Explore the vast range of titles available.

Treatment of complicated urinary-tract infections is challenging due to rising antimicrobial resistance. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ceftolozane-tazobactam, a novel antibacterial with Gram-negative activity, in the treatment of patients with complicated lower-urinary-tract infections or pyelonephritis. ASPECT-cUTI was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial done in 209 centres in 25 countries. Between July, 2011, and September, 2013, hospital inpatients aged 18 years or older who had pyuria and a diagnosis of a complicated lower-urinary-tract infection or pyelonephritis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous 1·5 g ceftolozane-tazobactam every 8 h or intravenous high-dose (750 mg) levofloxacin once daily for 7 days. The randomisation schedule was computer generated in blocks of four and stratified by study site. The next allocation was obtained by the study site pharmacist via an interactive voice-response system. The primary endpoint was a composite of microbiological eradication and clinical cure 5–9 days after treatment in the microbiological modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01345929 and NCT01345955. Of 1083 patients enrolled, 800 (73·9%), of whom 656 (82·0%) had pyelonephritis, were included in the microbiological MITT population. Ceftolozane-tazobactam was non-inferior to levofloxacin for composite cure (306 [76·9%] of 398 vs 275 [68·4%] of 402, 95% CI 2·3–14·6) and, as the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around the treatment difference was positive and greater than zero, superiority was indicated. Adverse event profiles were similar in the two treatment groups and were mainly non-serious. Treatment with ceftolozane-tazobactam led to better responses than high-dose levofloxacin in patients with complicated lower-urinary-tract infections or pyelonephritis. Cubist Pharmaceuticals.

Background.Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) causes substantial morbidity and mortality, but few randomized, controlled studies have been conducted to guide therapeutic interventions. Methods.To determine whether linezolid would be noninferior to vancomycin in patients with CRBSI, we conducted an open-label, multicenter, comparative study. Patients with suspected CRBSI were randomized to receive linezolid or vancomycin (control group). The primary end point was microbiologic outcome at test of cure 1 2 weeks after treatment, as assessed by step-down procedure. The first analysis population was complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) in patients with suspected CRBSI; patients with CRBSI were analyzed if noninferiority criteria (lower bound of the 95% confidence interval [CI] not outside −15%) were met. Results.Noninferiority criteria were met for cSSSI (microbiologic success rate for linezolid recipients, 89.6% [146 for 163 patients]; for the control group, 89.9% [134 of 149]; 95% CI, −7.1 to 6.4) and CRBSI (for linezolid recipients, 86.3% [82 of 95]; for the control group, 90.5% [67 of 74]; 95% CI, −13.8 to 5.4). The frequency and severity of adverse events were similar between groups. Mortality rates were 10.4% for linezolid recipients (28 of 269 patients) and 10.1% for control subjects (26 of 257) in the modified intent-to-treat population (i.e., all patients with gram-positive baseline culture) through test of cure, and they were 21.5% for linezolid recipients (78 of 363) and 16.0% for the control group (58 of 363; 95% CI, −0.2 to 11.2) for all treated patients through poststudy treatment day 84. Conclusions.Linezolid demonstrated microbiologic success rates noninferior to those for vancomycin in patients with cSSSIs and CRBSIs caused by gram-positive organisms. Patients with catheter-related infections must be carefully investigated for the heterogeneous underlying causes of high morbidity and mortality, particularly for infections with gram-negative organisms.

