In vitro activity of aztreonam-avibactam and comparators against Metallo-β-Lactamase-producing Enterobacterales from ATLAS Global Surveillance Program, 2016-2020

OBJECTIVES

Metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-producing Enterobacterales are a major challenge worldwide due to limited treatment options. Aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), which is under clinical development, has shown activity against MBL-positive isolates. This study evaluated the prevalence of MBL producers and the nature of enzymes among a global collection of clinical isolates of Enterobacterales from the Antimicrobial Testing Leadership and Surveillance program (ATLAS) surveillance program (2016-2020), and the antimicrobial activity of ATM-AVI and comparators against this collection.

METHODS

Non-duplicate clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (N = 106 686) collected across 63 countries were analysed. Antimicrobial susceptibility was performed using broth microdilution. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were interpreted using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing breakpoints. Provisional pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic breakpoint of ≤8 mg/L was considered for ATM-AVI. β-lactamase genes were characterized by polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. The Cochran Armitage Trend test was used to determine significant trends in percentage of isolates over time.

RESULTS

Overall, MBL-positive isolates were 1.6% of total Enterobacterales isolates globally, with a significant increasing trend observed over time, globally and across regions (P < 0.05). New Delhi MBL (NDM) was the most common MBL (83.3%). ATM-AVI demonstrated potent activity against MBL-positive isolates (MIC ≤8 mg/L: 99.4% isolates inhibited; MIC90, 1 mg/L). Consistent activity was also noted across different regions. Potent activity was demonstrated against different NDM variants and MBL-positive isolates co-carrying other carbapenemases (98.1% and 99.7% isolates inhibited at ≤8 mg/L, respectively). About 0.6% MBL-positive isolates (10/1707) had MICs >8 mg/L for ATM-AVI.

CONCLUSION

ATM-AVI demonstrated potent activity against MBL-positive isolates, including NDM variants and MBL-positive isolates co-carrying other carbapenemases, and may represent a good option for treating infections caused by MBL-positive Enterobacterales.

Antimicrobial Activities of Aztreonam-Avibactam and Comparator Agents against Enterobacterales Analyzed by ICU and Non-ICU Wards, Infection Sources, and Geographic Regions: ATLAS Program 2016-2020

Increasing antimicrobial resistance among multidrug-resistant (MDR), extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)- and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), in particular metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-positive strains, has led to limited treatment options in these isolates. This study evaluated the activity of aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI) and comparator antimicrobials against Enterobacterales isolates and key resistance phenotypes stratified by wards, infection sources and geographic regions as part of the ATLAS program between 2016 and 2020. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. The susceptibility of antimicrobials were interpreted using CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints. A tentative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic breakpoint of 8 µg/mL was considered for ATM-AVI activity. ATM-AVI inhibited ≥99.2% of Enterobacterales isolates across wards and ≥99.7% isolates across infection sources globally and in all regions at ≤8 µg/mL. For resistance phenotypes, ATM-AVI demonstrated sustained activity across wards and infection sources by inhibiting ≥98.5% and ≥99.1% of multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates, ≥98.6% and ≥99.1% of ESBL-positive isolates, ≥96.8% and ≥90.9% of carbapenem-resistant (CR) isolates, and ≥96.8% and ≥97.4% of MBL-positive isolates, respectively, at ≤8 µg/mL globally and across regions. Overall, our study demonstrated that ATM-AVI represents an important therapeutic option for infections caused by Enterobacterales, including key resistance phenotypes across different wards and infection sources.

Evaluation of in vitro activity of ceftaroline against pathogens associated with community-acquired pneumonia: ATLAS program 2017-2019

OBJECTIVE

Ceftaroline is an important therapeutic option for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Antimicrobial susceptibility to ceftaroline and other antimicrobial agents against Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae isolates collected worldwide from identified respiratory tract sources is reported by age groups (0-18, 19-65, and >65 years).

METHODS

Antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates, collected as part of the ATLAS program (2017-2019), was performed per EUCAST/CLSI guidelines.

