Clinical and Microbiologic Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam in Complicated Infections: A Meta-analysis

The Surgical Infection Society Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection: 2024 Update

Background: The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) in 1992, 2002, 2010, and 2017. Here, we present the most recent guideline update based on a systematic review of current literature. Methods: The writing group, including current and former members of the SIS Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee and other individuals with content or guideline expertise within the SIS, working with a professional librarian, performed a systematic review using PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from 2016 until February 2024. Keyword descriptors combined "surgical site infections" or "intra-abdominal infections" in adults limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Additional relevant publications not in the initial search but identified during literature review were included. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system was utilized to evaluate the evidence. The strength of each recommendation was rated strong (1) or weak (2). The quality of the evidence was rated high (A), moderate (B), or weak (C). The guideline contains new recommendations and updates to recommendations from previous IAI guideline versions. Final recommendations were developed by an iterative process. All writing group members voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: This updated evidence-based guideline contains recommendations from the SIS for the treatment of adult patients with IAI. Evidence-based recommendations were developed for antimicrobial agent selection, timing, route of administration, duration, and de-escalation; timing of source control; treatment of specific pathogens; treatment of specific intra-abdominal disease processes; and implementation of hospital-based antimicrobial agent stewardship programs. Summary: This document contains the most up-to-date recommendations from the SIS on the prevention and management of IAI in adult patients.

Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with infections caused by β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative pathogens: a pooled analysis from the Phase 3 clinical trial programme

OBJECTIVES

This post hoc pooled analysis evaluated clinical and microbiological outcomes and safety in patients with infections caused by β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative pathogens across five Phase 3, randomized, controlled, multicentre trials of ceftazidime/avibactam in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/pyelonephritis and nosocomial pneumonia (NP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

METHODS

In each trial, RECLAIM/RECLAIM 3 (cIAI), REPRISE (cIAI/cUTI), RECAPTURE (cUTI) and REPROVE (NP, including VAP) patients were randomized 1:1 to IV ceftazidime/avibactam (plus metronidazole for patients with cIAI) or comparators (carbapenems in >97% patients) for 5-21 days. Clinical and microbiological responses at the test-of-cure visit were assessed for patients with ESBLs, and/or plasmidic and/or overexpression of chromosomal AmpC, and/or serine carbapenemases without MBLs identified in baseline Gram-negative isolates by phenotypic screening and molecular characterization in the pooled microbiological modified ITT (mMITT) population.

RESULTS

In total, 813 patients (ceftazidime/avibactam, n = 389; comparator, n = 424) had ≥1 β-lactamase-producing baseline pathogen identified, amongst whom 792 patients (ceftazidime/avibactam, n = 379; comparator, n = 413) had no MBLs. The most frequent β-lactamase-producing pathogens across treatment groups were Escherichia coli (n = 381), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 261) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 53). Clinical cure rates in the pooled non-MBL β-lactamase-producing mMITT population were 88.1% (334/379) for ceftazidime/avibactam and 88.1% (364/413) for comparators; favourable microbiological response rates were 76.5% (290/379) and 68.8% (284/413), respectively. The safety profile of ceftazidime/avibactam was consistent with previous observations.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with infections caused by ESBLs, AmpC and serine carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative pathogens.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01499290; NCT01726023; NCT01644643; NCT01595438/NCT01599806; NCT01808092.

Global Resistance of Imipenem/Relebactam against Gram-Negative Bacilli: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Relebactam, previously known as MK-7655, is currently being tested in combination with imipenem as a class A and class C β-lactamase inhibitor, including KPC from Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Objective

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the activity of imipenem/relebactam against gram-negative bacilli.

Methods

After applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, 72 articles with full texts that describe the prevalence of imipenem/relebactam resistance were chosen for the meta-analysis and systematic review. Articles published between January 2015 and February 2023 were surveyed. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus.

Results

The pooled estimation of 282,621 sample isolates revealed that the prevalence rate of imipenem/relebactam resistance is roughly 14.6% (95% CI, 0.116%-0.182%).

