Comparative simulation of intraperitoneal aminoglycoside regimens for patients with peritonitis on automated peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal (IP) aminoglycosides (AGs) continue to be the cornerstone of empiric management of peritonitis. AG dosing during automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), however, has not been well studied in patients with peritonitis. We sought to identify differences in AG exposure in the peritoneum and plasma for two different dosing regimens with little supporting evidence in patients on APD with peritonitis. METHODS: A retrospective design that utilised the peritoneal and plasma concentration-time data from a prior study of 18 continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients with peritonitis to generate an in silico peritoneal and plasma PK model. This model was then used to compare via simulation using Phoenix© WinNonlin Software with IP AG dosing for a loading-dose regimen (1.5 mg/kg first dose) versus a fixed-dose regimen (0.6 mg/kg/d) in patients on APD with peritonitis. RESULTS: Outcome measures were (1) percentage of time where peritoneal peak concentrations/minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio >10, (2) AUC/MIC > 74 and (3) plasma Cmin concentrations. Both regimens resulted in > 90% optimal peak/MIC ratio and AUC/MIC ratios on days 1 and 5 of the dose protocol. The loading-dose regimen resulted in IP exposures that were 2.5 times greater in the peritoneal compartment on day 1. By day 5, both protocols resulted in similar accumulation of AG plasma Cmin concentrations of 2.5-3.4 mg/L versus 2.4-3.3 mg/L, respectively, for the loading-dose regimen versus fixed-dose regimen. CONCLUSIONS: The current international guidelines for the treatment of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis can continue to recommend the fixed-dose regimen for those on APD with the addition of plasma Cmin monitoring after 3 days to assess for drug accumulation.

Effective Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery: The Relevance and Role of Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics.

Appropriate surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is an important measure in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). Although antimicrobial pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics (PKPD) is integral to optimizing antibiotic dosing for the treatment of infections, there is less research on preventing infections postsurgery. Whereas clinical studies of SAP dose, preincision timing, and redosing are informative, it is difficult to isolate their effect on SSI outcomes. Antimicrobial PKPD aims to explain the complex relationship between antibiotic exposure during surgery and the subsequent development of SSI. It accounts for the many factors that influence the PKs and antibiotic concentrations in patients and considers the susceptibilities of bacteria most likely to contaminate the surgical site. This narrative review examines the relevance and role of PKPD in providing effective SAP. The dose-response relationship i.e., association between lower dose and SSI in cefazolin prophylaxis is discussed. A comprehensive review of the evidence for an antibiotic concentration-response (SSI) relationship in SAP is also presented. Finally, PKPD considerations for improving SAP are explored with a focus on cefazolin prophylaxis in adults and outstanding questions regarding its dose, preincision timing, and redosing during surgery.

An updated vancomycin dosing protocol for initiating therapy in patients undergoing intermittent high-flux hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: To design an updated vancomycin dosing protocol for initiating therapy in patients undergoing chronic intermittent high-flux hemodialysis (iHFHD) that is congruent with the revised 2020 consensus guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS: Monte Carlo simulation methods were used to study vancomycin dosing for patients on iHFHD. Vancomycin regimens were constructed as intravenous infusions (for intradialytic administration) of a loading dose and maintenance doses 3 times weekly during subsequent dialysis sessions. Vancomycin plasma concentrations were simulated, and the probability of target attainment (PTA) for a 24-hour area under the time-concentration curve (AUC24) of 400 to 700 mg · h/L was determined. Standardized weight-based (ie, dose-banding) regimens were investigated, and an optimized protocol was selected based on TDM target attainment and practical considerations for use in the dialysis setting. RESULTS: The proposed vancomycin dosing protocol (for intradialytic administration) specifies 3 regimens: (1) a 1,500-mg loading dose and 750-mg maintenance doses for patients weighing 50 kg to 69 kg; (2) a 2,000-mg loading dose and 1,000-mg maintenance doses for patients weighing 70 kg to 89 kg; and (3) a 2,500-mg loading dose and 1,250-mg maintenance doses for patients weighing 90 kg to 110 kg. In a simulated hemodialysis population (n = 5,000), the proposed protocol delivered median (interquartile range [IQR]) loading and maintenance doses of 25.0 (23.4-26.6) mg/kg and 12.5 (11.8-13.3) mg/kg, respectively. The PTA for an AUC24 of 400 to 700 mg · h/L was 74.7% on day 1 and 70.8% on day 8, with less than 10% of values exceeding the target range. CONCLUSION: Our proposed dosing protocol for patients undergoing iHFHD offers an updated and practical approach for initiating vancomycin therapy that can be optimized with early TDM.