RESULTS

S. aureus (N= 7103; methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]= 4203; methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]= 2791), S. pneumoniae (N= 4823; EUCAST/CLSI, penicillin-intermediate S. pneumoniae [PISP]= 1408/870; penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae [PRSP]= 455/993), and H. influenzae (N= 3850; β-lactamase [βL]-negative= 3097; βL-positive= 753) isolates were collected from respiratory tract specimens. Susceptibility to ceftaroline was 89.08%-97.83% for S. aureus, 99.95%-100% for MSSA, and 78.07%-92.74% for MRSA isolates across age groups, S. aureus as well as MRSA isolates derived from the 0-18 yearsage group demonstrated the highest susceptibility rates to ceftaroline. Susceptibility to ceftaroline was 98.25%-99.77% for S. pneumoniae, 99.74%-100% for PISP, and 86.23%-99.04% for PRSP isolates across age groups. Across all age groups, susceptibility to ceftaroline was 89.53%-99.70% for H. influenzae, 93.02%-100% for βL-negative, and 77.78%-98.35% for βL-positive isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of age, susceptibility to ceftaroline was high among the majority of S. aureus, S. pneumoniae, and H. influenzae isolates collected in this study.

Treatment outcomes of secondary bacteraemia in patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil: pooled results from six phase III clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

This exploratory pooled analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil and comparators across six phase III clinical trials in adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) and secondary bacteraemia.

METHODS

In each trial, FOCUS 1 and 2 (CAP), Asia CAP trial, CANVAS 1 and 2 (cSSTI) and COVERS (cSSTI), patients were randomised to ceftaroline fosamil [600 mg q12h by 1-h i.v. infusion, except in COVERS (600 mg q8h by 2-h i.v. infusion), adjusted for renal function] or comparator. Efficacy assessments included clinical and microbiological responses at test-of-cure visit [microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population]. Safety outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

The pooled mMITT population comprised 1976 patients, of whom 138 had baseline bacteraemia (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 72; comparator, n = 66). Predominant baseline blood pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 29), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 19) and other streptococci (n = 12). Clinical cure rates in bacteraemic patients were 55/72 (76.4%) and 51/66 (77.3%) for ceftaroline fosamil and comparators, respectively, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 822/966 (85.1%) and 717/872 (82.2%). Favourable microbiological response rates in bacteraemic patients were 56/72 (77.8%) for ceftaroline fosamil and 54/66 (81.8%) for comparators, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 825/966 (85.4%) and 719/872 (82.5%). Adverse events in bacteraemic patients were consistent with the known ceftaroline fosamil safety profile or the underlying indications.

CONCLUSION

These pooled clinical and microbiological efficacy data demonstrate generally favourable outcomes for ceftaroline fosamil in patients with CAP or cSSTI and secondary bacteraemia. [Trial Registration: NCT00621504, NCT00509106; NCT01371838; NCT00424190, NCT00423657; NCT01499277].

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Purpose

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial.

Patients and Methods

The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System.

Results

CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49–30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268–€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34–27.09%), 26.4% (20.5–32.32%), 28.6% (22.08–35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39–33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902–€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881–€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800–€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608–€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures.

Conclusion

Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for Treatment of Pediatric Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections and Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)/community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI)/acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) represent major causes of morbidity and mortality in children. β-Lactams are the cornerstone of antibiotic treatment for many serious bacterial infections in children; however, most of these agents have no activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Ceftaroline fosamil, a β-lactam with broad-spectrum in vitro activity against Gram-positive pathogens (including MRSA and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae) and common Gram-negative organisms, is approved in the European Union and the United States for children with CAP/CABP or cSSTI/ABSSSI. Ceftaroline fosamil has completed a pediatric investigation plan including safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic evaluations in patients with ages ranging from birth to 17 years. It has demonstrated similar clinical and microbiological efficacy to best available existing treatments in phase III-IV trials in patients aged ≥ 2 months to < 18 years with CABP or ABSSSI, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. It is also approved in the European Union for neonates with CAP or cSSTI, and in the US for neonates with ABSSSI. Ceftaroline fosamil dosing for children (including renal function adjustments) is supported by pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulations in appropriate age groups, and includes the option of 5- to 60-min intravenous infusions for standard doses, and a high dose for cSSTI patients with MRSA isolates, with a ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentration of 2-4 mg/L. Considered together, these data suggest ceftaroline fosamil may be beneficial in the management of CAP/CABP and cSSTI/ABSSSI in children.

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of the Phase 3 COVERS Randomized Trial of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam

Aim

Exploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Adults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm²) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5–14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS.