The risk of bacteremia is considered low in children with acute bronchiolitis. However the rate of occult bacteremia in infants with RSV infection is not well established. The aim was to determine the actual rate and predictive factors of bacteremia in children admitted to hospital due to confirmed RSV acute respiratory illness (ARI), using both conventional culture and molecular techniques. A prospective multicenter study (GENDRES-network) was conducted between 2011-2013 in children under the age of two admitted to hospital because of an ARI. Among those RSV-positive, bacterial presence in blood was assessed using PCR for Meningococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus, in addition to conventional cultures. 66 children with positive RSV respiratory illness were included. In 10.6% patients, bacterial presence was detected: H. influenzae (n = 4) and S. pneumoniae (n = 2). In those patients with bacteremia, there was a previous suspicion of bacterial superinfection and had received empirical antibiotic treatment 6 out of 7 (85.7%) patients. There were significant differences in terms of severity between children with positive bacterial PCR and those with negative results: PICU admission (100% vs. 50%, P-value = 0.015); respiratory support necessity (100% vs. 18.6%, P-value < 0.001); Wood-Downes score (mean = 8.7 vs. 4.8 points, P-value < 0.001); GENVIP scale (mean = 17 vs. 10.1, P-value < 0.001); and length of hospitalization (mean = 12.1 vs. 7.5 days, P-value = 0.007). Bacteremia is not frequent in infants hospitalized with RSV respiratory infection, however, it should be considered in the most severe cases.

Background. When hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) is caused by gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens or both (mixed infections), the adequacy of gram-negative coverage (GNC) can confound the assessment of a gram-positive agent under study. This analysis examines the influence of gram-negative infections and the adequacy of GNC on clinical efficacy and all-cause mortality in the telavancin HABP/VABP phase 3 ATTAIN trials (Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia). Methods. This post hoc analysis evaluated 3 patient groups from ATTAIN: (1) gram-positive-only infections, (2) gram-positive-only and mixed infections-adequate GNC, and (3) gram-negative-only infections and mixed infections with inadequate GNC. For each, clinical efficacy at test of cure and all-cause mortality at day 28 were compared for telavancin and vancomycin. Results/Conclusions. In the ATTAIN safety population there were 16 more deaths in the telavancin arms than in the vancomycin arms. Of these, 13 were in patients with gram-negative-only infections (n = 9) or with mixed infections and inadequate GNC (n = 4) and all had estimated baseline creatinine clearances of <30ml/min. Based on this analysis, clinical response and all-cause mortality could be confounded because there were more patients with gram-negative pathogens at baseline and more patients received inadequate treatment of these gram-negative infections in the telavancin groups.

Background. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients with a broad range of complicated skin and skin-structure infections due to either gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria was conducted to compare ceftobiprole monotherapy with treatment with vancomycin plus ceftazidime. Methods. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ceftobiprole or to receive vancomycin plus ceftazidime. Outcomes were determined at a test-of-cure visit (7–14 days after completion of therapy) and were analyzed for all patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections, as well as for subgroups, on the basis of major types of infections and severity of disease. Results. Among the clinically evaluable and the intent-to-treat populations, clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were similar in the ceftobiprole and comparator treatment arms (clinical cure rate, 90.5% [439 of 485 patients] and 90.2% [220 of 244 patients] in the clinically evaluable population, respectively; 81.9% [448 of 547 patients] and 80.8% [227 of 281 patients] in the intent-to-treat population, respectively). Clinical cure rates in ceftobiprole-treated patients ranged from 86.2% (125 of 145 patients) among those with diabetes who had foot infections to 93.0% (80 of 86 patients) among those with cellulitis. Among patients treated with ceftobiprole, clinical cure rates were similar among patients from whom gram-negative bacteria were isolated (87.9% [109 of 124 patients]) and among patients from whom gram-positive bacteria were isolated (91.8% [292 of 318 patients]) and were not statistically different from the clinical cure rates among comparator-treated patients (89.7% [61 of 68 patients] and 90.3% [149 of 165 patients], respectively). Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events in the 2 treatment groups were similar. Conclusions. Ceftobiprole monotherapy is as effective as vancomycin plus ceftazidime for treating patients with a broad range of complicated skin and skin-structure infections and infections due to gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria.

