similar to that of comparators.

1271. Efficacy and Safety of Cefiderocol and Best Available Therapy in Patients with Serious Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections: Results of the Pathogen-Focused Phase 3 CREDIBLE-CR Study

BackgroundThe CREDIBLE-CR study assessed the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol (CFDC), a novel siderophore cephalosporin, in the treatment of serious infections due to carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative (GN) bacteria.MethodsCREDIBLE-CR was an open-label, prospective, randomized 2:1, Phase 3 study (NCT02714595) in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP), bloodstream infections/sepsis (BSI/Sepsis), or complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) with evidence of CR GN pathogens. Adults received intravenous CFDC 2 g, q8h, 3-h infusion or best available therapy (BAT; up to 3 drugs) for 7–14 days (extendable to 21 days). The primary endpoint at test of cure in the CR microbiological intent-to-treat (CR-MITT) population was clinical cure (NP, BSI/Sepsis) or microbiological eradication (cUTI). Secondary endpoints were clinical and microbiological outcomes, all-cause mortality (ACM) and safety. Only descriptive statistics were pre-specified.ResultsA total of 101 patients received CFDC and 49 received BAT (CR-MITT: CFDC n=80, BAT n=38): 50% had pneumonia, 31.4% BSI/Sepsis, and 18.6% cUTI (Table 1). Most frequent CR pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii (45.8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (37.3%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (23.7%). CFDC monotherapy was given to 83% of patients, while BAT monotherapy to 29% of patients. Primary outcome in the CFDC and BAT arms was achieved in 50.0% and 52.6% in NP, 43.5% and 42.9% in BSI/Sepsis, and 52.9% and 20.0% in cUTI patients (Figure). CFDC was highly efficacious vs CREs and NDM-producing pathogens. Day 28 ACM was 24.8% (25/101) with CFDC and 18.4% (9/49) with BAT. Rescue therapy was given more frequently in the BAT than CFDC arm. Mortality results by pathogen showed an imbalance in Acinetobacter spp. infections (Table 2) with a higher rate in the CFDC arm than BAT arm. ICU and shock at randomization were more frequent in the CFDC arm than in the BAT arm in Acinetobacter spp. infections (Table 2). No safety concerns related to CFDC emerged.Table 1. Baseline demographics and characteristics (CR-MITT population) Figure. CREDIBLE-CR study primary efficacy endpoints and secondary outcomes at test-of-cure visit in CR-MITT population. Table 2. All-cause mortality by baseline pathogen inpatients with or without Acinetobacter spp. infection (safety population) ConclusionEfficacy of CFDC was demonstrated in this descriptive pathogen-focused study, including CREs, metallo-NDM producers and CR non-fermenters. Baseline imbalances of ICU and shock in the subset of infections with Acinetobacter spp. may have contributed to the mortality difference between CFDC and BAT arms.DisclosuresMatteo Bassetti, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) Roger Echols, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Consultant) Yuko Matsunaga, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Employee) Simon Portsmouth, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Employee) Mari Ariyasu, BPharm, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Kiichiro Toyoizumi, PhD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Tsutae Den Nagata, MD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee)

165. Cefiderocol Treatment for Serious Infections Caused by Carbapenem-resistant Bacteria: Post-hoc Analysis of Outcomes by Pathogen in the CREDIBLE-CR Study