Sulopenem: An Intravenous and Oral Penem for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections Due to Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria.

Sulopenem (formerly known as CP-70,429, and CP-65,207 when a component of a racemic mixture with its R isomer) is an intravenous and oral penem that possesses in vitro activity against fluoroquinolone-resistant, extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacterales. Sulopenem is being developed to treat patients with uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) as well as intra-abdominal infections. This review will focus mainly on its use in UTIs. The chemical structure of sulopenem shares properties of penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Sulopenem is available as an oral prodrug formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil, which is hydrolyzed by intestinal esterases, resulting in active sulopenem. In early studies, the S isomer of CP-65,207, later developed as sulopenem, demonstrated greater absorption, higher drug concentrations in the urine, and increased stability against the renal enzyme dehydropeptidase-1 compared with the R isomer, which set the stage for its further development as a UTI antimicrobial. Sulopenem is active against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive microorganisms. Sulopenem's ß-lactam ring alkylates the serine residues of penicillin-binding protein (PBP), which inhibits peptidoglycan cross-linking. Due to its ionization and low molecular weight, sulopenem passes through outer membrane proteins to reach PBPs of Gram-negative bacteria. While sulopenem activity is unaffected by many ß-lactamases, resistance arises from alterations in PBPs (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA]), expression of carbapenemases (e.g., carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales and in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), reduction in the expression of outer membrane proteins (e.g., some Klebsiella spp.), and the presence of efflux pumps (e.g., MexAB-OprM in Pseudomonas aeruginosa), or a combination of these mechanisms. In vitro studies have reported that sulopenem demonstrates greater activity than meropenem and ertapenem against Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, as well as similar activity to carbapenems against Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes. With some exceptions, sulopenem activity against Gram-negative aerobes was less than ertapenem and meropenem but greater than imipenem. Sulopenem activity against Escherichia coli carrying ESBL, CTX-M, or Amp-C enzymes, or demonstrating MDR phenotypes, as well as against ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, was nearly identical to ertapenem and meropenem and greater than imipenem. Sulopenem exhibited identical or slightly greater activity than imipenem against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative anaerobes, including Bacteroides fragilis. The pharmacokinetics of intravenous sulopenem appear similar to carbapenems such as imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and doripenem. In healthy subjects, reported volumes of distribution (Vd) ranged from 15.8 to 27.6 L, total drug clearances (CLT) of 18.9-24.9 L/h, protein binding of approximately 10%, and elimination half-lives (t½) of 0.88-1.03 h. The estimated renal clearance (CLR) of sulopenem is 8.0-10.6 L/h, with 35.5% ± 6.7% of a 1000 mg dose recovered unchanged in the urine. An ester prodrug, sulopenem etzadroxil, has been developed for oral administration. Initial investigations reported a variable oral bioavailability of 20-34% under fasted conditions, however subsequent work showed that bioavailability is significantly improved by administering sulopenem with food to increase its oral absorption or with probenecid to reduce its renal tubular secretion. Food consumption increases the area under the curve (AUC) of oral sulopenem (500 mg twice daily) by 23.6% when administered alone and 62% when administered with 500 mg of probenecid. Like carbapenems, sulopenem demonstrates bactericidal activity that is associated with the percentage of time that free concentrations exceed the MIC (%f T > MIC). In animal models, bacteriostasis was associated with %f T > MICs ranging from 8.6 to 17%, whereas 2-log10 kill was seen at values ranging from 12 to 28%. No pharmacodynamic targets have been documented for suppression of resistance. Sulopenem concentrations in urine are variable, ranging from 21.8 to 420.0 mg/L (median 84.4 mg/L) in fasted subjects and 28.8 to 609.0 mg/L (median 87.3 mg/L) in those who were fed. Sulopenem has been compared with carbapenems and cephalosporins in guinea pig and murine systemic and lung infection animal models. Studied pathogens included Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, B. fragilis, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Proteus vulgaris, and Serratia marcescens. These studies reported that overall, sulopenem was non-inferior to carbapenems but appeared to be superior to cephalosporins. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-1) reported that sulopenem was not non-inferior to ciprofloxacin in women infected with fluoroquinolone-susceptible pathogens, due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in sulopenem-treated patients at the test-of-cure visit. However, the researchers reported superiority of sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid over ciprofloxacin for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in women infected with fluoroquinolone/non-susceptible pathogens, and non-inferiority in all patients with a positive urine culture. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-2) compared intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid with ertapenem in the treatment of complicated UTIs. No difference in overall success was noted at the end of therapy. However, intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil was not non-inferior to ertapenem followed by oral stepdown therapy in overall success at test-of-cure due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem arm. After a meeting with the US FDA, Iterum stated that they are currently evaluating the optimal design for an additional phase III uncomplicated UTI study to be conducted prior to the potential resubmission of the New Drug Application (NDA). It is unclear at this time whether Iterum intends to apply for EMA or Japanese regulatory approval. The safety and tolerability of sulopenem has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase III clinical trials. Sulopenem (intravenous and oral) appears to be well tolerated in healthy subjects, with and without the coadministration of probenecid, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported to date. Reported TEAEs affecting ≥1% of patients were (from most to least common) diarrhea, nausea, headache, vomiting and dizziness. Discontinuation rates were low and were not different than comparator agents. Sulopenem administered orally and/or intravenously represents a potentially well tolerated and effective option for treating uncomplicated and complicated UTIs, especially in patients with documented or highly suspected antimicrobial pathogens to commonly used agents (e.g. fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli), and in patients with documented microbiological or clinical failure or patients who demonstrate intolerance/adverse effects to first-line agents. This agent will likely be used orally in the outpatient setting, and intravenously followed by oral stepdown in the hospital setting. Sulopenem also allows for oral stepdown therapy in the hospital setting from intravenous non-sulopenem therapy. More clinical data are required to fully assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sulopenem, especially in patients with complicated UTIs caused by resistant pathogens such as ESBL-producing, Amp-C, MDR E. coli. Antimicrobial stewardship programs will need to create guidelines for when this oral and intravenous penem should be used.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Vancomycin in Adult Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia or Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin remains widely used for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections; however, treatment failure rates up to 50% have been reported. At the authors' institution, monitoring of trough concentration is the standard of care for therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin. New guidelines support use of the ratio of 24-hour area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC24/MIC) as the pharmacodynamic index most likely to predict outcomes in patients with MRSA-associated infections. OBJECTIVES: To determine the discordance rate between trough levels and AUC24/MIC values and how treatment failure and nephrotoxicity outcomes compare between those achieving and not achieving their pharmacodynamic targets. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved patients with MRSA bacteremia or pneumonia admitted to the study hospital between March 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, and treated with vancomycin. Data for trough concentrations were collected, and minimum concentrations (C min) were extrapolated. The AUC24/MIC values were determined using validated population pharmacokinetic models. The C min and AUC24/MIC values were characterized as below, within, or above pharmacodynamic targets (15-20 mg/L and 400-600, respectively). Discordance was defined as any instance where a patient's paired C min and AUC24/MIC values fell in different ranges (i.e., below, within, or above) relative to the target ranges. Predictors of treatment failure and nephrotoxicity were determined using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included in the analyses. Of these, 73 (57%) received an initial vancomycin dose less than 15 mg/kg. The discordance rate between C min and AUC24/MIC values was 21% (27/128). Rates of treatment failure and nephrotoxicity were 34% (43/128) and 18% (23/128), respectively. No clinical variables were found to predict discordance. Logistic regression identified initiation of vancomycin after a positive culture result (odds ratio [OR] 4.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-14.3) and achievement of target AUC24/MIC after 4 days (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.39-8.70) as modifiable predictors of treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between vancomycin monitoring and outcome is likely confounded by inadequate empiric or initial dosing. Before any modification of practice with respect to vancomycin monitoring, empiric vancomycin dosing should be optimized.

