Explore the vast range of titles available.

Anidulafungin is a novel antifungal agent of the echinocandin class. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous anidulafungin to that of oral fluconazole in 601 patients with endoscopically and microbiologically documented esophageal candidiasis. Patients received intravenous anidulafungin (100 mg on day 1, followed by 50 mg per day) or oral fluconazole (200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg per day) for 7 days beyond resolution of symptoms (range, 14-21 days). At the end of therapy, the rate of endoscopic success for anidulafungin (242 [97.2%] of 249 treated patients) was found to be statistically noninferior to that for fluconazole (252 [98.8%] of 255 treated patients; treatment difference, -1.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 0.8). The safety profile of anidulafungin was similar to that of fluconazole; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9.3% and 12.0% of patients, respectively. Laboratory parameters were similar between treatment arms. Anidulafungin is as safe and effective as oral fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis, when assessed at the completion of therapy.

There is a need for additional therapeutic options for serious infections caused by Gram-negative pathogens. In the phase 3, descriptive REVISIT study, we investigated the safety and efficacy of aztreonam–avibactam in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections or hospital-acquired pneumonia or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP–VAP) caused, or suspected to be caused, by Gram-negative bacteria. This prospective, multinational, open-label, central assessor-masked study enrolled adults who were hospitalised with a complicated intra-abdominal infection or HAP–VAP. Patients were randomly allocated via block randomisation using interactive response technology stratified by infection type in a 2:1 ratio to aztreonam–avibactam (with metronidazole for complicated intra-abdominal infection) or meropenem with or without colistin for 5–14 days for complicated intra-abdominal infection or 7–14 days for HAP–VAP. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (within 3 days before or after day 28) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality in the ITT population and safety in patients in the ITT population who received study drug (safety analysis set). No formal hypothesis testing was planned. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03329092) and EudraCT (2017–002742–68) and is complete. Between April 5, 2018, and Feb 23, 2023, we screened 461 patients. 422 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated (282 in the aztreonam–avibactam group and 140 in the meropenem group, forming the ITT analysis set), of whom ten patients (seven in the aztreonam–avibactam group and three in the meropenem group) were randomly allocated but did not receive study treatment. 271 (64%) of 422 patients had at least one Gram-negative pathogen from an adequate specimen identified at baseline. The most frequent baseline pathogens were Enterobacterales (252 [93%] of 271). Overall, 19 (24%) of 80 isolates tested for carbapenemases were carbapenemase-positive (serine, metallo-β-lactamase, or both). 193 (68·4%) of 282 patients in the aztreonam–avibactam group and 92 (65·7%) of 140 in the meropenem group had clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (treatment difference 2·7% [95% CI –6·6 to 12·4]). For patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection, the adjudicated clinical cure rate was 76·4% (159 of 208) for the aztreonam–avibactam group and 74·0% (77 of 104) for the meropenem group. Cure rates in patients with HAP–VAP were 45·9% (34 of 74) for aztreonam–avibactam and 41·7% (15 of 36) for meropenem. 28-day all-cause mortality rates were 4% (12 of 282) for aztreonam–avibactam and 7% (ten of 140) for meropenem; in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection, mortality was 2% (four of 208) and 3% (three of 104) for aztreonam–avibactam and meropenem, respectively, and in patients with HAP–VAP, mortality was 11% (eight of 74) and 19% (seven of 36), respectively. Aztreonam–avibactam was generally well tolerated, and safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of aztreonam monotherapy. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events in the aztreonam–avibactam group. These phase 3 efficacy and safety data provide support for aztreonam–avibactam as a potential therapeutic option for complicated intra-abdominal infection or HAP–VAP caused by Gram-negative bacteria. Pfizer.

Echinocandins are emerging as important new therapeutic agents for the treatment of candida infections. In this randomized, double-blind, international, multicenter study, anidulafungin was shown to be noninferior to fluconazole in the treatment of invasive candidiasis. In this study, anidulafungin was shown to be noninferior to fluconazole in the treatment of invasive candidiasis. Invasive candidiasis is an important cause of complications and death in hospitalized patients. 1 – 4 Current choices for treatment include fluconazole, caspofungin, voriconazole, and amphotericin B. 5 – 8 These agents were developed through prospective, randomized trials in which amphotericin B deoxycholate was used as the comparison agent. 6 – 9 Although caspofungin has been shown to be noninferior to amphotericin B, dose-limiting nephrotoxicity contributed to a worse outcome in the amphotericin B group. 7 Echinocandins have emerged as important agents for the treatment of invasive candidiasis. 9 , 10 Fluconazole and echinocandins have favorable safety profiles. 11 – 13 Anidulafungin, a new echinocandin with activity against candida species, 14 – . . .

Background The presence of diabetes mellitus increases the risk of several severe infections, but data on its effect on treatment outcomes in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are limited. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from a double-blind, randomized, multi-center, international clinical trial of culture-confirmed MRSA NP that compared treatment with linezolid to vancomycin. Specifically, we evaluated the clinical and microbiologic outcomes of patients with and without diabetes in the modified intent to treat population at end-of-treatment (EOT) and end-of-study (EOS, 7–30 days post-EOT). Results Among 448 enrolled patients 183 (40.8 %) had diabetes mellitus, 87 (47.5 %) of whom received linezolid and 96 (52.5 %) vancomycin. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar for the two treatment groups. Clinical success rates at EOS were 57.6 % with linezolid and 39.3 % with vancomycin, while microbiological success rates were 58.9 % with linezolid and 41.1 % with vancomycin. Among diabetic patients, rates of mortality and study drug-related adverse effects were similar between the treatment groups. Overall day 28 mortality rates were higher among diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic patients (23.5 vs 14.7 %, respectively: RD = 8.8 %, 95 % CI [1.4, 16.3]). Conclusions Among diabetic patients with MRSA NP, treatment with linezolid, compared to vancomycin, was associated with higher clinical and microbiologic success rates, and comparable adverse event rates. Trial registration NCT00084266 .

