Efficacy and safety of doripenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, open-label, multicenter study

Efficacy and safety of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacteria in nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple randomized controlled studies have compared numerous antibiotic regimens, including new, recently commercialized antibiotics in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). The objective of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and the safety of different antibiotic treatments for NP.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from 2000 through 2021. The study selection included studies comparing antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacilli in the setting of NP. The primary endpoint was 28 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies encompassing 4993 patients were included in this analysis comparing 13 antibiotic regimens. The level of evidence for mortality comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference in 28 day mortality was found among all beta-lactam regimens. Only the combination of meropenem plus aerosolized colistin was associated with a significant decrease of mortality compared to using intravenous colistin alone (OR = 0.43; 95% credible interval [0.17-0.94]), based on the results of the smallest trial included. The clinical failure rate of ceftazidime was higher than meropenem with (OR = 1.97; 95% CrI [1.19-3.45]) or without aerosolized colistin (OR = 1.40; 95% CrI [1.00-2.01]), imipemen/cilastatin/relebactam (OR = 1.74; 95% CrI [1.03-2.90]) and ceftazidime/avibactam (OR = 1.48; 95% CrI [1.02-2.20]). For microbiological cure, no substantial difference between regimens was found, but ceftolozane/tazobactam had the highest probability of being superior to comparators. In safety analyses, there was no significant difference between treatments for the occurrence of adverse events, but acute kidney failure was more common in patients receiving intravenous colistin.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis suggests that most antibiotic regimens, including new combinations and cefiderocol, have similar efficacy and safety in treating susceptible Gram-negative bacilli in NP. Further studies are necessary for NP caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Registration PROSPERO CRD42021226603.

Carbapenem vs. non-carbapenem antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Carbapenem is recommended as one of the first-line regimens for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), but no recent systematic review has fully investigated its efficacy. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of carbapenem compared with non-carbapenem for VAP treatment.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the efficacy and the safety between carbapenem and non-carbapenem with activity to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the treatment for VAP. The main outcome was mortality, and the additional outcomes were the clinical cure of pneumonia, length of intensive care unit stay, recurrence, adverse effects, and the development of resistant bacteria. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the initial 1,730 publications, 9 randomized control trials were enrolled. In the meta-analysis, no difference was observed between the carbapenem and non-carbapenem regimens in improving mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.02). While the carbapenem regimen was superior to the non-carbapenem regimen in studies reporting the resolution of pneumonia (odds ratio, 1.09; 95 % CI 1.01-1.17), the effectiveness of carbapenem treatment was not evident in studies assessing the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Carbapenem might have no superiority in survival when treating VAP. Moreover, non-carbapenem antibiotics with activities to P. aeruginosa have a potential option to avoid inducing carbapenem-resistant pathogens.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Bayesian-Guided Beta-Lactam Infusion Strategy and Associated Bacterial Resistance and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Severe Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing health concern worldwide. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of beta-lactam infusion on the emergence of bacterial resistance in patients with severe pneumonia in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

Adult intensive care patients receiving cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam for severe pneumonia caused by Gram-negative bacteria were randomized to receive beta-lactams as an intermittent (30 minutes) or continuous (24 hours) infusion. Respiratory samples for culture and susceptibility testing, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC), were collected once a week for up to 4 weeks. Beta-lactam plasma concentrations were measured and therapeutic drug monitoring was performed using Bayesian software as the standard of care.

RESULTS

The study was terminated early owing to slow enrollment. Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study. Cefepime (n = 22) was the most commonly prescribed drug at randomization, followed by piperacillin (n = 8) and meropenem (n = 5). Nineteen patients were randomized into the continuous infusion arm and 16 into the intermittent infusion arm. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common respiratory isolate (n = 19). Eighteen patients were included in the final analyses. No differences in bacterial resistance were observed between arms ( P = 0.67). No significant differences in superinfection ( P = 1), microbiological cure ( P = 0.85), clinical cure at day 7 ( P = 0.1), clinical cure at end of therapy ( P = 0.56), mortality ( P = 1), intensive care unit length of stay ( P = 0.37), or hospital length of stay ( P = 0.83) were observed. Achieving 100% ƒT > MIC ( P = 0.04) and ƒT > 4 × MIC ( P = 0.02) increased likelihood of clinical cure at day 7 of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in the emergence of bacterial resistance or clinical outcomes were observed between intermittent and continuous infusions. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment may be associated with a clinical cure on day 7.

Carbapenems versus β-lactam and β-lactamase inhibitors for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Carbapenems and β-lactam and β-lactamase inhibitors (BLBLIs) have been used empirically in nosocomial pneumonia, but their efficacy and safety are controversial.

Objective

We carried out a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carbapenems versus BLBLIs against nosocomial pneumonia.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CNKI, Wangfang, VIP and Sinomed were searched systematically through April 29, 2023 for clinical trials comparing carbapenems with BLBLIs for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Random-effects models were used to evaluate the impact of treatment on the risk ratio (RR) of all-cause mortality, clinical response, microbiologic response, resistance by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, adverse effects (AEs), and serious adverse effects. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The review was registerted in the INPLASY (INPLASY202340113).

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials containing 3306 patients met our inclusion criteria Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75-1.03, I2 = 0%) or clinical cure (1.02, 0.96-1.09, 30%) or clinical failure (1.19, 0.97-1.47, 0%) or microbiologic clinical cure (0.98, 0.89-1.06, 40%) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance (RR 2.43, CI 0.86-6.81, 49%, P = 0.09) or adverse events (0.98, 0.93-1.02, 0%) between carbapenems groups versus BLBLIs groups, but a significant difference was found for severe adverse events (RR 0.83, CI 0.73-0.94, 0%).

Conclusion

Differences in the prevalence of mortality, clinical cure, or clinical failure were not observed between carbapenems groups versus BLBLIs groups in terms of nosocomial pneumonia. The use of carbapenems was linked to a tendency towards the emergence of P. aeruginosa resistance, however, no statistically significant difference was observed.

Comparative efficacy and safety of non-polymyxin antibiotics against nosocomial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection: A network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

The increasing epidemic of infections caused by drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria has led to the development of several antibiotic therapies. Owing to the scarcity of head-to-head comparisons of current and emerging antibiotics, the present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in patients with nosocomial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched databases up to August 2022 and included 26 randomised controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The protocol was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (CRD42021237798). The frequentist random effects model (R version 3.5.1, netmeta package) was utilized. The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to estimate heterogeneity. The calculated P-score was applied to rank the interventions. Additionally, inconsistencies, publication bias, and subgroup effects were assessed in the present study to avoid bias.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference among included antibiotics in terms of clinical response and mortality, probably because most antibiotic trials were designed to be non-inferior. In terms of P-score ranking, carbapenems may be the recommended choice considering both adverse events and clinical responses. On the other hand, for carbapenem-sparing options, ceftolozane-tazobactam was the preferred antibiotic for nosocomial pneumonia; eravacycline, for complicated intra-abdominal infection; and cefiderocol, for complicated urinary tract infection.