CONTEXTE: La vancomycine reste largement utilisée contre les infections dues au Staphylococcus aureus méthicillinorésistant (SAMR); cependant, on rapporte des taux d'échec de traitement allant jusqu'à 50 %. Dans l'institution où travaillent les auteurs, la surveillance de la concentration minimale constitue la norme de soins du suivi thérapeutique pharmacologique de la vancomycine. De nouvelles lignes directrices soutiennent l'utilisation du ratio de 24 h de l'aire sous la courbe de concentration-temps à concentration minimale inhibitrice (AUC24/MIC) en tant qu'indice pharmacodynamique, vraisemblablement pour prédire certains résultats concernant les patients présentant des infections associées au SAMR. OBJECTIFS: Déterminer le taux de discordance entre la concentration minimale et les valeurs de l'AUC24/MIC et la manière dont les échecs de traitement et les résultats de néphrotoxicité se comparent entre les personnes atteignant leurs cibles pharmacodynamiques et celles qui ne l'atteignent pas. MÉTHODES: Cette étude de cohorte rétrospective impliquait des patients atteints d'une bactériémie au SAMR ou d'une pneumonie au SAMR, admis à l'hôpital où se déroulait l'étude entre le 1er mars 2014 et le 31 décembre 2018 et traités à l'aide de vancomycine. Les données relatives aux concentrations minimales ont été recueillies, et les concentrations minimales (C min) extrapolées. Les valeurs de l'AUC24/MIC ont été déterminées à l'aide de modèles de population pharmacocinétiques validés. La caractérisation des valeurs de la C min et des valeurs de l'AUC24/MIC se décrit comme suit: « en dessous ¼, « à l'intérieur ¼ ou « au-dessus ¼ des cibles pharmacodynamiques (respectivement 15­20 mg/L et 400­600). La discordance était définie comme une situation où les valeurs associées de la C min et de l'AUC24/MIC tombaient dans des plages différentes (c.-à-d., en dessous, à l'intérieur ou au-dessus) par rapport aux plages cibles. Une régression logistique a permis de déterminer les prédicteurs d'échecs de traitement et de néphrotoxicité. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 128 patients ont été inclus dans les analyses. De ceux-ci, 73 (57 %) ont reçu une dose initiale de vancomycine de moins de 15 mg/kg. Le taux de discordance entre les valeurs de la C min et de l'AUC24/MIC était de 21 % (27/128). Les taux d'échec de traitement et de néphrotoxicité se montaient respectivement à 34 % (43/128) et 18 % (23/128). Aucune variable clinique n'a pu prédire la discordance. La régression logistique a permis de déterminer le début de l'administration de la vancomycine après un résultat de culture positif (rapport de cotes [RC] 4,41, 95 % intervalle de confiance [IC] 1,36­14,3) et l'atteinte de la cible de l'AUC24/MIC après quatre jours (RC 3,48, 95 % IC 1,39­8,70) en tant que prédicteurs modifiables de l'échec du traitement. CONCLUSIONS: Il existe probablement une confusion relative à la relation entre la surveillance de la vancomycine et le résultat à cause d'un dosage empirique ou initial inadéquat. Avant de modifier la pratique relative à la surveillance de la vancomycine, le pharmacien doit optimiser son dosage empirique.