Abstract Background The Phase 3 ASSEMBLE study investigated aztreonam–avibactam versus best available therapy (BAT) for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) or bloodstream infection (BSI) caused by confirmed MBL-producing multidrug-resistant pathogens. Methods This prospective, multicentre, randomized, open-label, central assessor-blinded study randomized hospitalized adults 2:1 to aztreonam–avibactam [+ metronidazole (cIAI)] or BAT for 5–14 (cIAI, cUTI and BSI) or 7–14 (HAP/VAP) days. Primary endpoint was clinical cure at test-of-cure (TOC) visit on Day 28  ±  3 [microbiological ITT (micro-ITT) analysis set]. Secondary endpoints included microbiological response at TOC, 28-day mortality and safety. No formal hypothesis testing was planned. Results Fifteen patients were randomized [aztreonam–avibactam, n = 12; BAT, n = 3 (ITT and micro-ITT analysis sets)]. Most frequent baseline pathogens were Enterobacterales; Klebsiella pneumoniae was most common [aztreonam–avibactam, 6/12 (50%); BAT, 2/3 (67%)]. MBL subtypes/variants identified in the aztreonam–avibactam group were NDM-1 (n = 7), NDM-5 (n = 3), VIM-2 (n = 2) and L1 (n = 3); and for BAT were NDM-1 (n = 2) and NDM-5 (n = 1). Clinical cure rates at TOC were 5/12 (42%) for aztreonam–avibactam and 0/3 (0%) for BAT. Per-patient microbiological responses were generally consistent with clinical responses. Twenty-eight-day all-cause mortality rates for aztreonam–avibactam and BAT were 1/12 (8%) and 1/3 (33%), respectively. Aztreonam–avibactam was generally well-tolerated, with no treatment-related serious adverse events. Conclusions These Phase 3 data provide support for aztreonam–avibactam as a potential therapeutic option for difficult-to-treat infections caused by MBL-producing Gram-negative bacteria.

One important component in determining the benefits and harms of medical interventions is the use of well-defined and reliable outcome assessments as endpoints in clinical trials. Improving endpoints can better define patient benefits, allowing more accurate assessment of drug efficacy and more informed benefit-vs-risk decisions; another potential plus is facilitating efficient trial design. Since our first report in 2012, 2 Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium Project Teams have continued to develop outcome assessments for potential uses as endpoints in registrational clinical trials of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. In addition, the teams have initiated similar work in the indications of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This report provides an update on progress to date in these 4 diseases.

infections, especially multidrug-resistant (MDR) infections, are a global health problem. This study aimed to describe clinical outcomes in patients with confirmed spp. isolates who were treated with tigecycline in randomized clinical trials. Data from 14 multinational, randomized (open-label or double-blind), and active-controlled (except one) Phase III and IV studies were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A total of 174 microbiologically evaluable patients with spp. infections (including MDR infections) were identified, and 95 received tigecycline to treat community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), diabetic foot infections (DFIs), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), infections with resistant pathogens (RPs), or complicated skin and skin-structure infections. The rate of cure of tigecycline for most indications was 70%-80%, with the highest (88.2%) in cIAIs. The rate of cure of the comparators was generally higher than tigecycline, but within each indication the 95% CIs for clinical cure for each treatment group overlapped. For most isolates, the minimum inhibitory concentration of tigecycline was 0.12-2 μg/mL, with seven at 4 μg/mL and one at 8 μg/mL. The cure rate by tigecycline was 50% (95% CI 12.5%-87.5% in CAP) to 88.2% (95% CI 66.2%-97.1% in cIAIs) for all , and 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-93.2% in HAP) to 100% (95% CI 25%-100.0% in cIAIs) for MDR . For the comparators, it was 83.8% (95% CI 62.8%-95.9% in HAP) to 100% (95% CI 75%-100% in cIAIs and 25%-100.0% in RPs) and 88% (95% CI 66%-97% in HAP) to 100% (95% CI 25%-100% in cIAIs and 75%-100% in DFIs), respectively. These findings suggest that with appropriate monitoring, tigecycline may be a useful consideration for infections alone or in combination with other anti-infective agents when other therapies are not suitable.

The US Food and Drug Administration solicited evidence-based recommendations to improve guidance for studies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). We analyzed 7 HABP/VABP datasets to explore novel noninferiority study endpoints and designs, focusing on alternatives to all-cause mortality (ACM). ACM at day 28 differed for ventilated HABP (27.8%), VABP (18.0%), and nonventilated HABP (14.5%). A \"mortality-plus\" (ACM+) composite endpoint was constructed by combining ACM with patient-relevant, infection-related adverse events from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities toxic/septic shock standardized query. The ACM+ rate was 3-10 percentage points above that of ACM across the studies and treatment groups. Predictors of higher ACM/ACM+ rates included older age and elevated acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score. Only patients in the nonventilated HABP group were able to report pneumonia symptom changes. If disease groups and patient characteristics in future studies produce an ACM rate so low (<10%-15%) that a fixed noninferiority margin of 10% cannot be justified (requiring an odds ratio analysis), an ACM+ endpoint could lower sample size. Enrichment of studies with patients with a higher severity of illness would increase ACM. Data on symptom resolution in nonventilated HABP support development of a patient-reported outcome instrument.