CONCLUSION

Carbapenems may be preferable options in terms of safety and efficacy for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial complicated infections. However, to preserve the effectiveness of carbapenems, it is important to consider carbapenem-sparing regimens.

Physicochemical Characteristics of Antimicrobials and Practical Recommendations for Intravenous Administration: A Systematic Review

Most antimicrobial drugs need an intravenous (IV) administration to achieve maximum efficacy against target pathogens. IV administration is related to complications, such as tissue infiltration and thrombo-phlebitis. This systematic review aims to provide practical recommendations about diluent, pH, osmolarity, dosage, infusion rate, vesicant properties, and phlebitis rate of the most commonly used antimicrobial drugs evaluated in randomized controlled studies (RCT) till 31 March 2023. The authors searched for available IV antimicrobial drugs in RCT in PUBMED EMBASE®, EBSCO® CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials. Drugs' chemical features were searched online, in drug data sheets, and in scientific papers, establishing that the drugs with a pH of <5 or >9, osmolarity >600 mOsm/L, high incidence of phlebitis reported in the literature, and vesicant drugs need the adoption of utmost caution during administration. We evaluated 931 papers; 232 studies were included. A total of 82 antimicrobials were identified. Regarding antibiotics, 37 reach the "caution" criterion, as well as seven antivirals, 10 antifungals, and three antiprotozoals. In this subgroup of antimicrobials, the correct vascular access device (VAD) selection is essential to avoid complications due to the administration through a peripheral vein. Knowing the physicochemical characteristics of antimicrobials is crucial to improve the patient's safety significantly, thus avoiding administration errors and local side effects.

Doripenem in the Treatment of Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Clinically, doripenem therapy for nosocomial pneumonia remains a serious concern. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the efficacy and the safety of doripenem therapy for nosocomial pneumonia in comparison with other antimicrobial agents. Methods: Studies were eligible for inclusion only if they directly compared the clinical effectiveness of doripenem and other antimicrobial agent therapies for nosocomial pneumonia in adult patients between 1 January 2000 and 30 April 2022. All studies were included if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: clinical cure rate, microbiological cure rate, all-cause mortality, and adverse events. Results: Six randomized controlled trials and three retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. There were 952 patients in the doripenem group and 1183 patients in the comparator group. The comparator antimicrobial agents included imipenem/cilastatin, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam. Seven studies had a high risk of bias. Doripenem therapy for nosocomial pneumonia had a microbiological cure rate, a clinical cure rate, an all-cause mortality, and adverse events similar to those of comparators. Conclusions: The efficacy and the safety of doripenem therapy for nosocomial pneumonia were comparable with those of comparators. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the role of doripenem in nosocomial pneumonia therapy.

Microbiology, empiric therapy and its impact on the outcomes of nonventilated hospital-acquired, ventilated hospital-acquired, and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in the United States, 2014-2019

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether microbiology profiles and the impact of inappropriate empiric treatment differ in the setting of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia that requires subsequent mechanical ventilation (vHABP) versus one that does not (nvHABP) versus ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP).

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort study within Premier Research database, 2014-2019.

METHODS

We identified cases based on a previously published International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision/Tenth Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-9/ICD-10-CM) algorithm, and we compared the 3 groups with respect to the bacterial pathogens isolated from their blood, sputum, or lower airway samples, and their respective rates of exposure to inappropriate empiric treatment. Using regression modeling we computed the effect of inappropriate empiric treatment on outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 17,819 patients who met enrollment criteria, 26.5% had nvHABP, 25.6% vHAPB, and 47.9% VABP. S. aureus (majority methicillin-susceptible) was the most frequently isolated organism, followed P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, and E. coli with variations across the conditions. Rates of carbapenem resistance were highest in VABP (9.1%) and to third-generation cephalosporins in vHABP (14.9%). Patients with nvHABP were most likely to receive inappropriate empiric treatment (8.5%). Although inappropriate empiric treatment was associated with an increase in adjusted postinfection-onset hospital length of stay (2.3 days) and cost ($12,142), its greatest magnitude was in the nvHABP group (4.9 days, $13,147).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial microbiologic differences exist among populations who suffer nvHABP, vHABP, and VABP, and inappropriate empiric treatment significantly worsens utilization outcomes. Given the moderate rates of carbapenem resistance and third-generation cephalosporin resistance, all patients require empiric coverage for a range of bacteria, including those targeting extended-spectrum β-lactamase and carbapenem resistance where appropriate.

Carbapenem Antibiotics for the Empiric Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses suggested that treating hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), with empiric carbapenems was associated with lower mortality rates but higher rates of clinical failure for pseudomonal pneumonia. This study was an updated meta-analysis with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression to better understand the impact of carbapenem use in HAP/VAP.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the efficacy of carbapenems for empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized controlled studies evaluating empiric treatment for HAP and/or VAP, and studies were included comparing carbapenem- vs non-carbapenem-containing regimens. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included subgroup stratification and resistance development.

RESULTS

Of 9,140 references, 20 trials enrolling 5,489 patients met inclusion criteria. For mortality, carbapenem use had a risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.96; P = .01). Stratified according to VAP proportion (< 33%, 33%-66%, and > 66%), RRs were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.77-1.17; P = .66), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.57-1.07; P = .13), and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .04), respectively. Stratified according to severity, only groups with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores < 14 and between 14 and 17 showed mortality benefit (RRs of 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P = .01] and 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .03]). Meta-regression did not show an association between Pseudomonas prevalence and mortality (P = .44). Carbapenem use showed a trend toward developing resistance (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.06; P = .09) and a 96% probability of resistance emergence.

INTERPRETATION

Carbapenem-based empiric regimens were associated with lower mortality rates compared with non-carbapenems, largely driven by trials of VAP. The mortality effect was not observed in trials with high disease severity and was not associated with Pseudomonas. The mortality difference was observed mainly in studies that used ceftazidime as control. There was a trend toward increasing resistance associated with carbapenems.

TRIAL REGISTRY

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; No. CRD42018093602; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Evidence-Based Study Design for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration solicited evidence-based recommendations to improve guidance for studies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP).

METHODS

We analyzed 7 HABP/VABP datasets to explore novel noninferiority study endpoints and designs, focusing on alternatives to all-cause mortality (ACM).

RESULTS

ACM at day 28 differed for ventilated HABP (27.8%), VABP (18.0%), and nonventilated HABP (14.5%). A "mortality-plus" (ACM+) composite endpoint was constructed by combining ACM with patient-relevant, infection-related adverse events from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities toxic/septic shock standardized query. The ACM+ rate was 3-10 percentage points above that of ACM across the studies and treatment groups. Predictors of higher ACM/ACM+ rates included older age and elevated acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score. Only patients in the nonventilated HABP group were able to report pneumonia symptom changes.