Lefamulin: A Novel Oral and Intravenous Pleuromutilin for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

Lefamulin is a novel oral and intravenous (IV) pleuromutilin developed as a twice-daily treatment for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). It is a semi-synthetic pleuromutilin with a chemical structure that contains a tricyclic core of five-, six-, and eight-membered rings and a 2-(4-amino-2-hydroxycyclohexyl)sulfanylacetate side chain extending from C14 of the tricyclic core. Lefamulin inhibits bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 50S bacterial ribosomal subunit in the peptidyl transferase center (PTC). The pleuromutilin tricyclic core binds to a pocket close to the A site, while the C14 side chain extends to the P site causing a tightening of the rotational movement in the binding pocket referred to as an induced-fit mechanism. Lefamulin displays broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria as well as against atypical bacteria that commonly cause CABP. Pleuromutilin antibiotics exhibit low rates of resistance development and lack cross-resistance to other antimicrobial classes due to their unique mechanism of action. However, pleuromutilin activity is affected by mutations in 23S rRNA, 50S ribosomal subunit proteins rplC and rplD, ATP-binding cassette (ABC)-F transporter proteins such as vga(A), and the methyltransferase cfr. The pharmacokinetic properties of lefamulin include: volume of distribution (Vd) ranging from 82.9 to 202.8 L, total clearance (CLT) of 19.5 to 21.4 L/h, and terminal elimination half-life (t1/2) of 6.9-13.2 h; protein binding of lefamulin is high and non-linear. The oral bioavailability of lefamulin has been estimated as 24% in fasted subjects and 19% in fed subjects. A single oral dose of lefamulin 600 mg administered in fasted patients achieved a maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of 1.2-1.5 mg/L with a time of maximum concentration (Tmax) ranging from 0.8 to 1.8 h, and an area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) of 8.5-8.8 mg h/L. The pharmacodynamic parameter predictive of lefamulin efficacy is the free plasma area under the concentration-time curve divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration (fAUC24h/MIC). Lefamulin efficacy has been demonstrated using various animal models including neutropenic murine thigh infection, pneumonia, lung infection, and bacteremia. Lefamulin clinical safety and efficacy was investigated through a Phase II clinical trial of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI), as well as two Phase III clinical trials of CABP. The Phase III trials, LEAP 1 and LEAP 2 established non-inferiority of lefamulin to moxifloxacin in both oral and IV formulations in the treatment of CABP. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Health Canada have each approved lefamulin for the treatment of CABP. A Phase II clinical trial has been completed for the treatment of ABSSSI, while the pediatric program is in Phase I. The most common adverse effects of lefamulin include mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal-related events such as nausea and diarrhea. Lefamulin represents a safe and effective option for treating CABP in cases of antimicrobial resistance to first-line therapies, clinical failure, or intolerance/adverse effects to currently used agents. Clinical experience and ongoing clinical investigation will allow clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programs to optimally use lefamulin in the treatment of CABP.

