Efficacy of Tigecycline versus Ceftriaxone Plus Metronidazole for the Treatment of Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial

Tigecycline and Hypoglycemia, When and How?

Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics of hypoglycemia that develop with tigecycline therapy and to review and summarize the current evidence of this uncommonly occurring metabolic adverse effect of tigecycline therapy. Underlying risk factors and potential mechanisms are also discussed. Data source: A 3-phase literature search was performed. In phase 1, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Library, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were searched for hypoglycemia and tigecycline, published from inception until August 2023. In phase 2, MEDLINE was searched for tigecycline randomized controlled trials and results were manually screened for hypoglycemia. In phase 3, the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System public dashboard was searched for reports on tigecycline and hypoglycemia from June 2005 until July 2023. Study selection and data extraction: Relevant English-language citations and those conducted in humans were considered. Relevance to patient care and clinical practice: Hypoglycemia of various causes is an independent mortality risk. This review raises awareness among clinicians about the possibility of hypoglycemia with tigecycline therapy. Conclusion: Data on tigecycline-related hypoglycemia are scarce. Hypoglycemia may occur at any time during tigecycline therapy and can be severe and persist for days after tigecycline cessation. Renal dysfunction or renal replacement therapy may predispose to severe hypoglycemia during tigecycline therapy. Tigecycline-related hypoglycemia may develop in patients with or without diabetes mellitus and appears independent of insulin or antidiabetic agents. Intravenous dextrose showed efficacy in the restoration of euglycemia. Studies are needed to determine whether tigecycline-related hypoglycemia is iatrogenic or spontaneous.

Incidence, characteristics and risk factors of hypofibrinogenemia associated with tigecycline: A multicenter retrospective study in China

Background: Tigecycline was recently found to cause coagulation disorders, especially hypofibrinogenemia, which may interfere with the administration of antimicrobial therapy. This study aimed to investigate the incidence and clinical characteristics of and risk factors for tigecycline-associated hypofibrinogenemia.

Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, patients receiving tigecycline or imipenem–cilastatin to treat Gram-negative bacterial infections in nine Chinese tertiary hospitals between January 2020 and December 2020 were enrolled. Baseline data and coagulation variables were compared using cohort and case–control studies.

Results: Totals of 485 patients treated with tigecycline and 490 patients treated with imipenem–cilastatin were included in this study. Compared with imipenem–cilastatin, tigecycline was associated with reduced fibrinogen and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time (all p < 0.001), with the most remarkable change in fibrinogen (down by 48.0%). The incidence of hypofibrinogenemia in patients treated with tigecycline was >50%, with propensity score-matched analysis or not. The relative risk of hypofibrinogenemia with tigecycline versus imipenem–cilastatin was 2.947 (95% CI: 2.151–4.039) at baseline balance. Tigecycline-associated hypofibrinogenemia led to a higher incidence (12.1%) of bleeding events. However, none of supplemental therapies after withdrawal had an effect on the normalization of fibrinogen levels. The risk factors for tigecycline-associated hypofibrinogenemia were treatment duration ≥6 days (odds ratio [OR] 5.214, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.957–9.191, p < 0.001), baseline fibrinogen <4 g/L (OR 4.625, 95% CI 2.911–7.346, p < 0.001), cumulative dose ≥1,000 mg (OR 2.637, 95% CI 1.439–4.832, p = 0.002), receiving CRRT (OR 2.436, 95% CI 1.179–5.031, p = 0.016), baseline PT > 14 s (OR 2.110, 95% CI 1.317–3.380, p = 0.002) and baseline total bilirubin >21 μmol/L (OR 1.867, 95% CI 1.107–3.147, p = 0.019), while the protective factor was skin and soft tissue infection (OR 0.110, 95% CI 0.026–0.473, p = 0.003).

Conclusion: The clinical characteristics of and risk factors for tigecycline-associated hypofibrinogenemia identified in this study can offer practical reference for the clinical management of patients.

The efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with current clinically common antibiotics in the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic for the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). However, the efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with current clinically common antibiotics remain unknown.

Objective

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of eravacycline and other clinically common antibiotics in China, including tigecycline, meropenem, ertapenem, ceftazidime/avibactam+metronidazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem/cilastatin, and ceftriaxone+metronidazole, for the treatment of adults with cIAIs and to provide a reference for clinical choice.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were electronically searched to collect clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing different antibiotics in the treatment of patients with cIAIs from inception to June 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies.