CONCLUSIONS

If disease groups and patient characteristics in future studies produce an ACM rate so low (<10%-15%) that a fixed noninferiority margin of 10% cannot be justified (requiring an odds ratio analysis), an ACM+ endpoint could lower sample size. Enrichment of studies with patients with a higher severity of illness would increase ACM. Data on symptom resolution in nonventilated HABP support development of a patient-reported outcome instrument.

The Efficacy and Safety of Doripenem in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Infections-A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of doripenem on treating patients with acute bacterial infections. The Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to April 2019. Only randomized clinical trials comparing doripenem and other comparators for the treatment of acute bacterial infection were included. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate and the secondary outcomes were microbiological eradication rate and risk of adverse events. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Overall, doripenem had a similar clinical success rate with comparators (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.79-1.66, I2 = 58%). Similar clinical success rates were noted between doripenem and comparators for pneumonia (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46-1.53, I² = 72%) and for intra-abdominal infections (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.57-1.72). For complicated urinary tract infection, doripenem was associated with higher success rate than comparators (OR, 1.89, 95% CI, 1.13-3.17, I² = 0%). The pool analysis comparing doripenem and other carbapenems showed no significant differences between each other (OR, 0.96, 95% CI, 0.59-1.58, I² = 63%). Doripenem also had a similar microbiological eradication rate with comparators (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.86-1.36, I² = 0%). Finally, doripenem had a similar risk of treatment-emergent adverse events as comparators (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.17, I² = 33%). In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of doripenem is as high as that of the comparator drugs in the treatment of acute bacterial infection; furthermore, this antibiotic is as well tolerated as the comparators.

Comparative efficacy of doripenem versus meropenem for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Doripenem shows good in vitro activity against common nosocomial pathogens, such as extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii. However, the use of doripenem for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between doripenem and meropenem for patients with HAP or VAP.

METHODS

Adult patients diagnosed with HAP and VAP at National Taiwan University Hospital, who received doripenem or meropenem for more than 48 h between January 2015 and November 2017, were retrospectively reviewed. All-cause mortality on the 30th day was used as the primary outcome measurements.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients with doripenem and 252 patients with meropenem were analyzed. Compared to the meropenem group, the doripenem group was younger and had a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that presence of solid organ malignancies (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.04-3.19, p = 0.003) and SOFA score (AHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17, p = 0.003) were independent factors associated with mortality. There was no survival difference of 30-day mortality between patients receiving doripenem and meropenem for HAP or VAP (log-rank p = 0.113). However, a poorer outcome was observed among patients with hematological disease in the doripenem group (log-rank p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that doripenem has similar efficacy as meropenem in HAP or VAP patients. With an aim to enhance antibiotic diversity, doripenem could be an alternative choice for patients with HAP or VAP, except for those with hematological malignancies.

Chemical pharmacotherapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is a potentially serious infection that primarily affects older patients. The number of patients affected by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria is increasing, including infection from strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

AREAS COVERED

This article focuses specifically on HAP, excluding patients afflicted by ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The pathogenesis and clinical features of HAP in the elderly are discussed as well as specific drug pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in elderly patients. The current recommended guidelines for the management of HAP are also discussed. Finally, the authors provide evidence on the empirical therapy used for the treatment of HAP and widely consider specific-pathogen treatment of HAP in elderly patients.

EXPERT OPINION

In patients not at risk of MDR organism infection, antibiotics including piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, carbapenems or fluorquinolones are recommended. However, the emergence of MDR organisms as causal agents of HAP makes it necessary to accurately assess risk factors to these pathogens and revise our knowledge on specific antimicrobial susceptibility patterns from each institution. The authors believe that broader-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapies that target P. aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant S. aureus are best recommended in elderly patients at risk of HAP infection by MDR strains.

Carbapenems vs. alternative β-lactams for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Carbapenems have shown efficacy in treating nosocomial pneumonias in clinical trials despite a reported low lung penetration compared with other β-lactams. Preserving the clinical activity of carbapenems through stewardship efforts is essential. The aim of this review was to identify any differences in outcomes potentially as a function of decreased penetration.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for clinical trials comparing carbapenems with other anti-pseudomonal β-lactams for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia through to end December 2016. Trials reporting clinical and microbiological outcomes associated with treatment were included. Pediatric studies and those with uneven comparators (e.g., carbapenem vs. combination Gram-negative therapy) were excluded. Fixed effects models were used to evaluate the impact of treatment on the odds of clinical failure, death, or microbiological failure.

RESULTS

252 unique articles were identified; five met inclusion criteria and comprised 640 patients in the carbapenem group and 634 patients in the β-lactam group. No differences in clinical failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.81-1.44], I2=16%) or mortality (OR 0.75, CI 0.57-1.11, I2=0%) were noted between groups. Patients infected with P. aeruginosa and treated with imipenem were more likely to experience clinical failure (OR 4.21, CI 1.51-11.12, I2=44%) and to develop resistance to the study carbapenem (OR 2.86, CI 1.08-6.44, I2= 13%) than those treated with alternative β-lactams.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in clinical outcomes were observed between carbapenems and non-carbapenem β-lactams in nosocomial pneumonias. Those infected with P. aeruginosa fared worse and were more likely to have resistance develop if they were treated with imipenem. Additional studies are warranted.

Neurological Adverse Effects Attributable to β-Lactam Antibiotics: A Literature Review

β-lactam antibiotics are commonly prescribed antibiotic drugs. To describe the clinical characteristics, risk markers and outcomes of β-lactam antibiotic-induced neurological adverse effects, we performed a general literature review to provide updated clinical data about the most used β-lactam antibiotics. For selected drugs in each class available in France (ticarcillin, piperacillin, temocillin, ceftazidime, cefepime, cefpirome, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, ceftolozane, ertapenem and aztreonam), a systematic literature review was performed up to April 2016 via an electronic search on PubMed. Articles that reported original data, written in French, Spanish, Portuguese or English, with available individual data for patients with neurological symptoms (such as seizure, disturbed vigilance, confusional state, myoclonia, localising signs, and/or hallucinations) after the introduction of a β-lactam antibiotic were included. The neurological adverse effects of piperacillin and ertapenem are often described as seizures and hallucinations (>50 and 25% of cases, respectively). Antibiotic treatment is often adapted to renal function (>70%), and underlying brain abnormalities are seen in one in four to one in three cases. By contrast, the neurological adverse drug reactions of ceftazidime and cefepime often include abnormal movements but few hallucinations and seizures. These reactions are associated with renal insufficiency (>80%) and doses are rarely adapted to renal function. Otherwise, it appears that monobactams do not have serious neurological adverse drug reactions and that valproic acid and carbapenem combinations should be avoided. The onset of disturbed vigilance, myoclonus, and/or seizure in a patient taking β-lactam antibiotics, especially if associated with renal insufficiency or underlying brain abnormalities, should lead physicians to suspect adverse drug reactions and to consider changes in antibacterial therapy.