Results

Overall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-020-00297-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ceftaroline fosamil as a potential treatment option for Staphylococcus aureus community-acquired pneumonia in adults

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), is an important aetiological cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Empiric therapy for CAP frequently consists of β-lactam monotherapy or β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy. However, such agents are often ineffective against S. aureus and do not reflect the emergence and increasing prevalence of MRSA in the community setting. Ceftaroline fosamil is a fifth-generation parenteral cephalosporin with broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive pathogens - such as S. aureus (including MRSA), Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes - and typical Gram-negative pathogens, including Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The approval of ceftaroline fosamil in the United States and Europe for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe CAP was based on two phase 3 trials (FOCUS 1 and 2), which demonstrated that ceftaroline fosamil was non-inferior to ceftriaxone, a standard empiric treatment for CAP, while exhibiting a comparable safety profile. Although head-to-head trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus comparators against MRSA CAP are lacking, the effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in subpopulations of patients not covered by phase 3 trials (e.g. those with MRSA CAP or severe renal impairment) has been demonstrated in the Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) study. As ineffective empiric therapy is associated with adverse outcomes, including mortality and increased costs, ceftaroline fosamil, with its extended spectrum of activity, is an attractive alternative to standard antibiotic CAP regimens.

Safety and Efficacy of Anidulafungin for Fungal Infection in Patients With Liver Dysfunction or Multiorgan Failure

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to review our clinical experience on the safety and efficacy of anidulafungin, an echinocandin antifungal, in the treatment of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in patients with moderate to severe abnormal liver function tests or multiorgan failure and IFI, in a large United Kingdom Liver Centre.

METHODS

The clinical records of the first 50 consecutive patients treated for IFI with anidulafungin between January 7, 2009 and March 2, 2011 were analyzed. Data were collected on demographics, underlying disease, disease characteristics, hematological and biochemical parameters, IFI, concomitant bacterial and viral infections, response to anidulafungin, and anidulafungin-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 54.3 years (range, 19.6-75.9); 60% were male. Twenty-two (44%) patients were liver transplant recipients. Others had hepatopancreaticobiliary disease (n = 15, 30%) or chronic liver disease (n = 11, 22%). Invasive fungal infection (predominantly Candida spp) was proven in 36 (72%) patients, probable in 14 (28%). Of 46 evaluable patients, 35 (76%) had a favorable anidulafungin treatment outcome. Forty-nine (98%) had abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) pretreatment; 31 (62%) had ≥1 LFT raised to ≥2× baseline during anidulafungin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this highly specialized group of patients, anidulafungin treatment was efficacious and well tolerated by those with decompensated liver disease, multiorgan failure, and high-risk liver transplant with proven or probable IFI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis

BACKGROUND

Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in the intensive care unit are challenging conditions that are associated with high rates of mortality. New guidelines from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases strongly recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC. Here, a cost-effectiveness model was developed from the United Kingdom perspective to examine the costs and outcomes of antifungal treatment for C/IC based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines.

METHODS

Costs and treatment outcomes with the echinocandin anidulafungin were compared with those for caspofungin, micafungin and fluconazole. The model included non-neutropenic patients aged ≥16 years with confirmed C/IC who were receiving intravenous first-line treatment. Patients were categorised as either a clinical success or failure (patients with persistent/breakthrough infection); successfully treated patients switched to oral therapy, while patients categorised as clinical failures switched to a different antifungal class. Other inputs were all-cause mortality at 6 weeks, costs of treatment-related adverse events and other medical resource utilisation costs. Resource use was derived from the published literature and from discussion with clinical experts. Drug-acquisition/administration costs were taken from standard United Kingdom costing sources.

RESULTS

The model indicated that first-line anidulafungin could be considered cost-effective versus fluconazole (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £813 per life-year gained) for the treatment of C/IC. Anidulafungin was cost-saving versus caspofungin and micafungin due to lower total costs and a higher rate of survival combined with a higher probability of clinical success.

DISCUSSION

European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC; our model indicated that anidulafungin marries clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

From the United Kingdom perspective, anidulafungin was cost-effective compared with fluconazole for the treatment of C/IC and was cost-saving versus the other echinocandins.

Economic Comparison of an Empirical Versus Diagnostic-Driven Strategy for Treating Invasive Fungal Disease in Immunocompromised Patients

PURPOSE

Patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) are treated empirically with antifungal therapy (AFT). Early treatment using a diagnostic-driven (DD) strategy may reduce clinical and economic burdens. We compared costs and outcomes of both strategies from a UK perspective.