Results

A total of 4050 articles were initially retrieved, and 25 RCTs were included after screening, involving eight treatment therapies and 9372 patients. The results of network meta-analysis showed that in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the clinically evaluable (CE) population, and the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population, the clinical response rate of eravacycline was not significantly different from that of the other 7 therapies (P > 0.05). In terms of microbiological response rate, eravacycline was significantly better than tigecycline [tigecycline vs. eravacycline: RR = 0.82, 95%CI (0.65,0.99)], and there was no significant difference between the other 6 regimens and eravacycline (P > 0.05). In terms of safety, the incidence of serious adverse events, discontinuation rate, and all-cause mortality of eravacycline were not significantly different from those of the other 7 treatment therapies (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Based on the evidence generated by the current noninferiority clinical trial design, the efficacy and safety of eravacycline for the treatment of adults with cIAIs are not significantly different from those of the other 7 commonly used clinical antibiotics in China. In terms of microbiological response rate, eravacycline was significantly better than tigecycline. In view of the severe multidrug-resistant situation in China, existing drugs have difficulty meeting the needs of clinical treatment, and the new antibacterial drug eravacycline may be one of the preferred options for the treatment of cIAIs in adults.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidance on the Treatment of AmpC β-lactamase-Producing Enterobacterales, Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Infections

BACKGROUND

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) is committed to providing up-to-date guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections. A previous guidance document focused on infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa). Here, guidance is provided for treating AmpC β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (AmpC-E), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections.

METHODS

A panel of six infectious diseases specialists with expertise in managing antimicrobial-resistant infections formulated questions about the treatment of AmpC-E, CRAB, and S. maltophilia infections. Answers are presented as suggestions and corresponding rationales. In contrast to guidance in the previous document, published data on optimal treatment of AmpC-E, CRAB, and S. maltophilia infections are limited. As such, guidance in this document is provided as "suggested approaches" based on clinical experience, expert opinion, and a review of the available literature. Because of differences in the epidemiology of resistance and availability of specific anti-infectives internationally, this document focuses on the treatment of infections in the United States.

RESULTS

Preferred and alternative treatment suggestions are provided, assuming the causative organism has been identified and antibiotic susceptibility results are known. Approaches to empiric treatment, duration of therapy, and other management considerations are also discussed briefly. Suggestions apply for both adult and pediatric populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of antimicrobial resistance is highly dynamic. Consultation with an infectious diseases specialist is recommended for the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections. This document is current as of September 17, 2021 and will be updated annually. The most current versions of IDSA documents, including dates of publication, are available at www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/amr-guidance-2.0/.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Effect of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic ratio on tigecycline clinical response and toxicity in critically ill patients with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections

Introduction:

The information about the pharmacokinetics and optimal dose of tigecycline in critically ill patients with severe underlying diseases is limited and controversial. In this study, we evaluate the pharmacokinetic parameters of tigecycline in critically ill patients with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infection and explore the association between the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic ratio and treatment response.

Methods:

A prospective study was designed including critically ill patients treated with tigecycline for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. Blood samples were collected at day 3–5 of treatment, and pharmacokinetics parameters were evaluated using NONMEM^® software. Relationship between area under the free concentration–time curve and minimum inhibitory concentration ratio (fAUC/MIC) and treatment failure was evaluated. Association between tigecycline fAUC and hepatobiliary toxicity was also investigated.

Results:

Twenty-five critically ill patients were included in the study. In the pharmacokinetic model, weight and total bilirubin level were found to be significant predictors of tigecycline clearance. Fifteen (60.0%) patients achieved an fAUC/MIC ratio >4.5, seven (28.0%) an fAUC/MIC > 6.96 and only three (12.0%) an fAUC/MIC > 17.9. No differences in fAUC/MIC ratio were obtained between those patients with and without clinical failure (5.28 (IC95%: 2.57–7.94) vs 8.71 (3.57–13.84)). fAUC values were higher in those patients who suffered hepatobiliary disorders (7.63 (3.93–11.34) vs 17.63 (7.85–26.28) mg/L/h).