Clinical Experience of Patients Receiving Doripenem-Containing Regimens for the Treatment of Healthcare-Associated Infections

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical experience of patients receiving doripenem-containing regimens for the treatment of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) in a tertiary care center and assessed the clinical usefulness of doripenem therapy in this clinical setting. In this retrospective study, the medical records of all adult patients who had ever received doripenem-containing therapy for the treatment of HCAIs were reviewed between September 1, 2012 and August 31, 2014, and the following data were extracted: age, gender, type of infection, disease severity, underlying comorbidities or conditions, and laboratory results. Additionally, we also extracted data regarding the rates of mortality and clinical and microbiological response. A total of 184 adult patients with HCAIs who had received doripenem-containing therapy were included in this study. Respiratory tract infections (n = 91, 49.5%) were the most common type of infection, followed by urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections and skin and soft tissue infections. The mean APACHE II score was 14.5. The rate of clinical success was 78.2%, and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was only 13.0%. Among patients, in-hospital mortality was independently and significantly associated with APACHE II score (odds ratio (OR), 1.2825; 95% CI, 1.1123–1.4788) and achieving clinical success (OR, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.0003–0.409). In conclusion, the overall in-hospital mortality rate was low and the clinical success rate was high among HCAI patients receiving doripenem treatment. These results suggest that doripenem may be judiciously used for the treatment of patients with HCAIs.

Clinical outcomes of extended versus intermittent administration of piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial

The purpose of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics, clinical efficiency, and pharmacoeconomic parameters of piperacillin/tazobactam administered by extended infusion (EI) or intermittent infusion (II) in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in critically ill patients with low illness severity in China. Fifty patients completed the study, with 25 patients receiving 4/0.5 g piperacillin/tazobactam over 30 min as the II group and 25 patients receiving 4/0.5 g piperacillin/tazobactam over 3 h every 6 h as the EI group. Drug assay was performed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The percentage of the dosing interval for which the free piperacillin concentration (%fT) exceeds the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was calculated. The patients' therapy cost, clinical efficiency, and adverse effects were also recorded. %fT>MIC was about 100, 98.73, and 93.04 % in the EI arm versus 81.48, 53.29, and 42.15 % in the II arm, respectively, when the microorganism responsible for HAP had an MIC of 4, 8, and 16 mg/L. The therapy cost in the EI group was lower than that of the II group ($1351.72 ± 120.39 vs. $1782.04 ± 164.51, p = 0.001). However, the clinical success rate, clinical failure rate, and drug-related adverse events did not significantly differ between groups. EI treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam was a cost-effective approach to the management of HAP, being equally clinically effective to conventional II.

Antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, complicating the medical course of approximately 10% of mechanically-ventilated patients, with an estimated attributable mortality of 13%. To treat VAP empirically, the American Thoracic Society currently recommends antibiotic therapy based on the patients' risk of colonisation by an organism with multidrug resistance. The selection of initial antibiotic therapy in VAP is important, as inappropriate initial antimicrobial treatment is associated with higher mortality and longer hospital stay in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.While guidelines exist for the antibiotic treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) from the American Thoracic Society and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, there are many limitations in the quality of available evidence. This systematic review aimed to summarise the results of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare empirical antibiotic regimens for VAP.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effect of different empirical antimicrobial therapies on the survival and clinical cure of adult patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Secondary objectives included reporting the incidence of adverse events, new superinfections, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay associated with these therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL and Web of Science to December 2015; we searched ClinicalTrials.gov to September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently assessed RCTs comparing empirical antibiotic treatments of VAP in adult patients, where VAP was defined as new-onset pneumonia that developed more than 48 hours after endotracheal intubation. Physicians and researchers were not required to be blinded for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We pooled studies and analysed them in two ways. We examined monotherapy, or a single experimental antimicrobial drug, versus combination therapy, or multiple experimental antimicrobial drugs. We also examined carbapenem therapy versus non-carbapenem therapy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies with 3571 participants. All included studies examined the empiric use of one antimicrobial regimen versus another for the treatment of adults with VAP, but the particular drug regimens examined by each study varied. There was potential for bias because some studies did not report outcomes for all participants. All but one study reported sources of funding or author affiliations with pharmaceutical companies.We found no statistical difference in all-cause mortality between monotherapy and combination therapy (N = 4; odds ratio (OR) monotherapy versus combination 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.30), clinical cure (N = 2; OR monotherapy versus combination 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), length of stay in ICU (mean difference (MD) 0.65, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.23) or adverse events (N = 2; OR monotherapy versus combination 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). We downgraded the quality of evidence for all-cause mortality, adverse events, and length of ICU stay to moderate for this comparison. We determined clinical cure for this comparison to be of very low-quality evidence.For our second comparison of combination therapy with optional adjunctives only one meta-analysis could be performed due to a lack of trials comparing the same antibiotic regimens. Two studies compared tigecycline versus imipenem-cilastatin for clinical cure in the clinically evaluable population and there was a statistically significant increase in clinical cure for imipenem-cilastatin (N = 2; OR tigecycline versus imipenem-cilastatin 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.84). Of importance, this effect was due to a single study.We found no statistical difference in all-cause mortality between carbapenem and non-carbapenem therapies (N = 1; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 0.59, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.19) or adverse events (N = 3; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.09), but we found that carbapenems are associated with a statistically significant increase in the clinical cure (N = 3; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 1.53, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.12 for intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and N = 2; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 2.29, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.43 for clinically evaluable patients analysis). For this comparison we downgraded the quality of evidence for mortality, and clinical cure (ITT and clinically evaluable populations) to moderate. We determined the quality of evidence for adverse events to be low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference between monotherapy and combination therapy for the treatment of people with VAP. Since studies did not identify patients with increased risk for multidrug-resistant bacteria, these data may not be generalisable to all patient groups. However, this is the largest meta-analysis comparing monotherapy to multiple antibiotic therapies for VAP and contributes further evidence to the safety of using effective monotherapy for the empiric treatment of VAP.Due to lack of studies, we could not evaluate the best antibiotic choice for VAP, but carbapenems as a class may result in better clinical cure than other tested antibiotics.

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

Safety and Tolerability of Doripenem in Hospitalized Children With Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection, Complicated Urinary Tract Infections and Pneumonia

Three multicenter, randomized, controlled studies evaluated doripenem in children 3 months to <18 years of age, with complicated intra-abdominal or urinary tract infections and bacterial pneumonia.In the 66 patients treated with doripenem before early termination of the studies for nonsafety reasons, doripenem was safe and generally well tolerated. Low enrollment limited ability to assess benefits and risks of doripenem in children.