Clinical Blood Isolates from Hemodialysis Patients: Distribution of Organisms and Antimicrobial Resistance, 2007-2014.

BACKGROUND: Given the morbidity and mortality associated with bloodstream infections in hemodialysis patients, understanding the microbiology is essential to optimizing treatment in this high-risk population. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a retrospective surveillance study of clinical blood isolates from adult hemodialysis patients, and to predict the microbiological coverage of empiric therapies for bloodstream infections in this population. METHODS: Clinical blood isolate data were collected from the 4 main outpatient hemodialysis units in Winnipeg, Manitoba, from 2007 to 2014. The distribution of organisms and antimicrobial susceptibilities were characterized. When appropriate, changes over time were tested using time series analysis. Study data were used to predict and compare the microbiological coverage of various empiric therapies for bloodstream infections in hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: The estimated annual number of patients receiving chronic hemodialysis increased steadily over the study period (p < 0.001), whereas the number of blood isolates increased initially, then decreased significantly, from 180 in 2011 to 93 in 2014 (p = 0.04). Gram-positive bacteria represented 72.6% (743/1024) of isolates, including Staphylococcus aureus (36.9%, 378/1024) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (23.1%, 237/1024). Only 26.1% (267/1024) of the isolates were gram-negative bacteria, the majority Enterobacteriaceae. The overall rate of methicillin resistance in S. aureus was 17.5%, and although annual rates were variable, there was a significant increase over time (p = 0.04). Antibiotic resistance in gram-negative bacteria was relatively low, except in Escherichia coli, where 13.5% and 16.2% of isolates were resistant to ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin, respectively. Empiric therapy with vancomycin plus an agent for gram-negative coverage was predicted to cover 98.8% to 99.7% of blood isolates from hemodialysis patients, whereas cefazolin plus an agent for gram-negative coverage would cover only 67.5% to 68.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, data such as these and ongoing surveillance are essential components of antimicrobial stewardship in the hemodialysis population.

CONTEXTE: Étant donné la morbidité et la mortalité associées aux infections du sang parmi les patients en hémodialyse, la compréhension de la microbiologie est essentielle à l'optimisation du traitement de cette population exposée à un risque élevé. OBJECTIFS: Mener une étude de surveillance rétrospective des isolats de sang cliniques des patients adultes en hémodialyse et prédire la couverture microbiologique des thérapies empiriques contre les infections du sang dans cette population. MÉTHODES: Les données relatives aux isolats de sang cliniques ont été recueillies dans les quatre unités ambulatoires principales d'hémodialyse à Winnipeg (Manitoba), entre 2007 et 2014. La caractérisation a porté sur la distribution des organismes et les susceptibilités aux antimicrobiens. L'évolution dans le temps a été testée au besoin à l'aide d'une analyse chronologique. Les données de l'étude ont permis de prédire et de comparer la couverture microbiologique de diverses thérapies empiriques contre les infections du sang pour les patients en hémodialyse. RÉSULTATS: On estime que le nombre annuel de patients recevant une hémodialyse chronique a augmenté régulièrement au cours de la période de l'étude (p < 0,001); le nombre d'isolats de sang a tout d'abord augmenté, puis il a grandement diminué: de 180 en 2011, il est passé à 93 en 2014 (p = 0,04). Les bactéries à Gram positif représentaient 72,6 % (743/1024) des isolats, y compris les Staphylococcus aureus (36,9 %, 378/1024) et les staphylocoques à coagulase négative (23,1 %, 237/1024). Seulement 26,1 % (267/1024) des isolats étaient des bactéries à Gram négatif, la majorité desquelles étant des Enterobacteriaceae. Le taux général de résistance à la méticilline de S. aureus était de 17,5 %, et bien que les taux annuels étaient variables, une augmentation importante a été observée avec le temps (p = 0,04). La résistance aux antibiotiques des bactéries à Gram négatif était relativement faible, sauf Escherichia coli, où respectivement 13,5 % et 16,2 % des isolats étaient résistants à la ceftriaxone et à la ciprofloxacine. On prévoyait que la thérapie empirique à la vancomycine associée à un agent pour la couverture à Gram positif couvrirait de 98,8 % à 99,7 % des isolats de sang des patients en hémodialyse, tandis que la céfazoline associée à un agent de la couverture à Gram négatif ne couvrirait que 67,5 % à 68,4 %. CONCLUSIONS: À une époque qui se caractérise par une augmentation de la résistance aux antimicrobiens, des données comme celles-ci et celles portant sur la surveillance continue sont des composantes essentielles de la bonne gestion de l'utilisation des antimicrobiens pour les patients adultes en hémodialyse.