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of cefiderocol (CFDC), a novel siderophore cephalosporin, for the treatment of serious infections due to carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative pathogens was assessed in the CREDIBLE-CR study. The current analysis evaluated clinical and microbiological outcomes by baseline CR pathogen.MethodsAn open-label, prospective, randomised 2:1, Phase 3 study (CREDIBLE-CR; NCT02714595) was conducted in adult patients with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia, bloodstream infections or sepsis, and complicated urinary tract infections caused by CR Gram-negative pathogens. Patients received either intravenous (IV) CFDC 2g, q8h, 3-h infusion, or IV best available therapy (BAT: up to 3 drugs in combination), for 7–14 days (extendable to 21 days). Clinical and microbiological outcomes were assessed in the CR microbiological intent-to-treat (CR-MITT) population by CR pathogen, baseline MIC and by mechanism of carbapenem resistance at test of cure (TOC). Only summary statistics were collected.ResultsIn the CR-MITT population (CFDC N=80; BAT N=38), Acinetobacter baumannii (46.3% and 44.7%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (33.8% and 31.5%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15% and 26%) were the most frequent pathogens in CFDC and BAT arms, respectively. For all CR pathogens, clinical cure rates were achieved in 52.5% in the CFDC arm and 50.0% in the BAT arm at TOC; rates were similar between treatment arms by baseline CR pathogen (Table 1). Numerically higher clinical cure and microbiological outcomes were observed with CFDC for Enterobacterales (Table 1), especially against NDM-producing bacteria or those with porin-channel mutations (Table 1). CFDC MIC values ranged between ≤0.03 and 4 μg/mL, except for one pathogen (Table 2). Microbiological outcomes for CR A. baumannii, CR K. pneumoniae, and CR P. aeruginosa at TOC by baseline MICs of ≤4 μg/mL ranged between 0–40%, 0–100%, and 0–100%, respectively; at MIC ≤4 μg/mL, clinical and microbiological outcomes were equal (Table 2). ConclusionCFDC, via a novel mechanism of entry and its stability against β-lactamases, was effective against serious infections caused by CR pathogens with various resistance mechanisms or baseline MIC values.DisclosuresYuko Matsunaga, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Employee) Mari Ariyasu, BPharm, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Miki Takemura, MSc, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Yoshinori Yamano, PhD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Kiichiro Toyoizumi, PhD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Masahiro Kinoshita, MPharm, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee) Roger Echols, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Consultant) Tsutae Den Nagata, MD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee)

Cefiderocol: the Trojan horse has arrived but will Troy fall?

The global public health crisis of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms underscores the need for antibiotics with novel bacterial targets. Cefiderocol, the first siderophore-conjugated antibiotic to progress beyond phase 1 human trials, was designed to overcome challenges presented by common carbapenem-resistance mechanisms. The drug enters bacterial cells using active iron transporters (ie, a Trojan horse), overcoming drug resistance from porin channel mutations and upregulated efflux pumps; it also has intrinsic stability from hydrolysis by carbapenemases. By contrast with other novel agents, cefiderocol is active against a variety of drug-resistant pathogens, including both serine and metallo-β-lactamase (MBL) carbapenemases, as well as problematic non-fermenting Gram-negative organisms, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii complex, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. In The Lancet Infectious Diseases, the APEKS-NP study by Richard Wunderink and colleagues 1 Wunderink RG Matsunaga Y Ariyasu M et al. Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; (published online Oct 12.)https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30731-3 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (87) Google Scholar and the CREDIBLE-CR study by Matteo Bassetti and colleagues 2 Bassetti M Echols R Matsunaga Y et al. Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; (published online Oct 12.)https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30796-9 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (117) Google Scholar offer insights into the role of cefiderocol for the treatment of challenging Gram-negative infections. Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trialCefiderocol was non-inferior to high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem in terms of all-cause mortality on day 14 in patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia, with similar tolerability. The results suggest that cefiderocol is a potential option for the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including those caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Full-Text PDF Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trialCefiderocol had similar clinical and microbiological efficacy to best available therapy in this heterogeneous patient population with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Numerically more deaths occurred in the cefiderocol group, primarily in the patient subset with Acinetobacter spp infections. Collectively, the findings from this study support cefiderocol as an option for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant infections in patients with limited treatment options. Full-Text PDF

666. Efficacy and Safety of Cefiderocol According to Renal Impairment in Patients With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection (cUTI) in a Phase 2 Study

BackgroundCefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin with broad activity against Gram-negative bacteria, requires dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment or augmented renal clearance, similarly to other β-lactams. The efficacy and safety of cefiderocol were assessed according to degree of renal impairment as part of a pivotal study vs. imipenem–cilastatin (IPM/CS) in patients with cUTI (NCT02321800).MethodsA total of 448 randomized adults with cUTI received cefiderocol (2 g) or IPM/CS (1 g / 1 g), IV, q8h, for 7–14 days (safety population), with 371 patients in the microbiological intent-to-treat (Micro-ITT) population. Dose adjustments were made based on body weight (to enable IPM/CS blinding) and creatinine clearance (CrCL). The composite (clinical and microbiological) outcome at a test of cure (TOC; 7 days after treatment cessation) was analyzed by CrCL subgroup. Adverse events (AEs) according to renal subgroup were monitored throughout the study.ResultsA treatment difference in the composite outcome at TOC in favor of cefiderocol vs. IPM/CS was observed across renal subgroups (table), with greater differences in moderate and severe groups, consistent with that observed in the overall population (n = 371; 18.0%, 95% confidence interval: 7.5; 28.5). The incidence of AEs in the cefiderocol group was comparable across all renal subgroups. Conversely, AE incidence increased with the degree of impairment in the IPM/CS group (table).ConclusionIn contrast to IPM/CS, the efficacy of cefiderocol was maintained across all renal function subgroups with no increase in the rate of AEs. These findings underscore the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in patients with renal impairment and support the adequacy of the dose adjustment. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