Seizures as adverse events of antibiotic drugs: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Antibiotic drugs are commonly associated with seizures. Tailoring antibiotics to the individual risk for seizures is challenged as avoidance of certain antibiotic classes may no longer be possible due to the emergence of resistant bacteria. We performed a systematic review regarding the current evidence for seizures associated with all antibiotic classes, their underlying mechanisms, and predisposing factors.

METHODS

The medical search engine PubMed was systematically screened to identify articles in English published between 1960 and 2013. All study designs were considered and evidence was assessed.

RESULTS

We included 143 articles involving 25,712 patients and 25 different antibiotics. Evidence for antibiotic-related symptomatic seizures is low to very low, mainly deriving from studies regarding β-lactams, especially unsubstituted penicillins and fourth-generation cephalosporins, as well as carbapenems, mainly imipenem, all administered in high doses or in patients with renal dysfunction, brain lesions, or known epilepsy. Evidence regarding symptomatic seizures from fluoroquinolones only relies on case reports and case series with most reports for ciprofloxacin in patients with renal dysfunction, mental disorders, prior seizures, or coadministered theophylline.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for an association between antibiotic drugs and symptomatic seizures is low to very low (evidence Class III-IV). Despite this, numerous reports point to an increased risk for symptomatic seizures especially of unsubstituted penicillins, fourth-generation cephalosporins, imipenem, and ciprofloxacin in combination with renal dysfunction, brain lesions, and epilepsy. During administration of such antibiotics in patients with particular predispositions, close monitoring of serum levels is advocated. As most seizures associated with cephalosporins are nonconvulsive, continuous EEG should be considered in patients with altered levels of consciousness.

Clinical evaluation of the need for carbapenems to treat community-acquired and healthcare-associated pneumonia

Carbapenems have an overall broad antibacterial spectrum and should be protected against from the acquisition of drug resistance. The clinical advantages of carbapenem in cases of pneumonia have not been certified and the need for antipseudomonal antimicrobial agents to treat healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) remains controversial. We introduced an antimicrobial stewardship program for carbapenem and tazobactam/piperacillin use and investigated the effects of this program on the clinical outcomes of 591 pneumonia cases that did not require intensive care unit management, mechanical ventilation or treatment with vasopressor agents [221 patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and 370 patients with HCAP]. Compared with the pre-intervention period, age, comorbidities and the severity and etiology of pneumonia did not differ during the intervention period. Carbapenems were rarely used during the intervention period in cases of pneumonia (CAP: 12% vs. 1%, HCAP: 13% vs. 1%), while antipseudomonal beta-lactam use was reduced from 33% to 8% among cases with HCAP. This reduction in the rate of carbapenem administration did not have an impact on the prognosis in the cases of CAP, and the in-hospital mortality was lower among the patients with HCAP during the intervention period (15% vs. 5%, p = 0.013). The causes of death in the cases of HCAP were not directly related to pneumonia during the intervention period. The current study shows that carbapenem use can be avoided in cases of CAP or HCAP that are not in a critical condition. The frequent use of antipseudomonal beta-lactams does not improve the clinical outcomes of HCAP.

Participation of elderly adults in randomized controlled trials addressing antibiotic treatment of pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

To examine how relevant current evidence on antibiotic treatment of pneumonia is for elderly adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs; N = 43) comparing different antibiotics and prospective observational studies (N = 182) published since 2005.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with community-acquired (CAP), healthcare-associated (HCAP), hospital-acquired (HAP), or ventilator-associated (VAP) pneumonia.

MEASUREMENTS

Exclusion criteria that could preferentially limit participation of elderly adults were examined, subgroup or other adjusted analyses were searched for according to age, and treatment effects in participants younger than 65 in RCTs were compared with those in participants aged 65 and older. Mean participant ages in RCTs and observational studies were compared. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences between older and younger adults were pooled using a fixed effect metaanalysis.

RESULTS

No RCT reported exclusion based on an upper age limit; 100% of community CAP trials, 90% of hospitalized CAP trials, and 76% of HAP and VAP trials excluded individuals based on comorbidities. None of the RCTs reported a subgroup analysis for mortality according to age. The RR for the pooled difference in treatment failure rates between participants younger than 65 and those aged 65 and older was 1.25 (95% CI = 0.94-1.65, 12 RCTs) and between participants younger than 75 and aged 75 and older was 1.43 (95% CI = 0.98-2.09, 7 RCTs). RCT participants were significantly younger (54.0 ± 9.6) than those in observational studies of CAP (66.2 ± 8.1, P < .001). Age differences were not significant for HCAP, HAP, and VAP.

CONCLUSION

Elderly adults are often excluded from RCTs of bacterial pneumonia. No data were found on the comparative efficacy of antibiotic treatment in elderly adults and the general population.

A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of doripenem for treating bacterial infections

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors versus carbapenems for the treatment of sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data on the relative efficacy of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (BL/BLIs) versus carbapenems are scant.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any BL/BLI versus any carbapenem for the treatment of sepsis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A broad search was conducted with no restrictions on language, publication status or date. Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Assessment of risk of bias was performed using the domain-based approach. Subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity and focus on patient groups more likely to harbour ESBL-positive bacteria. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated and pooled.

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs were included. There was no difference between BL/BLIs and carbapenems in terms of mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79-1.20), without heterogeneity. No differences were observed with regard to clinical or microbiological failure and bacterial superinfections. The results were not affected by risk of bias. No differences were detected in the subgroups of patients with nosocomial infections, Gram-negative infections and neutropenic fever. Adverse events requiring discontinuation were more common with BL/BLIs, on account of an increased incidence of diarrhoea. However, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.87) was more frequent with carbapenems and seizures were more frequent with imipenem (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in efficacy between BL/BLIs and carbapenems exist in RCTs including patient populations with a certain, albeit unknown, rate of ESBL-positive bacteria causing infections.

The risk of seizures among the carbapenems: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

A consensus exists among clinicians that imipenem/cilastatin is the most epileptogenic carbapenem, despite inconsistencies in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing carbapenems with each other or with non-carbapenem antibiotics to assess the risk of seizures for imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem.

RESULTS

In the risk difference (RD) analysis, there were increased patients with seizure (2 per 1000 persons, 95% CI 0.001, 0.004) among recipients of carbapenems versus non-carbapenem antibiotics. This difference was largely attributed to imipenem as its use was associated with an additional 4 patients per 1000 with seizure (95% CI 0.002, 0.007) compared with non-carbapenem antibiotics, whereas none of the other carbapenems was associated with increased seizure. Similarly, in the pooled OR analysis, carbapenems were associated with a significant increase in the risk of seizures relative to non-carbapenem comparator antibiotics (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35, 2.59). The ORs for risk of seizures from imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem compared with other antibiotics were 3.50 (95% CI 2.23, 5.49), 1.04 (95% CI 0.61, 1.77), 1.32 (95% CI 0.22, 7.74) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 1.53), respectively. In studies directly comparing imipenem and meropenem, there was no difference in epileptogenicity in either RD or pooled OR analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The absolute risk of seizures with carbapenems was low, albeit higher than with non-carbapenem antibiotics. Although imipenem was more epileptogenic than non-carbapenem antibiotics, there was no statistically significant difference in the imipenem versus meropenem head-to-head comparison.

