cefiderocol and Healthcare-Associated-Pneumonia

Infections caused by carbapenem-resistant (CR) Enterobacterales and nonfermenters (such as Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Burkholderia) are a major global health threat. Cefiderocol, a cephalosporin with activity against CR Enterobacterales and nonfermenters, uses the bacteria’s own iron uptake system to gain cell entry, like a Trojan horse. Once inside, the drug disrupts the formation of the bacterial cell wall, killing the bacteria. Cefiderocol is approved for the treatment of serious Gram-negative bacterial infections. In clinical trials, cefiderocol was effective versus carbapenems or best available therapy for complicated urinary tract infections, nosocomial pneumonia and bloodstream infections/sepsis, including those caused by CR bacteria. The drug had a good tolerability and safety profile. Thus, cefiderocol is a useful addition to the current treatment options for adults with cefiderocol-susceptible Gram-negative bacterial infections for whom there are limited treatment options.

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefiderocol; Cephalosporins; Double-Blind Method; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Tract Infections

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.

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefiderocol; Cephalosporins; Cross Infection; Double-Blind Method; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Homeostasis; Humans; Iron

Nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens poses an increasing challenge. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for adults with nosocomial pneumonia.. We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 76 centres in 17 countries in Asia, Europe, and the USA (APEKS-NP). We enrolled adults aged 18 years and older with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, or health-care-associated Gram-negative pneumonia, and randomly assigned them (1:1 by interactive response technology) to 3-h intravenous infusions of either cefiderocol 2 g or meropenem 2 g every 8 h for 7-14 days. All patients also received open-label intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) for at least 5 days. An unmasked pharmacist prepared the assigned treatments; investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Only the unmasked pharmacist was aware of the study drug assignment for the infusion bags, which were administered in generic infusion bags labelled with patient and study site identification numbers. Participants were stratified at randomisation by infection type and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (≤15 and ≥16). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients receiving at least one dose of study drug, excluding patients with Gram-positive monomicrobial infections). The analysis was done for all patients with known vital status. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference between cefiderocol and meropenem groups was less than 12·5%. Safety was investigated to the end of the study in the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03032380, and EudraCT, 2016-003020-23.. Between Oct 23, 2017, and April 14, 2019, we randomly assigned 148 participants to cefiderocol and 152 to meropenem. Of 292 patients in the modified ITT population, 251 (86%) had a qualifying baseline Gram-negative pathogen, including Klebsiella pneumoniae (92 [32%]), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (48 [16%]), Acinetobacter baumannii (47 [16%]), and Escherichia coli (41 [14%]). 142 (49%) patients had an APACHE II score of 16 or more, 175 (60%) were mechanically ventilated, and 199 (68%) were in intensive care units at the time of randomisation. All-cause mortality at day 14 was 12·4% with cefiderocol (18 patients of 145) and 11·6% with meropenem (17 patients of 146; adjusted treatment difference 0·8%, 95% CI -6·6 to 8·2; p=0·002 for non-inferiority hypothesis). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 130 (88%) of 148 participants in the cefiderocol group and 129 (86%) of 150 in the meropenem group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was urinary tract infection in the cefiderocol group (23 patients [16%] of 148) and hypokalaemia in the meropenem group (23 patients [15%] of 150). Two participants (1%) of 148 in the cefiderocol group and two (1%) of 150 in the meropenem group discontinued the study because of drug-related adverse events.. Cefiderocol 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.. Shionogi.

Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefiderocol; Cephalosporins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Pneumonia, Bacterial