METHODS

An empirical strategy with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (C-AmB), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), or caspofungin was compared with a DD strategy (initiated based on positive ELISA results for galactomannan antigen) and/or positive results for Aspergillus species on polymerase chain reaction assay) using C-AmB, voriconazole, or L-AmB in a decision-analytic model. Rates of IFD incidence, overall mortality, and IFD-related mortality in adults expected to be neutropenic for ≥10 days were obtained. The empirical strategy was assumed to identify 30% of IFD and targeted AFT to improve survival by a hazard ratio of 0.589. AFT-specific adverse events were obtained from a summary of product characteristics. Resource use was obtained, and costs were estimated by using standard UK costing sources. All costs are presented in 2012 British pounds sterling.

FINDINGS

Total costs were 32% lower for the DD strategy (£1561.29) versus the empirical strategy (£2301.93) due to a reduced incidence of adverse events and decreased use of AFT. Administration of AFT was reduced by 41% (DD strategy, 74 of 1000; empirical strategy, 125 of 1000), with similar survival rates.

IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that a DD strategy is likely to be cost-saving versus empirical treatment for immunocompromised patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers.

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Background

Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC.

Results

Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35–0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32–0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28–0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17–0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17–0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42–1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents.

Conclusion

As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-0855-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical and economic burden of invasive fungal diseases in Europe: focus on pre-emptive and empirical treatment of Aspergillus and Candida species

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have been widely studied in recent years, largely because of the increasing population at risk. Aspergillus and Candida species remain the most common causes of IFDs, but other fungi are emerging. The early and accurate diagnosis of IFD is critical to outcome and the optimisation of treatment. Rapid diagnostic methods and new antifungal therapies have advanced disease management in recent years. Strategies for the prevention and treatment of IFDs include prophylaxis, and empirical and pre-emptive therapy. Here, we review the available primary literature on the clinical and economic burden of IFDs in Europe from 2000 to early 2011, with a focus on the value and outcomes of different approaches.

Efficacy and safety of anidulafungin in elderly, critically ill patients with invasive Candida infections: a post hoc analysis

Post hoc analysis of a non-comparative, prospective, multicentre, phase IIIb study was performed to compare efficacy and safety of anidulafungin in elderly (≥65 years) versus non-elderly (<65 years) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with candidaemia/invasive candidiasis (C/IC). Adult ICU patients with confirmed C/IC meeting ≥1 of the following criteria were enrolled: post-abdominal surgery; solid tumour; renal/hepatic insufficiency; solid organ transplantation; neutropenia; age ≥65 years. Patients received anidulafungin (200 mg on Day 1, 100 mg/day thereafter) for ≥10 days followed by optional azole step-down therapy for a total treatment duration of 14-56 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was global (clinical and microbiological) response at the end of all therapy (EOT). Primary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (n=170), excluding unknown and missing responses. In total, 80 patients (47.1%) were aged ≥65 years and 90 (52.9%) were aged <65 years; the mean age difference between the two groups was 21.9 years. Global success at EOT in mITT patients was similar in elderly (68.1%) and non-elderly (70.7%) patients (P=0.719). However, global success rates were significantly lower in elderly versus non-elderly patients at 2 and 6 weeks after EOT (P=0.045 and P=0.016, respectively). Ninety-day survival was significantly lower (P=0.006) for elderly (42.8%) versus non-elderly patients (63.3%). The incidence and profile of adverse events were similar in elderly and non-elderly patients. Anidulafungin was effective and safe for treatment of C/IC in elderly ICU patients, despite higher baseline severity of illness scores.

Anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia/invasive candidiasis in selected critically ill patients