A phase 3 randomized double-blind comparison of ceftobiprole medocaril versus ceftazidime plus linezolid for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ceftobiprole, the active moiety of ceftobiprole medocaril, is a novel broad-spectrum cephalosporin, with bactericidal activity against a wide range of gram-positive bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant strains) and penicillin- and ceftriaxone-resistant pneumococci, and gram-negative bacteria, including Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study of 781 patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including 210 with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Treatment was intravenous ceftobiprole 500 mg every 8 hours, or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 hours plus linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours; primary outcome was clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit.

RESULTS

Overall cure rates for ceftobiprole vs ceftazidime/linezolid were 49.9% vs 52.8% (intent-to-treat [ITT], 95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -10.0 to 4.1) and 69.3% vs 71.3% (clinically evaluable [CE], 95% CI, -10.0 to 6.1). Cure rates in HAP (excluding VAP) patients were 59.6% vs 58.8% (ITT, 95% CI, -7.3 to 8.8), and 77.8% vs 76.2% (CE, 95% CI, -6.9 to 10.0). Cure rates in VAP patients were 23.1% vs 36.8% (ITT, 95% CI, -26.0 to -1.5) and 37.7% vs 55.9% (CE, 95% CI, -36.4 to 0). Microbiological eradication rates in HAP (excluding VAP) patients were, respectively, 62.9% vs 67.5% (microbiologically evaluable [ME], 95% CI, -16.7 to 7.6), and in VAP patients 30.4% vs 50.0% (ME, 95% CI, -38.8 to -0.4). Treatment-related adverse events were comparable for ceftobiprole (24.9%) and ceftazidime/linezolid (25.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftobiprole is a safe and effective bactericidal antibiotic for the empiric treatment of HAP (excluding VAP). Further investigations are needed before recommending the use of ceftobiprole in VAP patients. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00210964, NCT00229008.

A PROspective study on the Usage patterns of Doripenem in the Asia-Pacific region (PROUD study)

Doripenem is approved in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region for treating nosocomial pneumonia (NP) including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) and complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). Clinical usage of doripenem (500mg intravenously, infused over 1h or 4h every 8h for 5-14 days) in APAC was evaluated in a prospective, open-label, non-comparative, multicentre study of inpatients (≥18 years) with NP, VAP, cIAI or cUTI. A total of 216 [intention-to-treat (ITT)] patients received doripenem: 53 NP (24.5%); 77 VAP (35.6%); 67 cIAI (31.0%); and 19 cUTI (8.8%). Doripenem MIC90 values for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae were 32, 32, 0.094 and 0.64μg/mL, respectively. Doripenem was used most commonly as monotherapy (86.6%) and as second-line therapy (62.0%). The clinical cure rate in clinically evaluable patients was 86.7% at the end of therapy (EOT) and 87.1% at test of cure (TOC) (7-14 days after EOT). In the ITT population, overall clinical cure rates were 66.2% at EOT and 56.5% at TOC. The median duration of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mechanical ventilation was 20, 12 and 10 days, respectively. Of 146 discharged patients, 7 were re-admitted within 28 days of EOT; 1 VAP patient was re-admitted to the ICU. The all-cause mortality rate was 22.7% (49/216). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (1.4%) and vomiting (1.4%). Doripenem is a viable option for treating APAC patients with NP, VAP, cIAI or cUTI. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 00986102].

Assessment of bias in outcomes reported in trials on pneumonia: a systematic review

Subjective outcomes may exaggerate intervention effects compared to objectively measured outcomes. We compared effect estimates for clinical failure and all-cause mortality clinical trials of antibiotic treatment for pneumonia. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing adults with pneumonia, comparing different antibiotics, published between 2005 and 2012 was undertaken. We compared the intervention to the control arm. The all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat population and clinical failure as defined by the study investigators for the primary analyzed population were the primary outcomes examined. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled, using a fixed effect model. Meta-regression was used to examine the impact of clinical failure on the mortality effect size. Thirty-six trials were included, of which 30 were industry-sponsored and 30 were non-inferiority trials. There was no difference between the effect on mortality for intervention versus control (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.91-1.16) and clinical failure (RR 1.01, 95 % CI 0.93-1.10), without significant heterogeneity in both analyses. In double-blind trials with adequate sequence generation and concealment, there was a significant advantage to the intervention for clinical failure (RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.76-0.98), but not for mortality (RR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.76-1.21). RRs for clinical failure did not explain the variability in the RRs for mortality significantly, with a meta-regression coefficient of 0.32 (95 % CI -0.21-0.85). In non-inferiority trials of antibiotic treatment for pneumonia, we did not find evidence for bias induced by the use of a subjective outcome overall. The small number of trials without sponsorship precludes an adequate assessment of sponsorship effects.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Doripenem and Meropenem in Obese Patients

Background: Antimicrobial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data are limited in obesity. Objective: To evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of doripenem and meropenem in obese patients hospitalized on a general ward. Methods: Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2 or total body weight (TBW) ≥100 pounds over their ideal body weight randomly received doripenem 500 mg (1-hour infusion) or meropenem 1 g (0.5-hour infusion) every 8 hours. Differences in pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by unpaired t test. Monte Carlo simulations were performed for 500 mg and 1 g every 8 hours, infused over 1 and 4 hours for doripenem and 0.5 and 3 hours for meropenem. Probability of target attainment (PTA) was calculated using a pharmacodynamic target of 40% fT > MIC (free drug concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC]), and cumulative fraction of response (CFR) was calculated using MIC data for 8 Gram-negative pathogens. Results: Twenty patients were studied. Volume of distribution at steady state, corrected for TBW, was significantly larger (0.18 ± 0.04 vs 0.13 ± 0.05 L/kg, P = .048) and systemic clearance was significantly faster for doripenem (11.7 ± 4.1 vs 8.1 ± 2.6 L/h, P = .03). PTA was >90% for all regimens at MICs ≤2 µg/mL. CFR was >90% for all regimens against 6 enteric Gram-negative pathogens and for 3 of 4 regimens for each drug against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Conclusions: Doripenem and meropenem pharmacokinetics differ in obesity. However, currently approved dosing regimens provide adequate pharmacodynamic exposures for susceptible bacteria in obese patients.