Background: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) require surgical intervention and empiric antibacterial therapy. Doripenem, a broad-spectrum carbapenem, provides coverage of key gram-negative and -positive aerobes and anaerobes encountered in cIAI. Objective: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of doripenem and meropenem in hospitalized adult patients with cIAI. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, doubleblind, noninferiority study, hospitalized adults with cIAI were randomly assigned to receive doripenem 500 mg IV q8h or meropenem 1 g IV q8h. After a minimum of 9 doses and adequate clinical improvement (relative to before the start of IV study drug, decreased body temperature and white blood cell count, improved or absent signs and symptoms of cIAI, and return of normal bowel function), patients could be switched to oral amoxicillin/clavulanate. Antibacterial therapy (IV plus subsequent oral) was given for a total of 5 to 14 days. The coprimary efficacy end points were the clinical cure rate (complete resolution or significant improvement of signs or symptoms of the index infection) in patients microbiologically evaluable (≥1 baseline pathogen isolated from an intra-abdominal culture that was susceptible to both IV study drug therapies) at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (21-60 days after the completion of study drug therapy) and the clinical cure rate in the microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (a bacterial pathogen identified at baseline, regardless of its susceptibility to the study drug). Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference (doripenem minus meropenem) in the proportion of patients classified as clinical cures was ≥-15%. Results: A total of 476 patients were enrolled. The microbiologically evaluable population (319 patients) was 62.7% male and 67.7% white, with a mean age and weight of 46.7 years and 77.2 kg, respectively. In this population, doripenem and meropenem were associated with clinical cure rates at the TOC visit of 85.9% and 85.3%, respectively. The corresponding treatment difference was 0.6% (95% CI, -7.7% to 9.0%); this difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, in the mMITT population (385 patients), the clinical cure rates were 77.9% and 78.9%, respectively, and the corresponding 1.0% treatment difference was not statistically significant (95% CI, -9.7% to 7.7%). Clinical cure rates were not significantly different between the 2 treatment arms in key subgroups (eg, age, sex, race, baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, primary infection site). Microbiological eradication rates for common pathogens isolated at study entry were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups. Doripenem was well tolerated in the population studied. In the intent-to-treat population (471 patients), 83.0% and 78.0% of patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE) and 13.2% and 14.0% experienced ≥1 serious AE in the doripenem and meropenem treatment arms, respectively. In the doripenem and meropenem treatment arms, AEs resulted in study drug discontinuation in 5.1% and 2.1% of patients and death in 2.1% and 3.0% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The present study found that doripenem (500 mg q8h) was effective in the treatment of cIAI, was therapeutically noninferior to meropenem (1 g q8h), with a safety profile not significantly different from that of meropenem in this selected population of patients with cIAI.

The global spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) complicates treatment and isolation measures in hospitals and has shown to increase mortality. Patients with disease- or therapy-related immunodeficiency are especially at risk for fatal infections caused by MDRO. The impact of MDRO colonization on the clinical course of AML patients undergoing intensive induction chemotherapy-a potentially curative but highly toxic treatment option-has not been systematically studied. 312 AML patients undergoing intensive induction chemotherapy between 2007 and 2015 were examined for MDRO colonization. Patients with evidence for MDRO before or during the hospital stay of induction chemotherapy were defined as colonized, patients who never had a positive swab for MDRO were defined as noncolonized. Of 312 AML patients 90 were colonized and 130 were noncolonized. Colonized patients suffered from significantly more days with fever, spent more days on the intensive care unit and had a higher median C-reactive protein value during the hospital stay. These findings did not result in a prolonged length of hospital stay or an increased mortality rate for colonized patients. However, in a subgroup analysis, patients colonized with carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE) had a significantly reduced 60- and 90-day, as well as 1- and 2-year survival rates when compared to noncolonized patients. Our analysis highlights the importance of intensive MDRO screening especially in patients with febrile neutropenia since persisting fever can be a sign of MDRO-colonization. CRE-colonized patients require special surveillance, since they seem to be at risk for death.

