Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial drug ceftolozane–tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia. We conducted a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were undergoing mechanical ventilation, and had nosocomial pneumonia (either ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation (block size four), stratified by type of nosocomial pneumonia and age (<65 years vs ≥65 years), to receive either 3 g ceftolozane–tazobactam or 1 g meropenem intravenously every 8 h for 8–14 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality (at a 10% non-inferiority margin). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (7–14 days after the end of therapy; 12·5% non-inferiority margin). Both endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Investigators, study staff, patients, and patients' representatives were masked to treatment assignment. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received study treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02070757. Between Jan 16, 2015, and April 27, 2018, 726 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 362 to the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 364 to the meropenem group. Overall, 519 (71%) patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia, 239 (33%) had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of at least 20, and 668 (92%) were in the intensive care unit. At 28 days, 87 (24·0%) patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 92 (25·3%) in the meropenem group had died (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI −5·1 to 7·4]). At the test-of-cure visit 197 (54%) patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 194 (53%) in the meropenem group were clinically cured (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI −6·2 to 8·3]). Ceftolozane–tazobactam was thus non-inferior to meropenem in terms of both 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure at test of cure. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 38 (11%) of 361 patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 27 (8%) of 359 in the meropenem group. Eight (2%) patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and two (1%) in the meropenem group had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. High-dose ceftolozane–tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population. Merck & Co.

Omadacycline is a new antimicrobial that is related to tetracyclines and is active against a broad range of pathogens. In this randomized, controlled trial involving 774 adults, omadacycline was found to be noninferior to moxifloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

Lack of rapid and comprehensive microbiological diagnosis in patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) hampers appropriate antimicrobial therapy. This study evaluates the real-world performance of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia panel plus (FAP plus ) and explores the feasibility of evaluation in a randomised controlled trial. Patients presenting to hospital with suspected CAP were recruited in a prospective feasibility study. An induced sputum or an endotracheal aspirate was obtained from all participants. The FAP plus turnaround time (TAT) and microbiological yield were compared with standard diagnostic methods (SDs). 96/104 (92%) enrolled patients had a respiratory tract infection (RTI); 72 CAP and 24 other RTIs. Median TAT was shorter for the FAP plus , compared with in-house PCR (2.6 vs 24.1 h, p < 0.001) and sputum cultures (2.6 vs 57.5 h, p < 0.001). The total microbiological yield by the FAP plus was higher compared to SDs (91% (162/179) vs 55% (99/179), p < 0.0001). Haemophilus influenzae , Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza A virus were the most frequent pathogens. In conclusion, molecular panel testing in adults with CAP was associated with a significant reduction in time to actionable results and increased microbiological yield. The impact on antibiotic use and patient outcome should be assessed in randomised controlled trials.

Abstract Rationale To identify pathogens that require different treatments in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we propose an acronym, “PES” (P  seudomonas aeruginosa, E  nterobacteriaceae extended-spectrum β-lactamase–positive, and methicillin-resistant S  taphylococcus aureus). Objectives To compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes between patients with CAP caused by PES versus other pathogens, and to identify the risk factors associated with infection caused by PES. Methods We conducted an observational prospective study evaluating only immunocompetent patients with CAP and an established etiological diagnosis. We included patients from nursing homes. We computed a score to identify patients at risk of PES pathogens. Measurement and Main Results: Of the 4,549 patients evaluated, we analyzed 1,597 who presented an etiological diagnosis. Pneumonia caused by PES was identified in 94 (6%) patients, with 108 PES pathogens isolated (n = 72 P. aeruginosa, n = 15 E  nterobacteriaceae extended-spectrum β-lactamase positive, and n = 21 methicillin-resistant S  taphylococcus aureus). These patients were older (P = 0.001), had received prior antibiotic treatment more frequently (P < 0.001), and frequently presented with acute renal failure (P = 0.004). PES pathogens were independently associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.20–5.25; P = 0.015). The area under the curve for the score we computed was 0.759 (95% confidence interval, 0.713–0.806; P < 0.001). Conclusions PES pathogens are responsible for a small proportion of CAP, resulting in high mortality. These pathogens require a different antibiotic treatment, and identification of specific risk factors could help to identify these microbial etiologies.

Background. Solithromycin, a novel macrolide antibiotic with both intravenous and oral formulations dosed once daily, has completed 2 global phase 3 trials for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Methods. A total of 863 adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team [PORT] class II-IV) were randomized 1:1 to receive either intravenous-to-oral solithromycin or moxifloxacin for 7 once-daily doses. All patients received 400 mg intravenously on day 1 and were permitted to switch to oral dosing when clinically indicated. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (10% margin) of solithromycin to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response (ECR) assessed 3 days after first dose in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary endpoints included demonstrating noninferiority in ECR in the microbiological ITT population (micro-ITT) and determination of investigator-assessed success rates at the short-term follow-up (SFU) visit 5-10 days posttherapy. Results. In the ITT population, 79.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.7% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, –0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], –6.1 to 5.2). In the micro-ITT population, 80.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.1% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, 1.26; 95% CI, –8.1 to 10.6). In the ITT population, 84.6% of solithromycin patients and 88.6% of moxifloxacin patients achieved clinical success at SFU based on investigator assessment. Mostly mild/moderate infusion events led to higher incidence of adverse events overall in the solithromycin group. Other adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusions. Intravenous-to-oral solithromycin was noninferior to intravenous-to-oral moxifloxacin. Solithromycin has potential to provide an intravenous and oral option for monotherapy for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01968733.

