Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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 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.

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.

Background: Stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) has been implicated in the morbidity, mortality and increased medical cost after acute ischemic stroke. The annual cost of SAP during hospitalization in the United States approaches USD 459 million. The incidence and prognosis of SAP among intensive care unit (ICU) patients have not been thoroughly investigated. We reviewed the pathophysiology, microbiology, incidence, risk factors, outcomes and prophylaxis of SAP with special attention to ICU studies. Methods: To determine the incidence, risk factors and prognosis of acute SAP, PubMed was searched using the terms ‘pneumonia' AND ‘neurology intensive unit' and the MeSH terms ‘stroke' AND ‘pneumonia'. Non-English literature, case reports and chronic SAP studies were excluded. Studies were classified into 5 categories according to the setting they were performed in: neurological intensive care units (NICUs), medical intensive care units (MICUs), stroke units, mixed studies combining more than one setting or when the settings were not specified and rehabilitation studies. Results: The incidences of SAP in the following settings were: NICUs 4.1-56.6%, MICUs 17-50%, stroke units 3.9-44%, mixed studies 3.9-23.8% and rehabilitation 3.2-11%. The majority of NICU and MICU studies were heterogeneous including different neurovascular diseases, which partly explains the wide range of SAP incidence. The higher incidence in the majority of ICU studies compared to stroke units or acute floor studies is likely explained by the presence of mechanical ventilation, higher stroke severity causing higher rates of aspiration and stroke-induced immunodepression among ICU patients. The short-term mortality of SAP was increased among the mixed and stroke unit studies ranging between 10.1 and 37.3%. SAP was associated with worse functional outcome in the majority of stroke unit and floor studies. Mortality was less consistent among NICU and MICU studies. This difference could be due to the heterogeneity of ICU studies and the effect of small sample size or other independent risk factors for mortality such as the larger neurological deficit, mechanical ventilation, and age, which may simultaneously increase the risk of SAP and mortality confounding the outcomes of SAP itself. The pathophysiology of SAP is likely explained by aspiration combined with stroke-induced immunodepression through complex humeral and neural pathways that include the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, parasympathetic and sympathetic systems. Conclusions: A unified definition of SAP, strict inclusion criteria, and the presence of a long-term follow-up need to be applied to the future prospective studies to better identify the incidence and prognosis of SAP, especially among ICU patients.

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.

Antimicrobial choices for community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients who do not require ICU-level care continue to be debated. In this trial, empirical beta-lactam–based therapy with or without a macrolide was compared with fluoroquinolones as initial treatment. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of hospitalization and death worldwide. 1 – 3 Most guidelines recommend that antibiotic treatment be based on the severity of disease at presentation, assessed either on the basis of the level of care needed or on the basis of a prognostic risk score. 4 – 6 For patients with clinically suspected CAP who are admitted to a non–intensive-care-unit (ICU) ward, guidelines recommend either combination therapy with a beta-lactam plus a macrolide or plus ciprofloxacin or monotherapy with moxifloxacin or levofloxacin for empirical treatment. These guidelines have increased the use of macrolides and fluoroquinolones, although these antibiotic classes . . .

Monotherapy with lefamulin, a novel, pleuromutilin antibiotic with intravenous and oral formulation options, was noninferior to moxifloxacin for efficacy and generally safe and well tolerated for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Lefamulin’s spectrum of activity targets bacteria that cause CABP. Abstract Background Lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, is active against pathogens commonly causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) study was a global noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lefamulin for the treatment of CABP. Methods In this double-blind study, adults with CABP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class ≥III were randomized 1:1 to receive lefamulin at 150 mg intravenously (IV) every 12 hours or moxifloxacin at 400 mg IV every 24 hours. After 6 doses, patients could be switched to an oral study drug if prespecified improvement criteria were met. If methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was suspected, either linezolid or placebo was added to moxifloxacin or lefamulin, respectively. The US Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint was an early clinical response (ECR) 96 ± 24 hours after the first dose of the study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (noninferiority margin, 12.5%). The European Medicines Agency co-primary endpoints were an investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) 5–10 days after the last dose of the study drug in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (noninferiority margin, 10%). Results There were 551 patients randomized (n = 276 lefamulin; n = 275 moxifloxacin). Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for ECR (87.3% vs 90.2%, respectively; difference −2.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] g −8.5 to 2.8) and IACR (mITT, 81.7% vs 84.2%, respectively; difference −2.6%, 95% CI −8.9 to 3.9; CE, 86.9% vs 89.4%, respectively; difference −2.5%, 95% CI −8.4 to 3.4). Rates of study drug discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 2.9% for lefamulin and 4.4% for moxifloxacin. Conclusions Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the primary efficacy endpoints and was generally safe and well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02559310.

About 200 million cases of viral community-acquired pneumonia occur every year—100 million in children and 100 million in adults. Molecular diagnostic tests have greatly increased our understanding of the role of viruses in pneumonia, and findings indicate that the incidence of viral pneumonia has been underestimated. In children, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, human metapneumovirus, human bocavirus, and parainfluenza viruses are the agents identified most frequently in both developed and developing countries. Dual viral infections are common, and a third of children have evidence of viral-bacterial co-infection. In adults, viruses are the putative causative agents in a third of cases of community-acquired pneumonia, in particular influenza viruses, rhinoviruses, and coronaviruses. Bacteria continue to have a predominant role in adults with pneumonia. Presence of viral epidemics in the community, patient's age, speed of onset of illness, symptoms, biomarkers, radiographic changes, and response to treatment can help differentiate viral from bacterial pneumonia. However, no clinical algorithm exists that will distinguish clearly the cause of pneumonia. No clear consensus has been reached about whether patients with obvious viral community-acquired pneumonia need to be treated with antibiotics. Apart from neuraminidase inhibitors for pneumonia caused by influenza viruses, there is no clear role for use of specific antivirals to treat viral community-acquired pneumonia. Influenza vaccines are the only available specific preventive measures. Further studies are needed to better understand the cause and pathogenesis of community-acquired pneumonia. Furthermore, regional differences in cause of pneumonia should be investigated, in particular to obtain more data from developing countries.

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.