Conclusion:

An important percentage of critically ill patients with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infection treated with tigecycline do not achieve an appropriate pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic value. Tigecycline fAUC seems to be associated with hepatobiliary disorders in this study population. The effect of fAUC/MIC ratio on clinical response remains unclear.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Appropriate Empiric Anti-Enterococcal Therapy for Intra-Abdominal Infection

Background: Delayed treatment of seriously infected patients results in increased mortality. However, antimicrobial therapy for the initial 24 to 48 hours is mostly empirically provided, without evidence regarding the causative pathogen. Whether empiric anti-enterococcal therapy should be administered to treat intra-abdominal infection (IAI) before obtaining culture results remains unknown. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the effects of empiric enterococci covered antibiotic therapy in IAI and the risk factors for enterococcal infection in IAI. Methods: We searched multiple databases systematically and included 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 observational studies. The quality of included studies was assessed, and the reporting bias was evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects or fixed effects models according to the heterogeneity. The risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results: Enterococci-covered antibiotic regimens provided no improvement in treatment success compared with control regimens (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; p = 0.15), with similar mortality and adverse effects in both arms. Basic characteristic analysis revealed that most of the enrolled patients with IAI in RCTs were young, lower risk community-acquired intra-abdominal infection (CA-IAI) patients with a relatively low APACHE II score. Interestingly, risk factor screening revealed that malignancy, corticosteroid use, operation, any antibiotic treatment, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and indwelling urinary catheter could predispose the patients with IAI to a substantially higher risk of enterococcal infection. "Hospital acquired" itself was a risk factor (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 2.34-3.39; p < 0.001). Conclusion: It is unnecessary to use additional agents empirically to specifically provide anti-enterococcal coverage for the management of CA-IAI in lower risk patients without evidence of causative pathogen, and risk factors can increase the risk of enterococcal infection. Thus, there is a rationale for providing empiric anti-enterococcal coverage for severely ill patients with CA-IAI with high risk factors and patients with hospital-acquired intra-abdominal infection (HA-IAI).

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as empirical treatment comparing to ceftolozane/tazobactam and to meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI)

Background

The rising incidence of resistance to currently available antibiotics among pathogens, particularly Gram-negative pathogens, in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has become a challenge for clinicians. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for treating (in combination with metronidazole) cIAI in adult hospitalised patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options. The approval was based on the results of RECLAIM, a Phase III, parallel-group, comparative study (RECLAIM 1 [NCT01499290] and RECLAIM 2 [NCT01500239]). The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole compared with 1) ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and 2) meropenem, as an empiric treatment for the management of cIAI in Italy.

Methods

A sequential, patient-level simulation model, with a 5-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate (applied to both costs and health benefits), was developed using Microsoft Excel® to demonstrate the clinical course of the disease. The impact of resistant pathogens was included as an additional factor.

Results

In the base-case analysis, the CAZ-AVI sequence (CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole followed by a colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem combination after treatment failure), when compared to sequences for ceftolozane/tazobactam (ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure) and meropenem (meropenem followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure), had better clinical outcomes with higher cure rates (93.04% vs. 91.52%; 92.98% vs. 90.24%, respectively), shorter hospital stays (∆ = − 0.38 and ∆ = − 1.24 days per patient, respectively), and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (4.021 vs. 3.982; 4.019 vs. 3.960, respectively). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio in the CAZ-AVI sequence was €4099 and €15,574 per QALY gained versus each comparator sequence, respectively, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY accepted in Italy.

Conclusions

The model results demonstrated that CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be a cost-effective alternative when compared with other antibiotic treatment options, as it is expected to provide better clinical benefits in hospitalised patients with cIAI in Italy.

Busting the Myth of "Static vs Cidal": A Systemic Literature Review

We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a systematic literature review of published, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a bacteriostatic agent to a bactericidal agent in the treatment of clinical, bacterial infections. Of 56 identified trials published since 1985, 49 found no significant difference in efficacy between bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents. In 6 trials it was found that the bacteriostatic agent was superior to the bactericidal agent in efficacy. Only 1 trial found that the bactericidal agent was superior; in that case, the inferiority of the static agent was explainable by underdosing of the drug based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. Thus, virtually all available data from high-quality, RCTs demonstrate no intrinsic superiority of bactericidal compared to bacteriostatic agents. Other drug characteristics such as optimal dosing, pharmacokinetics, and tissue penetration may be more important efficacy drivers.