Conclusions

The findings of this analysis show that imipenem/relebactam resistance is rare in the majority of developed countries. Given that relebactam has proven to restore the activity of imipenem against current clinical isolates, further research into imipenem/relebactam is necessary.

Antibiotics for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria

Background: Increase in antimicrobial-resistant bacteria continues to be challenge to physicians. Particularly, multidrug-resistant (MDR) gram-negative bacilli (GNB), such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producers and carbapenem-resistant pathogens, are becoming a major human health problem globally.Current Concepts: Gram-negative bacteria have developed resistance via mechanisms encoding AmpC beta-lactamases, ESBLs, and carbapenemases. The therapeutic options available for these pathogens are extremely limited. Infection by MDR bacteria is associated with ineffective antimicrobial therapy, which poses a major threat to the survival of patients with serious infections. Physicians should be familiar with the local epidemiology of MDR bacterial infections and the available therapeutic options. Carbapenems are considered as the drugs of choice for treating ESBL or AmpC-producers. However, increased use of carbapenems in response to an increased prevalence of MDR pathogens could be associated with the rapid emergence of carbapenem resistance. Therefore, there is an ongoing quest for carbapenem-sparing regimens for the treatment of MDR-GNB. Treatment of MDR-GNB infections need not be limited to carbapenems as novel antimicrobial agents are now available.Discussion and Conclusion: This comprehensive review aims to describe therapeutic options available for MDR-GNB infections in Korea, a country with a high prevalence of MDR pathogens. Recently developed antimicrobial agents that should be urgently introduced in Korea include ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, imipenem-relebactam, and cefiderocol. These drugs have been shown to be effective against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii.

Cost-Effectiveness of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Compared with Colistin in Treatment of Gram-Negative Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Non-Susceptible Organisms

INTRODUCTION

Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL), a combination β-lactam antibiotic (imipenem) with a novel β-lactamase inhibitor (relebactam), is an efficacious and well-tolerated option for the treatment of hospitalized patients with gram-negative (GN) bacterial infections caused by carbapenem-non-susceptible (CNS) pathogens. This study examines cost-effectiveness of IMI/REL vs. colistin plus imipenem (CMS + IMI) for the treatment of infection(s) caused by confirmed CNS pathogens.

METHODS

We developed an economic model comprised of a decision-tree depicting initial hospitalization, and a Markov model projecting long-term health and economic impacts following discharge. The decision tree, informed by clinical data from RESTORE-IMI 1 trial, modeled clinical outcomes (mortality, cure rate, and adverse events including nephrotoxicity) in the two comparison scenarios of IMI/REL versus CMS + IMI for patients with CNS GN infection. Subsequently, a Markov model translated these hospitalization stage outcomes (i.e., death or uncured infection) to long-term consequences such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness.

RESULTS

IMI/REL compared to CMS + IMI demonstrated a higher cure rate (79.0% vs. 52.0%), lower mortality (15.2% vs. 39.0%), and reduced nephrotoxicity (14.6% vs. 56.4%). On average a patient treated with IMI/REL vs. CMS + IMI gained additional 3.7 QALYs over a lifetime. Higher drug acquisition costs for IMI/REL were offset by shorter hospital length of stay and lower AE-related costs, which result in net savings of $11,015 per patient. Sensitivity analyses suggested that IMI/REL has a high likelihood (greater than 95%) of being cost-effective at a US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000-150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with confirmed CNS GN infection, IMI/REL could yield favorable clinical outcomes and may be cost-saving-as the higher IMI/REL drug acquisition cost is offset by reduced nephrotoxicity-related cost-for the US payer compared to CMS + IMI.

Urgent need for novel antibiotics in Republic of Korea to combat multidrug-resistant bacteria

Multidrug resistance in bacteria is an important issue and is increasing in frequency worldwide because of the limitations of therapeutic agents. From 2010 to 2019, 14 new systemic antibiotics received regulatory approval in the United States. However, few new antibiotics have been introduced in Republic of Korea to combat multidrug-resistant pathogens. Here, we introduce six novel antibiotics for Gram-positive bacteria and five for Gram-negative bacteria approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency from 2009 to October 2021, and recommend that they be approved for use in Republic of Korea at the earliest possible date.