Omadacycline: A Novel Oral and Intravenous Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic Agent.

Omadacycline is a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic developed as a once-daily, intravenous and oral treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Omadacycline, a derivative of minocycline, has a chemical structure similar to tigecycline with an alkylaminomethyl group replacing the glycylamido group at the C-9 position of the D-ring of the tetracycline core. Similar to other tetracyclines, omadacycline inhibits bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 30S ribosomal subunit. Omadacycline possesses broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic, anaerobic, and atypical bacteria. Omadacycline remains active against bacterial isolates possessing common tetracycline resistance mechanisms such as efflux pumps (e.g., TetK) and ribosomal protection proteins (e.g., TetM) as well as in the presence of resistance mechanisms to other antibiotic classes. The pharmacokinetics of omadacycline are best described by a linear, three-compartment model following a zero-order intravenous infusion or first-order oral administration with transit compartments to account for delayed absorption. Omadacycline has a volume of distribution (Vd) ranging from 190 to 204 L, a terminal elimination half-life (t½) of 13.5-17.1 h, total clearance (CLT) of 8.8-10.6 L/h, and protein binding of 21.3% in healthy subjects. Oral bioavailability of omadacycline is estimated to be 34.5%. A single oral dose of 300 mg (bioequivalent to 100 mg IV) of omadacycline administered to fasted subjects achieved a maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of 0.5-0.6 mg/L and an area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) of 9.6-11.9 mg h/L. The free plasma area under concentration-time curve divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration (i.e., fAUC24h/MIC), has been established as the pharmacodynamic parameter predictive of omadacycline antibacterial efficacy. Several animal models including neutropenic murine lung infection, thigh infection, and intraperitoneal challenge model have documented the in vivo antibacterial efficacy of omadacycline. A phase II clinical trial on complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and three phase III clinical trials on ABSSSI and CABP demonstrated the safety and efficacy of omadacycline. The phase III trials, OASIS-1 (ABSSSI), OASIS-2 (ABSSSI), and OPTIC (CABP), established non-inferiority of omadacycline to linezolid (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) and moxifloxacin (OPTIC), respectively. Omadacycline is currently approved by the FDA for use in treatment of ABSSSI and CABP. Phase II clinical trials involving patients with acute cystitis and acute pyelonephritis are in progress. Mild, transient gastrointestinal events are the predominant adverse effects associated with use of omadacycline. Based on clinical trial data to date, the adverse effect profile of omadacycline is similar to studied comparators, linezolid and moxifloxacin. Unlike tigecycline and eravacycline, omadacycline has an oral formulation that allows for step-down therapy from the intravenous formulation, potentially facilitating earlier hospital discharge, outpatient therapy, and cost savings. Omadacycline has a potential role as part of an antimicrobial stewardship program in the treatment of patients with infections caused by antibiotic-resistant and multidrug-resistant Gram-positive [including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)] and Gram-negative pathogens.

Vancomycin Population Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Adults During Sustained Low-Efficiency Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) is a hybrid form of dialysis that is increasingly used in critically ill patients with kidney injury and hemodynamic instability. Antimicrobial dosing for patients receiving SLED is informed by pharmacokinetic studies that describe the drug clearance. Studies available to assist in the dosing of vancomycin in the context of SLED are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective observational study was to describe the population pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in critically ill patients receiving SLED, and use simulation studies to propose dosing strategies. METHODS: Serial serum samples were obtained from 31 critically ill patients prescribed vancomycin while receiving SLED. Vancomycin concentrations were quantified in plasma using a validated liquid chromatography mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry method. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed, and Monte Carlo simulation was used to determine the probability of target attainment at different doses. RESULTS: From a total of 335 serum samples from 31 patients receiving 52 sessions of SLED therapy, a two-compartment linear model with zero-order input was developed. The mean (standard deviation) clearance of vancomycin on and off SLED was 5.97 (4.04) and 2.40 (1.46) L/h, respectively. Using pharmacodynamic targets for efficacy (area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h [AUC24]/minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] ≥ 400) and safety (AUC24 ≥ 700), a loading dose of 2400 mg followed by daily doses of 1600 mg is recommended. Subsequent dosing should be informed by therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin levels. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients receiving SLED, vancomycin clearance is highly variable with a narrow therapeutic window. Empiric dosing is proposed but subsequent dosing should be guided by drug levels.