Impact of Bolus dosing versus continuous infusion of Piperacillin and Tazobactam on the development of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Management of nosocomial pneumonia is frequently complicated by bacterial resistance. Extended infusions of beta-lactams are increasingly being used to improve clinical outcomes. However, the impact of this strategy on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance is not known. A hollow-fiber infection model with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PAO1) was used. Pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of piperacillin-tazobactam similar to those in humans were simulated over 5 days. Three dosages of piperacillin-tazobactam were administered over 0.5 h or 4 h, with redosing every 8 h. Two initial bacterial densities were investigated (∼10⁴ CFU/ml and ∼10⁷ CFU/ml). The time courses of the total bacterial population and the resistant subpopulation were determined. All data were described using a mathematical model, which was then used to define the relationship between drug concentrations, bacterial killing, and emergence of piperacillin resistance. There was logarithmic growth in controls in the initial 24 h, reaching a plateau of ∼9 log₁₀ CFU/ml. Bacterial killing following administration of piperacillin via bolus dosing and that after extended infusions were similar. For the lower initial bacterial density, trough total plasma piperacillin concentration/MIC ratios of 3.4 and 10.4 for bolus and extended-infusion regimens, respectively, were able to suppress the emergence of piperacillin resistance. For the higher initial bacterial density, all regimens were associated with progressive growth of a resistant subpopulation. A stratified approach, according to bacterial density, is required to treat patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Antimicrobial monotherapy may be sufficient for some patients. However, for patients with a high bacterial burden, alternative therapeutic strategies are required to maximize bacterial killing and prevent antimicrobial resistance.

New antibiotics for bad bugs: where are we?

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is growing up day by day in both community and hospital setting, with a significant impact on the mortality and morbidity rates and the financial burden that is associated. In the last two decades multi drug resistant microorganisms (both hospital- and community-acquired) challenged the scientific groups into developing new antimicrobial compounds that can provide safety in use according to the new regulation, good efficacy patterns, and low resistance profile. In this review we made an evaluation of present data regarding the new classes and the new molecules from already existing classes of antibiotics and the ongoing trends in antimicrobial development. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) supported a proGram, called “the ′10 × ´20′ initiative”, to develop ten new systemic antibacterial drugs within 2020. The microorganisms mainly involved in the resistance process, so called the ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and enterobacteriaceae) were the main targets. In the era of antimicrobial resistance the new antimicrobial agents like fifth generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, monobactams, β-lactamases inhibitors, aminoglycosides, quinolones, oxazolidones, glycopeptides, and tetracyclines active against Gram-positive pathogens, like vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA) and MRSA, penicillin-resistant streptococci, and vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE) but also against highly resistant Gram-negative organisms are more than welcome. Of these compounds some are already approved by official agencies, some are still in study, but the need of new antibiotics still does not cover the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Therefore the management of antimicrobial resistance should also include fostering coordinated actions by all stakeholders, creating policy guidance, support for surveillance and technical assistance.

Standard Versus Prolonged Doripenem Infusion for Treatment of Gram-Negative Infections

BACKGROUND

Doripenem is the most recently introduced carbapenem, with a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity. Preliminary data indicated that activity is optimized by maximizing the time that serum concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration; however, limited clinical data are available to support this approach.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes before and after implementation of a hospital-wide initiative extending the duration of infusion for doripenem from 1 hour (standard) to 4 hours (prolonged).

METHODS

This retrospective, quasi-experimental study compared clinical outcomes associated with doripenem administered as a 1-hour infusion versus a 4-hour infusion for treatment of suspected or documented infections caused by gram-negative organisms. Outcomes were assessed for the entire cohort, as well as for the subpopulation of patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were included; 106 patients received doripenem via standard infusion and 94 patients via prolonged infusion. No significant differences were noted between the treatment groups in clinical success, length of stay, or duration of treatment when the entire cohort was evaluated. In the critically ill subgroup, pneumonia, standard-infusion doripenem, and concomitant bacteremia were independent predictors of clinical failure (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI] 7.8 [2.4–25.6], 5.5 [1.6–18.7], and 7.0 [1.6–31.3], respectively). Additionally, critically ill patients who received doripenem via standard infusion were significantly more likely to experience recurrence of infection or death within 90 days. No significant differences were noted in length of stay or duration of bacteremia.

CONCLUSIONS

The duration of infusion did not significantly impact outcomes when the entire cohort was compared; however, prolonged infusion of doripenem was associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes among critically ill patients. These findings support the use of prolonged infusion of doripenem for critically ill patients.

Comparison of the bacterial etiology of early-onset and late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia in subjects enrolled in 2 large clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is classified as early-onset or late-onset, in part, to identify subjects at risk for infection with resistant pathogens. We assessed differences in the bacterial etiology of early-onset versus late-onset VAP.

METHODS

Subjects enrolled in 2004-2006 in 2 clinical studies of doripenem versus imipenem or piperacillin/tazobactam, with a diagnosis of VAP (n = 500) were included in the analysis. Subjects were classified by ventilator status: early-onset VAP (< 5 d of ventilation) or late-onset VAP (≥ 5 d of ventilation). Baseline demographics and bacterial etiology were analyzed by VAP status.

RESULTS

Late-onset VAP subjects had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores (mean 16.6 versus 15.5, P = .008). There were no significant differences in Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, sex, age, or presence of bacteremia between the groups. A total of 496 subjects had a baseline pathogen, and 50% of subjects in each group had ≥ 2 pathogens. With the exception of Staphylococcus aureus, which was common in early-onset VAP, the pathogens (including potentially multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens) isolated from early-onset versus late-onset VAP were not significantly different between groups. Acinetobacter baumannii or Pseudomonas aeruginosa with decreased susceptibility to any study drug was observed in early-onset and late-onset VAP subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the prevalence of potential MDR pathogens associated with early-onset or late-onset VAP, even in subjects with prior antibiotics. Empiric therapy for early-onset VAP should also include agents likely to be effective for potential MDR pathogens. Further prospective studies should evaluate microbiology trends in subjects with VAP.

A randomized trial of 7-day doripenem versus 10-day imipenem-cilastatin for ventilator-associated pneumonia

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare a 7-day course of doripenem to a 10-day course of imipenem-cilastatin for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to Gram-negative bacteria.

Methods

This was a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial comparing a fixed 7-day course of doripenem one gram as a four-hour infusion every eight hours with a fixed 10-day course of imipenem-cilastatin one gram as a one-hour infusion every eight hours (April 2008 through June 2011).

Results

The study was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee that was blinded to treatment arm assignment and performed a scheduled review of data which showed signals that were close to the pre-specified stopping limits. The final analyses included 274 randomized patients. The clinical cure rate at the end of therapy (EOT) in the microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population was numerically lower for patients in the doripenem arm compared to the imipenem-cilastatin arm (45.6% versus 56.8%; 95% CI, -26.3% to 3.8%). Similarly, the clinical cure rate at EOT was numerically lower for patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa VAP, the most common Gram-negative pathogen, in the doripenem arm compared to the imipenem-cilastatin arm (41.2% versus 60.0%; 95% CI, -57.2 to 19.5). All cause 28-day mortality in the MITT group was numerically greater for patients in the doripenem arm compared to the imipenem-cilastatin arm (21.5% versus 14.8%; 95% CI, -5.0 to 18.5) and for patients with P. aeruginosa VAP (35.3% versus 0.0%; 95% CI, 12.6 to 58.0).