LB4. Efficacy and Safety of Cefiderocol vs. High-Dose Meropenem in Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia—Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Non-Inferiority Study

BackgroundCefiderocol (CFDC) is a novel siderophore cephalosporin with activity against a broad range of Gram-negative bacteria. In this study, Day 14 all-cause mortality (ACM) rates were compared between CFDC and meropenem (MEM) in patients with nosocomial Gram-negative pneumonia.MethodsThe study (NCT03032380) was a Phase 3, international, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority study in hospitalized patients with ventilator-associated, hospital-acquired, or healthcare-associated pneumonia caused by suspected Gram-negative bacteria. Patients were treated with CFDC (2 g, q8h) or MEM (2 g, q8h), both infused for 3 hours, for 7–14 days. Adjunctive linezolid (600 mg, q12h, ≥5 days) was given in both arms to cover Gram-positive bacteria. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of CFDC to MEM for Day 14 ACM rate in the modified intent-to-treat population (mITT; non-inferiority margin: –12.5%). Key secondary endpoints were clinical and microbiological outcomes at test of cure (TOC), and Day 28 mortality. Safety was investigated up to 28 days after the end of treatment.ResultsIn the ITT population, 148 patients were randomized to CFDC and 150 to MEM: 59.7% were ventilated, 32.6% had failure of prior therapy, the median APACHE II score was 15, and 6.0% had concomitant Gram-negative bacteremia at baseline. In the mITT population, non-inferiority of CFDC to MEM for Day 14 ACM was demonstrated; CFDC: 12.4% (18 out of 145 patients) vs. MEM: 11.6% (17 out of 146 patients); treatment difference: 0.8; 95% confidence interval: –6.6; 8.2. Comparable Day 28 ACM (CFDC: 21.0% vs. MEM: 20.5%), clinical cure (CFDC: 64.8% vs. MEM: 66.7%), and microbiological eradication (CFDC: 47.6% vs. MEM: 48.0%) rates were demonstrated in the mITT population at TOC. Clinical cure rates for major target pathogens at TOC were similar between CFDC and MEM arms (figure). The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), drug-related TEAEs, serious AEs, discontinuation due to TEAEs, and deaths were similar between treatment arms (table).ConclusionThis study demonstrated the non-inferiority of CFDC to high-dose MEM for the pre-specified endpoint of Day 14 ACM. No unexpected safety signals were observed in the study. DisclosuresRichard G. Wunderink, MD, Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support), Shionogi Inc. (Consultant), Yuko Matsunaga, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Employee), Mari Ariyasu, BPharm, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee), Roger Echols, MD, Shionogi Inc. (Consultant), Anju Menon, PhD, Shionogi Inc. (Employee), Tsutae Den Nagata, MD, Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Employee).

Metabolism, Excretion, and Pharmacokinetics of [14 C]-Cefiderocol (S-649266), a Siderophore Cephalosporin, in Healthy Subjects Following Intravenous Administration.

The objectives of this study were to characterize the concentration‐time profiles of total radioactivity equivalent and unchanged cefiderocol, the route(s) of elimination and mass balance, and safety of cefiderocol after intravenous administration of a single 1000‐mg (100 μCi) dose of [14C]‐cefiderocol as a 1‐hour infusion in healthy adult male subjects. Unchanged cefiderocol accounted for the majority of total radioactivity in plasma, and the partitioning of total radioactivity into red blood cells was negligible. The recovery of total radioactivity was complete in all subjects within 120 hours after initiation of the infusion (101.5% of the administered dose). Cefiderocol‐related material was primarily excreted into urine, with 98.7% of the administered dose of [14C]‐cefiderocol excreted as total radioactivity into urine and negligible excretion into feces. Based on the results of metabolite profiling, cefiderocol accounted for 92.3% of area under the concentration‐time curve of total radioactivity in plasma and accounted for 90.6% of the administered dose excreted into urine. Metabolism was a minor route of elimination for cefiderocol. Cefiderocol was generally safe and well tolerated in healthy adult male subjects. In conclusion, unchanged cefiderocol represents the majority of total radioactivity in plasma. Cefiderocol is primarily excreted as unchanged drug into urine. This study indicates that cefiderocol and drug‐related material did not remain in the body.