Cefiderocol: A Siderophore Cephalosporin with Activity Against Carbapenem-Resistant and Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli.

Cefiderocol is an injectable siderophore cephalosporin discovered and being developed by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. As with other ß-lactam antibiotics, the principal antibacterial/bactericidal activity of cefiderocol occurs by inhibition of Gram-negative bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to penicillin binding proteins; however, it is unique in that it enters the bacterial periplasmic space as a result of its siderophore-like property and has enhanced stability to ß-lactamases. The chemical structure of cefiderocol is similar to both ceftazidime and cefepime, which are third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, respectively, but with high stability to a variety of ß-lactamases, including AmpC and extended-spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBLs). Cefiderocol has a pyrrolidinium group in the side chain at position 3 like cefepime and a carboxypropanoxyimino group in the side chain at position 7 of the cephem nucleus like ceftazidime. The major difference in the chemical structures of cefiderocol, ceftazidime and cefepime is the presence of a catechol group on the side chain at position 3. Together with the high stability to ß-lactamases, including ESBLs, AmpC and carbapenemases, the microbiological activity of cefiderocol against aerobic Gram-negative bacilli is equal to or superior to that of ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem, and it is active against a variety of Ambler class A, B, C and D ß-lactamases. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem versus Acinetobacter baumannii, including meropenem non-susceptible and multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates. Cefiderocol's activity against meropenem-non-susceptible and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriales is comparable or superior to ceftazidime-avibactam. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem against all resistance phenotypes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The current dosing regimen being used in phase III studies is 2 g administered intravenously every 8 h (q8 h) using a 3-h infusion. The pharmacokinetics of cefiderocol are best described by a three-compartment linear model. The mean plasma half-life (t½) was ~ 2.3 h, protein binding is 58%, and total drug clearance ranged from 4.6-6.0 L/h for both single- and multi-dose infusions and was primarily renally excreted unchanged (61-71%). Cefiderocol is primarily renally excreted unchanged and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. Dosage adjustment is thus required for both augmented renal clearance and in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. In vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic studies have reported that as with other cephalosporins the pharmacodynamic index that best predicts clinical outcome is the percentage of time that free drug concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT > MIC). In vivo efficacy of cefiderocol has been studied in a variety of humanized drug exposure murine and rat models of infection utilizing a variety of MDR and extremely drug resistant strains. Cefiderocol has performed similarly to or has been superior to comparator agents, including ceftazidime and cefepime. A phase II prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of cefiderocol 2000 mg q8 h versus imipenem/cilastatin 1000 mg q8 h, both administered intravenously for 7-14 days over 1 h, in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI, including pyelonephritis) or acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis in hospitalized adults. A total of 452 patients were initially enrolled in the study, with 303 in the cefiderocol arm and 149 in the imipenem/cilastatin arm. The primary outcome measure was a composite of clinical cure and microbiological eradication at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit, that is, 7 days after the end of treatment in the microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population. Secondary outcome measures included microbiological response per pathogen and per patient at early assessment (EA), end of treatment (EOT), TOC, and follow-up (FUP); clinical response per pathogen and per patient at EA, EOT, TOC, and FUP; plasma, urine and concentrations of cefiderocol; and the number of participants with adverse events. The composite of clinical and microbiological response rates was 72.6% (183/252) for cefiderocol and 54.6% (65/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Clinical response rates per patient at the TOC visit were 89.7% (226/252) for cefiderocol and 87.4% (104/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Microbiological eradication rates were 73.0% (184/252) for cefiderocol and 56.3% (67/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Additionally, two phase III clinical trials are currently being conducted by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. The two trials are evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of serious infections in adult patients caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens and evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia or healthcare-associated pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens. Cefiderocol appears to be well tolerated (minor reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal and phlebitis related), with a side effect profile that is comparable to other cephalosporin antimicrobials. Cefiderocol appears to be well positioned to help address the increasing number of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant and MDR Gram-negative bacilli, including ESBL- and carbapenemase-producing strains (including metallo-ß-lactamase producers). A distinguishing feature of cefiderocol is its activity against resistant P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. maltophilia and Burkholderia cepacia.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: Intraoperative Cefazolin Concentrations and Sternal Wound Infections.