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparison study of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline to imipenem/cilastatin to treat complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized subjects in China

Purpose

To assess the efficacy and safety of tigecycline in treating complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) in hospitalized patients in China.

Patients and methods

A Phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, non-inferiority study was conducted. Hospitalized cIAI patients ≥18 years of age were randomized (1:1) to receive intravenous tigecycline (initial dose 100 mg, then 50 mg q12h) or imipenem/cilastatin (500 mg/500 mg or adjusted for renal dysfunction, q6h) for 5–14 days. The primary end point was clinical response for clinically evaluable (CE) subjects at test-of-cure (TOC) assessment.

Results

Four hundred and seventy subjects were randomized; 232 in the tigecycline and 231 in the imipenem/cilastatin group were treated. Tigecycline was non-inferior to imipenem/cilastatin with respect to clinical response at TOC for all CE subjects, ie, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI (−12.0%, −1.4%) for the treatment difference in cure rate, tigecycline (89.9%) minus imipenem/cilastatin (96.6%), was >−15%. As non-inferiority was concluded in the CE population, superiority of tigecycline over imipenem/cilastatin and superiority of imipenem/cilastatin over tigecycline were tested on the CE and the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) populations according to pre-specified statistical criteria, and neither could be demonstrated (the cure rate was 82.8% vs 88.7%, difference −6.0% [−12.8%, 0.8%], for the mITT population). The subject-level microbiological response rate at TOC for the microbiologically evaluable population was 88.0% (110/125) vs 95.3% (102/107, difference −7.3% [−15.2%, 0.5%]). Nausea, drug ineffectiveness, postoperative wound infection, vomiting, and pyrexia were the most common adverse events in tigecycline-treated subjects; pyrexia, nausea, vomiting, and increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were most common in imipenem/cilastatin-treated subjects; none were unanticipated.

Conclusion

Tigecycline was non-inferior to imipenem/cilastatin in treating hospitalized adult patients with cIAI. Superiority of tigecycline over imipenem/cilastatin or imipenem/cilastatin over tigecycline could not be demonstrated. Safety was consistent with the known profile for tigecycline.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01721408.

Efficacy of intravenous tigecycline in patients with Acinetobacter complex infections: results from 14 Phase III and Phase IV clinical trials

Background

Acinetobacter infections, especially multidrug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter infections, are a global health problem. This study aimed to describe clinical outcomes in patients with confirmed Acinetobacter spp. isolates who were treated with tigecycline in randomized clinical trials.

Materials and methods

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.

Results

A total of 174 microbiologically evaluable patients with Acinetobacter 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 Acinetobacter 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 Acinetobacter, and 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%–93.2% in HAP) to 100% (95% CI 25%–100.0% in cIAIs) for MDR Acinetobacter. 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.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that with appropriate monitoring, tigecycline may be a useful consideration for Acinetobacter infections alone or in combination with other anti-infective agents when other therapies are not suitable.

The efficacy of combined therapy with metronidazole and broad-spectrum antibiotics on postoperative outcomes for pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of combined therapy with metronidazole and broad-spectrum antibiotics for patients with perforated appendicitis who underwent surgical intervention.Broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy is warranted in the treatment of perforated appendicitis. Metronidazole has been used as anaerobic antimicrobial therapy. However, few studies about the use of metronidazole in perforated appendicitis have been reported.The medical records of 249 patients treated with metronidazole combined with broad-spectrum antibiotics following perforated appendicitis surgery were reviewed retrospectively and compared with the medical records of 149 patients treated only with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for selected baseline variables. Clinical outcomes, including postoperative complications and length of hospital stay, were compared between the 2 groups.No differences were found between the use of combined therapy with metronidazole and the use of solely broad-spectrum antibiotic agents with regard to postoperative duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment (6.8 ± 1.3 vs 7.9 ± 2.1 days, respectively, P = .18), inflammation variables at POD 5 (white blood cell [WBC] [risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.93, P = .15] and C-reactive protein [CRP] [RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.73-2.25, P = .36]) (Table 2), and the mean postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS) (RR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.41-0.94, P = .41). There were also no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications, including the intra-abdominal or pelvic abscess rate (7[7.1%] vs 9[9.2%], respectively, P = .40), the incidence of wound infection (14[14.3%] vs 15[15.3%], respectively, P = .50), and the 30-day readmission rate (9[9.2%] vs 12[12.2%], respectively, P = .32).Regarding overall postoperative outcomes and complications, our study demonstrated no beneficial clinical effects of metronidazole administration in patients with perforated appendicitis who underwent surgical intervention. Therefore, metronidazole is not indicated when broad-spectrum antibiotics such as aminopenicillins with β-lactam inhibitors or carbapenems and select cephalosporins are used.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