Background Use of serum procalcitonin (PCT), an inflammatory biomarker for bacterial infections, has shown promising results for early stopping antibiotic treatment among patients with respiratory infections and sepsis. There is need for additional data regarding effectiveness and safety of this concept among patients with cancer. Methods Individual data of patients with a documented diagnosis of cancer and proven or suspected respiratory infection and/or sepsis were extracted from previous trials where adult patients were randomized to receive antibiotic treatment based on a PCT protocol or usual care (control group). The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were antibiotic exposure and 28-day all-cause mortality. Results This individual-patient data meta-analysis included 777 patients with a diagnosis of cancer from 15 randomized-controlled trials. Regarding efficacy, there was a 18% reduction in antibiotic exposure in patients randomized to PCT-guided care compared to usual care ([days] 8.2 ± 6.6 vs. 9.8 ± 7.3; adjusted difference, − 1.77 [95% CI, − 2.74 to − 0.80]; p  < 0.001). Regarding safety, there were 72 deaths in 379 patients in the PCT-guided group (19.0%) compared to 91 deaths in 398 participants in the usual care group (22.9%) resulting in an adjusted OR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.02). A subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in mortality in patients younger than 70 years (adjusted OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.86]). Conclusion Result of this individual patient meta-analysis from 15 previous trials suggests that among patients with cancer and suspected or proven respiratory infection or sepsis, use of PCT to guide antibiotic treatment decisions results in reduced antibiotic exposure with a possible reduction in mortality, particularly among younger patients.

New antibiotics are needed for the treatment of patients with life-threatening carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections. We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus best available therapy in adults with serious carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections. We did a randomised, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 study in 95 hospitals in 16 countries in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with nosocomial pneumonia, bloodstream infections or sepsis, or complicated urinary tract infections (UTI), and evidence of a carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogen. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1 by interactive web or voice response system) to receive either a 3-h intravenous infusion of cefiderocol 2 g every 8 h or best available therapy (pre-specified by the investigator before randomisation and comprised of a maximum of three drugs) for 7–14 days. For patients with pneumonia or bloodstream infection or sepsis, cefiderocol treatment could be combined with one adjunctive antibiotic (excluding polymyxins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems). The primary endpoint for patients with nosocomial pneumonia or bloodstream infection or sepsis was clinical cure at test of cure (7 days [plus or minus 2] after the end of treatment) in the carbapenem-resistant microbiological intention-to-treat population (ITT; ie, patients with a confirmed carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogen receiving at least one dose of study drug). For patients with complicated UTI, the primary endpoint was microbiological eradication at test of cure in the carbapenem-resistant microbiological ITT population. Safety was evaluated in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Mortality was reported through to the end of study visit (28 days [plus or minus 3] after the end of treatment). Summary statistics, including within-arm 95% CIs calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method, were collected for the primary and safety endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02714595) and EudraCT (2015-004703-23). Between Sept 7, 2016, and April 22, 2019, we randomly assigned 152 patients to treatment, 101 to cefiderocol, 51 to best available therapy. 150 patients received treatment: 101 cefiderocol (85 [85%] received monotherapy) and 49 best available therapy (30 [61%] received combination therapy). In 118 patients in the carbapenem-resistant microbiological ITT population, the most frequent carbapenem-resistant pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii (in 54 patients [46%]), Klebsiella pneumoniae (in 39 patients [33%]), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (in 22 patients [19%]). In the same population, for patients with nosocomial pneumonia, clinical cure was achieved by 20 (50%, 95% CI 33·8–66·2) of 40 patients in the cefiderocol group and ten (53%, 28·9–75·6) of 19 patients in the best available therapy group; for patients with bloodstream infection or sepsis, clinical cure was achieved by ten (43%, 23·2–65·5) of 23 patients in the cefiderocol group and six (43%, 17·7–71·1) of 14 patients in the best available therapy group. For patients with complicated UTIs, microbiological eradication was achieved by nine (53%, 27·8–77·0) of 17 patients in the cefiderocol group and one (20%, 0·5–71·6) of five patients in the best available therapy group. In the safety population, treatment-emergent adverse events were noted for 91% (92 patients of 101) of the cefiderocol group and 96% (47 patients of 49) of the best available therapy group. 34 (34%) of 101 patients receiving cefiderocol and nine (18%) of 49 patients receiving best available therapy died by the end of the study; one of these deaths (in the best available therapy group) was considered to be related to the study drug. Cefiderocol 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. Shionogi.

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.