Conclusions

Among patients with microbiologically confirmed late-onset VAP, a fixed 7-day course of doripenem was found to have non-significant higher rates of clinical failure and mortality compared to a fixed 10-day course of imipenem-cilastatin. Consideration should be given to treating patients with VAP for more than seven days to optimize clinical outcome.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00589693

Evaluation of doripenem utilization and susceptibilities at a large urban hospital

BACKGROUND

Bacterial resistance presents a constant challenge in the treatment of hospitalized patients, particularly with Gram-negative infections. Carbapenems have an important role in the treatment of resistant nosocomial organisms. Doripenem, a recently approved carbapenem, has shown efficacy in clinical trials, but there is little published data on utilization in a general patient population.

OBJECTIVE

The clinical utilization of doripenem in a general adult inpatient population was evaluated during a carbapenem formulary conversion.

SETTING

A 706-bed acute care tertiary hospital serving an urban community.

METHODS

After formulary conversion to doripenem, the first 100 patients to receive doripenem were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics were recorded for each patient, along with indication for treatment, prescribing physician, dose and frequency of doripenem and duration of treatment. Patients were monitored for adverse reactions to doripenem. Bacterial culture results were recorded. For positive cultures, doripenem susceptibility was determined by Etest. Patients were followed until discontinuation of antibiotic therapy, discharge or death to determine treatment outcomes. Successful treatment was defined as clinical or microbiological cure, while patients with infection-related mortality or requiring subsequent antibiotics for the index infection were considered treatment failure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical utilization of doripenem, including indications and doses used.

RESULTS

Doripenem treatment was recorded in 102 patients. The most common indications for treatment were pneumonia and sepsis. The majority of doripenem orders were written by Infectious Disease or Pulmonology Services. Forty-nine patients were treated successfully with doripenem and six patients experienced treatment failure. The remainder of patients were not evaluable by predefined outcomes criteria. Adverse events were reported in eight patients and included acute renal failure, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and seizures. Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the most common organisms in culture results. Doripenem demonstrated in vitro activity against 81% of all organisms and susceptibility results had >90% correlation with meropenem and imipenem susceptibilities.

CONCLUSION

In our limited sample size, doripenem was safe and effective against various types of infections in a general inpatient population with similar bacterial susceptibilities to other cabapenems. Doripenem was utilized for appropriate indications, but doses were frequently outside the manufacturers labeling. Adverse events were uncommon, and no serious adverse events were directly associated with doripenem treatment.

Epileptogenic potential of carbapenem agents: mechanism of action, seizure rates, and clinical considerations

Antimicrobials are the most frequently implicated class of drugs in drug-induced seizure, with β-lactams being the class of antimicrobials most often implicated. The seizure-inducing potential of the carbapenem subclass may be directly related to their β-lactam ring structure. Data on individual carbapenems and seizure activity are scarce. To evaluate the available evidence on the association between carbapenem agents and seizure activity, we conducted a literature search of the MEDLINE (1966-May 2010), EMBASE (1974-May 2010), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2010) databases. Reference citations from the retrieved articles were also reviewed. Mechanistically, seizure propensity of the β-lactams is related to their binding to γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. There are numerous reports of seizure activity associated with imipenem-cilastatin, with seizure rates ranging from 3-33%. For meropenem, doripenem, and ertapenem, the seizure rate for each agent is reported as less than 1%. However, as their use increases and expands into new patient populations, the rate of seizures with these agents may increase. High-dose therapy, especially in patients with renal dysfunction, preexisting central nervous system abnormalities, or a seizure history increases the likelihood of seizure activity. Although specific studies have not been conducted, data indicate that carbapenem-associated seizure is best managed with benzodiazepines, followed by other agents that enhance GABA transmission. Due to the drug interaction between carbapenems and valproic acid, resulting in clinically significant declines in valproic acid serum concentrations, the combination should be avoided whenever possible. Clinicians should be vigilant regarding the possibility of carbapenem-induced seizures when selecting and dosing antimicrobial therapy.

Newer beta-lactam antibiotics: doripenem, ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, and cefepime

This article reviews the new beta-lactam (β-lactam) antibiotics doripenem, ceftobiprole, and ceftaroline. It covers pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, dosing, in vitro activities, safety, and clinical trial results. Doripenem (Doribax) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections. Ceftaroline has received FDA approval for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections and community acquired pneumonia. Ceftobiprole has not received FDA approval. The article also reviews recent data suggesting increased overall mortality with Cefepime (Maxipime) use compared with other beta-lactam antibiotics and the potential risk for neurotoxicity in the setting of renal failure.

[Available carbapenems: Properties and differences]

Carbapenems are β-lactam antibiotics endowed with a broader spectrum, activity and resistance to β-lactamases than other β-lactams. Due to their qualities, these antibiotics are crucial in empirical therapy, in the monotherapy of several severe hospital-acquired infections -and even that of some community-acquired infections- as well as in the directed therapy of infections due to multiresistant Gram-negative bacteria. All the available carbapenems have a similar spectrum, although there are significant differences in their antimicrobial activity, which in the long run determines the clinical indications of each carbapenem. The spectrum of ertapenem does not cover eminently nosocomial pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp., and hence this antibiotic is indicated in community-acquired infections requiring hospital treatment. In contrast, doripenem shows greater intrinsic activity than other carbapenems in extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing enterobacteria and AmpC P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp. and other non-fermentative and anaerobic microorganisms. Additionally, like the remaining carbapenems, doripenem has adequate pharmacokinetic characteristics and a favorable safety profile.

Doripenem: a new carbapenem antibiotic

PURPOSE

The chemistry, pharmacology, antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety in humans, and formulary considerations of doripenem are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Doripenem, a member of the β-lactam class of antibiotics, is the newest addition to the carbapenems. It exhibits concentration-independent bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria; enteric and nonenteric gram-negative bacteria, including extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing strains; and anaerobic pathogens. Doripenem was found to be noninferior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections and noninferior to levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections including pyelonephritis and was granted marketing approval by the Food and Drug Administration for these two indications. Doripenem was also found to be noninferior to imipenem in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia and noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. It has a favorable safety profile, with gastrointestinal complaints and headache being the most common adverse effects and allergic reactions the most serious adverse effects. Doripenem has a relatively low potential to induce seizures. The only known clinically relevant drug interaction is that coadministration with valproic acid may result in reductions of valproic acid serum concentrations. As with most renally eliminated antibiotics, the dose of doripenem should be adjusted according to kidney function.

CONCLUSION

Doripenem is an injectable carbapenem antibiotic with a spectrum of activity comparable to that of imipenem and meropenem. Its safety is similar to that of other carbapenems.