METHODS

Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

RESULTS

This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

SUMMARY

The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

A randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalised adults in Asia

Ceftazidime/avibactam comprises the broad-spectrum cephalosporin ceftazidime and the non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor avibactam. This phase 3, randomised, double-blind study (NCT01726023) assessed the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole compared with meropenem in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) in Asian countries. Subjects aged 18-90 years and hospitalised with cIAI requiring surgical intervention were randomised 1:1 to receive every 8 h either: ceftazidime/avibactam (2000/500 mg, 2-h infusion) followed by metronidazole (500 mg, 60-min infusion); or meropenem (1000 mg, 30-min infusion). Non-inferiority of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole to meropenem was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference in clinical cure rate was greater than -12.5% at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (28-35 days after randomisation) in the clinically evaluable (CE) population. Safety was also evaluated. Of 441 subjects randomised, 432 received at least one dose of study medication (ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole, n = 215; meropenem, n = 217). In the CE population at the TOC visit, non-inferiority of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole to meropenem was demonstrated, with clinical cure reported for 93.8% (166/177) and 94.0% (173/184) of subjects, respectively (between-group difference, -0.2, 95% CI -5.53 to 4.97). The clinical cure rate with ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole was comparable in subjects with ceftazidime-non-susceptible and ceftazidime-susceptible isolates (95.7% vs. 92.1%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the study groups. Ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole was non-inferior to meropenem in the treatment of cIAIs in Asian populations and was effective against ceftazidime-non-susceptible pathogens. No new safety concerns were identified.

Optimal Treatment for Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections in the Era of Antibiotic Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Combined Therapy With Metronidazole

Background.  Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae has increased dramatically in the last decade, resulting in infections that are difficult to treat and associated with high mortality rates. To prevent further antibacterial resistance, it is necessary to use carbapenem selectively. A combination of metronidazole with an antimicrobial agent active against aerobes is an alternative effective treatment for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). This study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of metronidazole combination therapies and carbapenem and to provide clinical evidence regarding the optimal treatment of cIAI. Methods.  A systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in the treatment of cIAI were conducted. The systematic review with PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews followed the Cochrane Handbook's recommended methodology, and the meta-analysis used a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model with RevMan, version 5.3. Primary endpoints were clinical success and bacteriological eradication, and secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and drug-related adverse events. Results.  Eight studies comparing metronidazole combination therapies and carbapenem were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found between combined therapy with metronidazole and carbapenem regarding clinical success (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], .75-2.31), bacteriological eradication (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, .84-1.91), all-cause mortality (OR = 0.61; 95% CI, .37-1.00), or drug-related adverse events (OR = 0.58; 95% CI, .18-1.88). Sensitivity analyses found similar results. Conclusions.  Combined therapy with metronidazole is as effective and safe as carbapenem in treatment of cIAI. Therefore, combined therapy with metronidazole offers an effective alternative to carbapenem with low risk of drug resistance.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections Involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Study

Ceftolozane-tazobactam is active against Gram-negative pathogens, including multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa In a subgroup analysis of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) involving P. aeruginosa from a phase 3 program, ceftolozane-tazobactam demonstrated potent in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa Clinical cure in the microbiologically evaluable population was 100% (26/26) for ceftolozane-tazobactam plus metronidazole and 93.1% (27/29) for meropenem. These findings support the use of ceftolozane-tazobactam in the management of cIAI when P. aeruginosa is suspected or confirmed. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01445665 and NCT01445678.).

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of severe infectious diseases: an updated meta-analysis of RCTs

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of tigecycline in comparison with other antimicrobial treatments for infectious diseases.

