meropenem and Healthcare-Associated-Pneumonia

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

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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Proteins; Cephalosporins; DNA, Bacterial; Double-Blind Method; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Meropenem; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Multilocus Sequence Typing; Porins; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Pseudomonas Infections; Respiratory System; Tazobactam; Treatment Outcome

The efficacy and safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as compared to meropenem for nosocomial pneumonia was established in a randomized, phase-III, non-inferiority trial REPROVE, which included Indian patients. We determined if the results for the Indian patients were in-line with the results of overall population. Descriptive analysis of efficacy and safety demonstrated ceftazidime-avibactam was comparable to meropenem in the management of nosocomial pneumonia in Indian patients and it may be a useful addition to the armamentarium of antibiotics for management of such infections with Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas.

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Ceftazidime; Drug Combinations; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; India; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests

Ceftolozane/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.. ASPECT-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.. Overall, 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.. There 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.. clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Double-Blind Method; Equivalence Trials as Topic; Female; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Logistic Models; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Retrospective Studies; Tazobactam

Optimal antimicrobial drug exposure in the lung is required for successful treatment outcomes for nosocomial pneumonia. Little is known about the intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics (PK) of meropenem when administered by continuous infusion (CI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the PK of two dosages of meropenem (3 g vs 6 g/day by CI) in the plasma and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia.. Thirty-one patients (81% male, median (IQR) age 72 (22) years) were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Sixteen patients received 1 g/8 h and 15 2 g/8 h by CI (8 h infusion). Plasma and ELF meropenem concentrations were modeled using a population methodology, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to estimate the probability of attaining (PTA) a free ELF concentration of 50% of time above MIC (50% fT>MIC), which results in logarithmic killing and the suppression of resistance in experimental models of pneumonia.. An increase in the dose of meropenem administered by CI achieved a higher exposure in the plasma and ELF. The use of the highest licensed dose of 6 g/day may be necessary to achieve an optimal coverage in ELF for all susceptible isolates (MIC ≤ 2 mg/L) in patients with conserved renal function. An alternative therapy should be considered when the presence of microorganisms with a MIC greater than 2 mg/L is suspected.. The trial was registered in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT-no. 2016-002796-10). Registered on 27 December 2016.

Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cross Infection; Female; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies

Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose combination antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). The economic benefits of a new drug such as CAZ-AVI are required to be assessed against those of available comparators, from the perspective of health care providers and payers, through cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of appropriate hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP caused by gram-negative pathogens, from the perspective of publicly funded health care in Italy (third-party perspective, based on the data from the REPROVE (Ceftazidime-Avibactam Versus Meropenem In Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia) clinical study; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808092).. A patient-level, sequential simulation model of the HAP/VAP clinical course was developed using spreadsheet software. The analysis focused on direct medical costs. The time horizon of the model selected was 5 years, with an annual discount rate of 3% on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical inputs for treatment comparisons were mainly obtained from the REPROVE clinical study data. In addition to clinical outcomes observed in the trial, the model incorporated impact of resistance pathogens, based on data from published studies and expert opinion. Certain assumptions were made for some model parameters due to a lack of data.. The analysis demonstrated that the intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) versus the comparator sequence (meropenem followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) provided a better clinical cure rate (+13.52%), which led to a shorter hospital stay (-0.40 days per patient), and gains in the number of life-years (+0.195) and QALYs (+0.350) per patient. The intervention sequence had an estimated net incremental total cost of €1254 ($1401) per patient, and the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3581 ($4000) per QALY gained, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 ($33,507) per QALY in Italy.. The model results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to provide clinical benefits in hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP in Italy at an acceptable cost compared to meropenem.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Ceftazidime; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Italy; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Young Adult

In clinical practice, colistin is used as combination therapy to improve its antibacterial activity, despite the consequent increase in toxicity. This prospective, comparative study evaluated the effectiveness and adverse effects of using colistin alone at a loading dose of 9 million international units (MIU) followed by 3 MIU every 8h (q8h) versus colistin+meropenem 1g q8h in treating multidrug-resistant (MDR) Klebsiella pneumoniae-induced hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. The secondary measure was the occurrence of colistin toxicity.. A total of 60 patients were divided into two groups (30 patients each); the first group received intravenous colistin at a mean daily dose of 8.304 MIU and the second group received colistin 8.58 MIU combined with meropenem (mean daily dose of 2.88g for 15 days).. The colistin-meropenem combination group showed a significant decrease in mortality versus colistin alone [16.7% (5/30) vs. 43.3% (13/30); P=0.047]. The improved clinical response mediated by combination therapy was not associated with any significant nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity or neurotoxicity. Moreover, the 42 surviving patients showed normal procalcitonin values associated with a decrease in SOFA score, whilst 12 of them showed significantly elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) (P=0.0002).. This study revealed the superiority of colistin-meropenem combination therapy over colistin monotherapy in the treatment of MDR K. pneumoniae-induced HAP or VAP and highlights the advantage of procalcitonin over CRP as a marker for eradication of sepsis and suspension of therapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Prospective Studies

Pneumonia is a common disease-causing hospitalization. When a healthcare-associated infection is suspected, antibiotics that provide coverage for multi-drug resistant (MDR) or extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) bacteria are frequently prescribed. Limited data is available for guidance on using meropenem as a first-line empiric antimicrobial in hospitalized patients with risk factors for MDR/ESBL bacterial infections.This was a single-center, retrospective study designed and conducted to identify factors associated with positive cultures for MDR/ESBL pathogens in hospitalized patients with suspected healthcare-associated pneumonia.Of the 246 patients, 103 patients (41%) received meropenem. Among patients prescribed meropenem, MDR/ESBL pathogens were detected in only 20 patients (13%). Patients admitted from a skilled nursing facility/long-term acute care (SNF/LTAC) or with a history of a positive culture for MDR/ESBL pathogens were significantly associated with positive cultures of MDR/ESBL pathogens during the hospitalization (odds ratio [95% confidence intervals], 31.40 [5.20-189.6] in SNF/LTAC and 18.50 [2.98-115.1] in history of culture-positive MDR/ESBL pathogen). There was no significant difference in mortality between the 3 antibiotic groups.Admission from a SNF/LTAC or having a history of cultures positive for MDR/ESBL pathogens were significantly associated with a positive culture for MDR/ESBL pathogens during the subsequent admission. We did not detect significant association between meropenem use as a first-line drug and morbidity and mortality for patients admitted to the hospital with suspected healthcare-associated pneumonia, and further prospective studies with larger sample size are needed to confirm our findings.

Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Drug Utilization; Female; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Middle Aged; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Residential Facilities; Retrospective Studies