Background Probiotics are live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Randomized trials suggest that probiotics significantly decrease the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and the overall incidence of infection in critically ill patients. However, these studies are small, largely single-center, and at risk of bias. The aim of the PROSPECT pilot trial was to determine the feasibility of conducting a larger trial of probiotics to prevent VAP in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods In a randomized blinded trial, patients expected to be mechanically ventilated for ≥72 hours were allocated to receive either 1 × 10 10 colony-forming units of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG or placebo, twice daily. Patients were excluded if they were at increased risk of L. rhamnosus GG infection or had contraindications to enteral medication. Feasibility objectives were: (1) timely recruitment; (2) maximal protocol adherence; (3) minimal contamination; and (4) estimated VAP rate ≥10 %. We also measured other infections, diarrhea, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results Overall, in 14 centers in Canada and the USA, all feasibility goals were met: (1) 150 patients were randomized in 1 year; (2) protocol adherence was 97 %; (3) no patients received open-label probiotics; and (4) the VAP rate was 19 %. Other infections included: bloodstream infection (19.3 %), urinary tract infections (12.7 %), and skin and soft tissue infections (4.0 %). Diarrhea, defined as Bristol type 6 or 7 stools, occurred in 133 (88.7 %) of patients, the median length of stay in ICU was 12 days (quartile 1 to quartile 3, 7–18 days), and in hospital was 26 days (quartile 1 to quartile 3, 14–44 days); 23 patients (15.3 %) died in the ICU. Conclusions The PROSPECT pilot trial supports the feasibility of a larger trial to investigate the effect of L. rhamnosus GG on VAP and other nosocomial infections in critically ill patients. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01782755 . Registered on 29 January 2013.

With the rising development of bacterial resistance the search for new medical treatments beyond conventional antimicrobials has become a key aim of public health research. Possible innovative strategies include the inhibition of bacterial virulence. However, consideration must be given to the evolutionary and environmental consequences of such new interventions. Virulence and cooperative social behaviour of the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa rely on the quorum-sensing (QS) controlled production of extracellular products (public goods). Hence QS is an attractive target for anti-virulence interventions. During colonization, non-cooperating (and hence less virulent) P. aeruginosa QS-mutants, benefiting from public goods provided by wild type isolates, naturally increase in frequency providing a relative protection from invasive infection. We hypothesized that inhibition of QS-mediated gene expression removes this growth advantage and selection of less virulent QS-mutants, and maintains the predominance of more virulent QS-wild type bacteria. We addressed this possibility in a placebo-controlled trial investigating the anti-QS properties of azithromycin, a macrolide antibiotic devoid of bactericidal activity on P. aeruginosa, but interfering with QS, in intubated patients colonized by P. aeruginosa. In the absence of azithromycin, non-cooperating (and hence less virulent) lasR (QS)-mutants increased in frequency over time. Azithromycin significantly reduced QS-gene expression measured directly in tracheal aspirates. Concomitantly the advantage of lasR-mutants was lost and virulent wild-type isolates predominated during azithromycin treatment. We confirmed these results in vitro with fitness and invasion experiments. Azithromycin reduced growth rate of the wild-type, but not of the lasR-mutant. Furthermore, the lasR-mutant efficiently invaded wild-type populations in the absence, but not in the presence of azithromycin. These in vivo and in vitro results demonstrate that anti-virulence interventions based on QS-blockade diminish natural selection towards reduced virulence and therefore may increase the prevalence of more virulent genotypes in the Hospital environment. More generally, the impact of intervention on the evolution of virulence of pathogenic bacteria should be assessed.

Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) accounts for 25% of infections in intensive care units. Compared to a long duration (LD) of antibiotic therapy, a short duration (SD) has a comparable clinical efficacy with less antibiotic use and less multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogen emergence, with the exception of documented VAP of non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB), including Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). These results have led the American Thoracic Society to recommend SD therapy for VAP, except for PA-VAP. Thus the beneficial effect of SD therapy in PA-VAP is still a matter of debate. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a short duration of antibiotics (8 days) versus prolonged antibiotic therapy (15 days) in PA-VAP. Methods/design The impact of the duration of antibiotics on clinical events in patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia (iDIAPASON) trial is a randomized, open-labeled non-inferiority controlled trial, conducted in 34 French intensive care units (ICUs), comparing two groups of patients with PA-VAP according to the duration (8 days or 15 days) of effective antibiotic therapy against PA. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint combining day 90 mortality and PA-VAP recurrence rate during hospitalization in the ICU. Furthermore, durations of mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, as well as number and types of extrapulmonary infections or acquisition of MDR pathogens during the hospitalization in the ICU will be recorded. Recurrence with predefined criteria (clinical suspicion of VAP associated with a positive quantitative culture of a respiratory sample) will be evaluated by two independent experts. Discussion Demonstrating that an SD (8 days) versus LD (15 days) therapy strategy in PA-VAP treatment is safe and not associated with an increased mortality or recurrence rate could lead to a change in practices and guidelines in the management of antibiotic therapy of this frequent ICU complication. This strategy could lead to decreased antibiotic exposure during hospitalization in the ICU and in turn reduce the acquisition and the spread of MDR pathogens. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02634411 . Registered on 19 November 2015.