A prospective, multicentre, phase IIIb study with an exploratory, open-label design was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia/invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in specific ICU patient populations. Adult ICU patients with confirmed C/IC meeting ≥1 of the following criteria were enrolled: post-abdominal surgery, solid tumour, renal/hepatic insufficiency, solid organ transplant, neutropaenia, and age ≥65 years. Patients received anidulafungin (200 mg on day 1, 100 mg/day thereafter) for 10–42 days, optionally followed by oral voriconazole/fluconazole. The primary efficacy endpoint was global (clinical and microbiological) response at the end of all therapy (EOT). Secondary endpoints included global response at the end of intravenous therapy (EOIVT) and at 2 and 6 weeks post-EOT, survival at day 90, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The primary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population, excluding unknown/missing responses. The safety and MITT populations consisted of 216 and 170 patients, respectively. The most common pathogens were Candida albicans (55.9%), C. glabrata (14.7%) and C. parapsilosis (10.0%). Global success was 69.5% (107/154; 95% CI, 61.6–76.6) at EOT, 70.7% (111/157) at EOIVT, 60.2% (77/128) at 2 weeks post-EOT, and 50.5% (55/109) at 6 weeks post-EOT. When unknown/missing responses were included as failures, the respective success rates were 62.9%, 65.3%, 45.3% and 32.4%. Survival at day 90 was 53.8%. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 33/216 (15.3%) patients, four (1.9%) of whom had serious AEs. Anidulafungin was effective, safe and well tolerated for the treatment of C/IC in selected groups of ICU patients.

Voriconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis following allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation

Antifungal prophylaxis for allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients should prevent invasive mould and yeast infections (IFIs) and be well tolerated. This prospective, randomized, open-label, multicentre study compared the efficacy and safety of voriconazole (234 patients) versus itraconazole (255 patients) in alloHCT recipients. The primary composite endpoint, success of prophylaxis, incorporated ability to tolerate study drug for ≥100 d (with ≤14 d interruption) with survival to day 180 without proven/probable IFI. Success of prophylaxis was significantly higher with voriconazole than itraconazole (48·7% vs. 33·2%, P <0·01); more voriconazole patients tolerated prophylaxis for 100 d (53·6% vs. 39·0%, P<0·01; median total duration 96 vs. 68 d). The most common (>10%) treatment-related adverse events were vomiting (16·6%), nausea (15·8%) and diarrhoea (10·4%) for itraconazole, and hepatotoxicity/liver function abnormality (12·9%) for voriconazole. More itraconazole patients received other systemic antifungals (41·9% vs. 29·9%, P<0·01). There was no difference in incidence of proven/probable IFI (1·3% vs. 2·1%) or survival to day 180 (81·9% vs. 80·9%) for voriconazole and itraconazole respectively. Voriconazole was superior to itraconazole as antifungal prophylaxis after alloHCT, based on differences in the primary composite endpoint. Voriconazole could be given for significantly longer durations, with less need for other systemic antifungals.

Epidemiology and impact of rotavirus diarrhoea in Poland

Hospital and laboratory data were analysed in three hospitals to estimate rotavirus disease burden in 1994-96. Community acquired gastroenteritis was diagnosed in 757 children of whom 41% tested positive for rotavirus. A total of 196 children had rotavirus nosocomial infections (39% of all rotavirus community-acquired and nosocomial cases). Infants less than 24 months old and children less than 3 months old comprised 74% and 11.9% of admissions for rotavirus, respectively. Almost 94% of children with rotavirus infection had severe gastroenteritis (score > or =11). The annual rate of rotavirus associated hospitalization in Poland in 1996 was 3.1/1000 children under the age of 60 months and 5.2/1000 infants under 24 months of age. The mean hospital stay was 9.5 d (+/-9.8 d). We estimated that 8918 children under 60 months of age were hospitalized for rotavirus gastroenteritis in 1996; they accounted for 84899 inpatient days. We conclude that rotavirus is a leading aetiological agent of severe gastroenteritis in young children in Poland and that the burden of this infection is significant. Rotavirus vaccine could significantly decrease the hospitalization rate and the financial impact of rotavirus gastroenteritis in Poland.

Carbohydrate intolerance after acute gastroenteritis--a disappearing problem in Polish children

The prevalence of carbohydrate intolerance in Polish children during an acute episode of gastroenteritis was determined. One hundred and seven consecutive children, less than 3 years old, with acute diarrhoea were enrolled into the study. Carbohydrate intolerance (diagnostic criteria: >0.5% reducing substances and stool pH less than 5.5) was diagnosed in 14/107 (13.08%) children: lactose intolerance was present in 12 (11.2%) patients; glucose polymer intolerance in 1 (0.93%) and monosaccharide intolerance in 1 (0.93%). The most important predisposing factor was rotavirus. In all cases the carbohydrate intolerance was transient, resolving within 5 days. Carbohydrate intolerance is also an infrequent problem in Polish children. Restriction of lactose-containing foods (use of lactose-free or low lactose formulas) for the majority of children with gastroenteritis does not seem to be justified.