DESIGN

Databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched through Feb. 2015. The reference lists of the initially identified articles and systemic review articles were manually searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing tigecycline and other antibiotics for infectious diseases in adult patients were included.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs including 7689 cases were identified. We found that tigecycline was not as effective as the comparator agents for clinical treatment success (for the clinically evaluable population, odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = (0.73, 0.96), P=0.01; for the clinically modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, OR = 0.81, 95% CI = (0.72, 0.92), P=0.001). There was no significant difference in microbiological treatment success with lower eradication rate in tigecycline versus comparators (for the microbiologically evaluable population, OR = 0.94, 95% CI = (0.77, 1.16), P=0.56; for the microbiological mITT populations, OR = 0.91, 95% CI = (0.74, 1.11), P=0.35). Adverse events and all-cause mortality were more common in the tigecycline group.

CONCLUSIONS

Tigecycline is not as effective as other antibiotics with relatively more frequency of adverse events and higher mortality rate.

Empiric therapy for hospital-acquired, Gram-negative complicated intra-abdominal infection and complicated urinary tract infections: a systematic literature review of current and emerging treatment options

BACKGROUND

Empiric therapy for healthcare-associated infections remains challenging, especially with the continued development of Gram-negative organisms producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and the threat of multi-drug-resistant organisms. Current treatment options for resistant Gram-negative infections include carbapenems, tigecycline, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, ceftazidime, and two recently approved therapies, ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam.

METHODS

This systematic literature review surveys the published clinical trial evidence available since 2000 in support of both current and emerging treatment options in the settings of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) and complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI). When available, clinical cure rates for patients with infections from ESBL-producing strains are provided, as is information about efficacy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

RESULTS

Clinical trial evidence to guide selection of empiric antibiotic therapy in patients with complicated, hospital-acquired, Gram-negative IAIs and UTIs is limited. Though most of the clinical trials explored in this overview enrolled patients with complicated infections, often patients with severe infections and multiple comorbidities were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

Practitioners in the clinical setting who are treating patients with complicated, hospital-acquired, Gram-negative IAIs and UTIs need to consider the possibility of polymicrobial infections, antibiotic-resistant organisms, and/or severely ill patients with multiple comorbidities. There is a severe shortage of evidence-based research to guide the selection of empiric antibiotic therapy for many patients in this setting. New therapies recently approved or in late-stage development promise to expand the number of options available for empiric therapy of these hospital-acquired, Gram-negative infections.

Impact of a Dynamic Microbiological Environment on the Clinical Efficacy of Ertapenem and Piperacillin/Tazobactam in the Treatment of Complicated Community-Acquired Intra-Abdominal Infection in Spain: A Cost-Consequence Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The microbial susceptibility of many antibiotics has been affected by prescribing patterns and their extensive use. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess how these changes could affect the initial efficacy of ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) acquired in the community and the potential consequences this may have in healthcare costs in Spain.

METHODS

The Initial efficacy of ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam for patients with APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II scores <10 was extracted from a multicenter randomized study and were combined with the current microbial susceptibilities obtained from the SMART study, a multinational surveillance program. Country-specific pathogens distribution was extracted from a national study in patients with community-acquired IAI. The estimated effectiveness was used in a decision-analytic model to compare total costs between ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated IAI. The model performs extensive one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The model suggested a savings of €209 (year 2012 values) per patient when complicated IAIs acquired in the community (APACHE II <10) were treated with ertapenem instead of piperacillin/tazobactam. One-way sensitivity analyses showed length of stay as the key driver parameter. Further analysis of this parameter and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of our evaluation, with a 58% likelihood of ertapenem being dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

Ertapenem appears to be a cost-saving strategy over piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of patients with complicated IAIs acquired in the community in Spain.

Clinical response and mortality in tigecycline complicated intra-abdominal infection and complicated skin and soft-tissue infection trials

An imbalance in all-cause mortality was noted in tigecycline phase 3 and 4 comparative clinical trials across all studied indications. We investigated clinical failure and mortality in phase 3 and 4 complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) tigecycline trials using descriptive analyses of a blinded adjudication of mortality and multivariate regression analyses. Attributable mortality analyses of cSSTI revealed death due to infection in 0.1% of each treatment group (P=1.000). In cIAI, there were no significant differences between tigecycline (1.2%) and comparator (0.7%) subjects who died due to infection (P=0.243). For cIAI clinical failure, treatment interaction with organ dysfunction was observed with no difference observed between clinical cure for tigecycline (85.4%) and comparator (76.7%) treatment groups (odds ratio=0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.28-1.19). Tigecycline-treated subjects had more adverse events of secondary pneumonias (2.1% vs. 1.2%) and more adverse events of secondary pneumonias with an outcome of death (0.5% vs. 0.1%). These analyses do not suggest that tigecycline is a factor either for failure (cSSTI and cIAI studies) or for death (cIAI studies).

Clinical characteristics of ceftriaxone plus metronidazole in complicated intra-abdominal infection

Purpose

Empirical antibiotics in complicated intra-abdominal infection (c-IAI), such as secondary peritonitis are a first step of treatment. Empirical antibiotic regimen is very diverse. Ceftriaxone plus metronidazole regimen (CMR) is one of the empirical antibiotic regimens used in treatment of c-IAI. However, although CMR is a widely used empirical antibiotic regimen, study regarding success, failure or efficacy of CMR has been poorly understood. This retrospective study is conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of this regimen in c-IAI according to clinical characteristics.

Methods

The subjects were patients in this hospital who were diagnosed as secondary peritonitis between 2009 and 2013. Retrospective analysis was performed based on the records made after surgery regarding clinical characteristics including albumin level, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, smoking, age, sex, body mass index, hemoglobin, coexisting disease, leukocytosis, and APACHE (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation) II score.

Results

A total of 114 patients were enrolled. In univariated analysis, the success and failure of CMR showed significant association with preoperative low albumin, old age, and preoperative tachycardia. In multivariated analysis, low albumin and preoperative tachycardia were significant.

Conclusion

It is thought that an additional antibiotic treatment plan is necessary in patients with low albumin and tachycardia when the empirical antibiotic regimen is CMR in c-IAI. Conduct of research through well-designed prospective randomized clinical study is also necessary in order to evaluate the appropriateness of CMR and decide on a proper empirical antibiotic regimen between many regimens in c-IAI based on our country.

Guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections are one of the most common gastrointestinal emergencies and a leading cause of septic shock. A consensus conference on the management of community-acquired peritonitis was published in 2000. A new consensus as well as new guidelines for less common situations such as peritonitis in paediatrics and healthcare-associated infections had become necessary. The objectives of these Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) were therefore to define the medical and surgical management of community-acquired intra-abdominal infections, define the specificities of intra-abdominal infections in children and describe the management of healthcare-associated infections. The literature review was divided into six main themes: diagnostic approach, infection source control, microbiological data, paediatric specificities, medical treatment of peritonitis, and management of complications. The GRADE(®) methodology was applied to determine the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations. After summarising the work of the experts and application of the GRADE(®) method, 62 recommendations were formally defined by the organisation committee. Recommendations were then submitted to and amended by a review committee. After 2 rounds of Delphi scoring and various amendments, a strong agreement was obtained for 44 (100%) recommendations. The CPGs for peritonitis are therefore based on a consensus between the various disciplines involved in the management of these patients concerning a number of themes such as: diagnostic strategy and the place of imaging; time to management; the place of microbiological specimens; targets of empirical anti-infective therapy; duration of anti-infective therapy. The CPGs also specified the value and the place of certain practices such as: the place of laparoscopy; the indications for image-guided percutaneous drainage; indications for the treatment of enterococci and fungi. The CPGs also confirmed the futility of certain practices such as: the use of diagnostic biomarkers; systematic relaparotomies; prolonged anti-infective therapy, especially in children.

Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Plus Metronidazole for Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections in an Era of Multidrug Resistance: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (ASPECT-cIAI)

This phase 3 trial compared ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole vs meropenem for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem. High rates of presumed microbiological eradication of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found with both regimens.

Background. Increasing antimicrobial resistance among pathogens causing complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) supports the development of new antimicrobials. Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a novel antimicrobial therapy, is active against multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and most extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae.

Methods. ASPECT-cIAI (Assessment of the Safety Profile and Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections) was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Hospitalized patients with cIAI received either ceftolozane/tazobactam (1.5 g) plus metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours or meropenem (1 g) every 8 hours intravenously for 4–14 days. The prospectively defined objectives were to demonstrate statistical noninferiority in clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit (24–32 days from start of therapy) in the microbiological intent-to-treat (primary) and microbiologically evaluable (secondary) populations using a noninferiority margin of 10%. Microbiological outcomes and safety were also evaluated.

Results. Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in the primary (83.0% [323/389] vs 87.3% [364/417]; weighted difference, −4.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −8.91 to .54) and secondary (94.2% [259/275] vs 94.7% [304/321]; weighted difference, −1.0%; 95% CI, −4.52 to 2.59) endpoints, meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin. In patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, clinical cure rates were 95.8% (23/24) and 88.5% (23/26) in the ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and meropenem groups, respectively, and 100% (13/13) and 72.7% (8/11) in patients with CTX-M-14/15 ESBLs. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was similar in both treatment groups (44.0% vs 42.7%); the most common AEs in either group were nausea and diarrhea.

Conclusions. Treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in adult patients with cIAI, including infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens.

Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01445665 and NCT01445678.

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase II trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftolozane-tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with meropenem in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections

Ceftolozane-tazobactam (TOL-TAZ) is a novel antibacterial with activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other common Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, that are associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). This prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase II trial assessed patient clinical and microbiological responses to and the safety of TOL-TAZ plus metronidazole compared with those of meropenem. Hospitalized adults with cIAIs that required surgical intervention were randomized (2:1) to receive intravenous (i.v.) TOL-TAZ (1.5 g [containing 1,000 mg TOL and 500 mg TAZ] every 8 h [q8h]) with or without i.v. metronidazole (500 mg q8h) or i.v. meropenem (1 g q8h) for 4 to 7 days. The primary endpoint was the clinical response at the test-of-cure visit in the microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) and microbiologically evaluable (ME) populations. Secondary measures included the patients' microbiological response and safety. In total, 82 patients received TOL-TAZ (90.2% with metronidazole), and 39 received meropenem. For the mMITT population, clinical cure was seen in 83.6% of the patients (51/61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 71.9 to 91.8) who received TOL-TAZ and 96.0% of the patients (24/25; 95% CI, 79.6 to 99.9) who received meropenem (difference, -12.4%; 95% CI, -34.9% to 11.1%); in the ME population, clinical cure was seen in 88.7% and 95.8% of the patients (difference, -7.1%; 95% CI, -30.7% to 16.9%) who received TOL-TAZ and meropenem, respectively. TOL-TAZ demonstrated microbiological success against Escherichia coli (89.5%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (100%), and P. aeruginosa (100%). The adverse event rates were similar in the groups (50.0% with TOL-TAZ and 48.8% with meropenem). TOL-TAZ in combination with metronidazole was well tolerated and resulted in clinical and microbiological success rates supportive of further clinical development in patients with cIAIs. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01147640.).

Patients enrolled in randomised clinical trials are not representative of critically ill patients in clinical practice: observational study focus on tigecycline

It is being increasingly recognised by clinicians and scientists that participants in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of antibiotics of last resort do not represent the patients who will later be treated with these drugs. Data on this subject are limited and have not been investigated systematically. This observational study aimed to examine this hypothesis quantitatively, using the example of tigecycline. To evaluate the influence of recruitment, patients eligible for clinical trials were retrospectively compared with ineligible patients regarding baseline and clinical characteristics as well as outcome parameters, e.g. length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ventilation and mortality. The clinical characteristics of 187 patients illustrated differences in the nature and severity of disease, co-morbidities and outcome. Eligible and ineligible patients differed in a number of parameters, e.g. median APACHE II score (15.5 vs. 28.0), number of liver transplantations (5% vs. 18%; P=0.048), septic shock (21% vs. 49%; P=0.001), need for mechanical ventilation (30% vs. 79%; P<0.001), mean length of ICU stay (19.3 days vs. 40.7 days) and death (19% vs. 46%; P=0.001). Critically ill patients were under-represented in clinical trials. Moreover, only a minority of patients in clinical practice (13%) were potentially eligible for a pivotal RCT. The disparities likely result from strict exclusion criteria in RCTs and recruitment bias. These data emphasise the importance of including critically ill patients in RCTs of antibiotics against multiresistant bacteria in order to account for those who will later be treated.