This study characterizes the pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial prophylaxis and sternal wound infections following cardiac surgery. Duration of surgery and cefazolin plasma concentration during wound closure were independently associated with surgical site infection at 30 days. Furthermore, a duration of surgery of >346 min and a total cefazolin closure concentration of <104 mg/liter were significant thresholds for an increased risk of infection. This study provides new data that informs dosing strategies for effective antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Piperacillin Population Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Adults During Sustained Low-Efficiency Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED), is increasingly being used in intensive care units (ICUs) but studies informing drug dosing for such patients is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe the population pharmacokinetics (PKs) of piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults receiving SLED and to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This prospective population PK study was conducted in adult ICU patients prescribed piperacillin/tazobactam while receiving SLED; 321 blood samples were obtained from 34 participants during and between approximately 50 SLED treatments for quantification of piperacillin and tazobactam concentrations in plasma. A population PK model was developed. Monte Carlo simulation was used to determine the probability of target attainment and pathogen-specific fractional target attainment at different doses. RESULTS: From a 2-compartment linear model with zero-order input, the mean (SD) clearance of piperacillin on SLED and off SLED were 4.81 (8.48) and 1.42 (1.54) L/h, respectively. Tazobactam concentrations were not sufficient for analysis. For the target of 50% fT>MIC (unbound concentrations of drug are above the minimum inhibitory concentration for >50% of the dosing interval), 3-g of piperacillin infused over 0.5 hours every 8 hours was appropriate for susceptible organisms with MIC ≤16 mg/L. For life-threatening infections where the target of 100% fT>MIC is preferred, a 9-g dose administered as a continuous infusion every 24 hours was appropriate for susceptible organisms with MIC ≤32 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In critically ill patients receiving SLED, piperacillin doses need to be guided by the frequency of SLED treatments and susceptibility of the known or suspected pathogen.

Correction to: Imipenem-Relebactam and Meropenem-Vaborbactam: Two Novel Carbapenem-ß-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations.

Section heading 5.2, which currently reads 5.2 Meropenem-Relebactam.

Limitations of ceftriaxone compared with cefazolin against MSSA: an integrated pharmacodynamic analysis.

Objectives: Despite the convenience of once-daily dosing, the use of ceftriaxone for Staphylococcus aureus infections has significant limitations, including scarce clinical evidence and increasingly questionable pharmacodynamic activity. Our goal was to conduct an integrated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of the appropriateness of ceftriaxone compared with cefazolin for treating serious MSSA infections. Methods: Ceftriaxone and cefazolin activity against five clinical MSSA isolates was characterized in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Monte Carlo simulations were then used to evaluate various dosing regimens of ceftriaxone and cefazolin based on relevant patient pharmacokinetic data, significant pharmacodynamic targets derived from the in vitro studies (55%ƒT>MIC for bacteriostasis, 75%ƒT>MIC for 1 log10 bacterial kill, 100%ƒT>MIC for ≥3 log10 bacterial kill) and MIC distributions for MSSA from national surveillance data. Results: Ceftriaxone at 1 g once daily had poor activity against MSSA with net bacterial growth predicted in 76% of simulated subjects. The standard 2 g of ceftriaxone once daily had predicted bacterial growth or bacteriostasis in 54% of cases with bactericidal effects in only 17%. Cefazolin at 2 g once daily was notably similar to ceftriaxone in expected target attainments. Cefazolin at 2 g twice daily demonstrated maximal pharmacodynamic activity with bactericidal effects in 97% of simulated subjects. Conclusions: Given the limited activity of ceftriaxone against S. aureus, particularly for serious infections when bacterial kill is desired, the convenience of once-daily dosing should be weighed against the risks of using an overly broad, suboptimal therapy. Cefazolin warrants further consideration, particularly as optimal pharmacodynamics against MSSA may be achieved with twice-daily dosing in most patients.

Imipenem-Relebactam and Meropenem-Vaborbactam: Two Novel Carbapenem-ß-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations.

Relebactam (formerly known as MK-7655) is a non-ß-lactam, bicyclic diazabicyclooctane, ß-lactamase inhibitor that is structurally related to avibactam, differing by the addition of a piperidine ring to the 2-position carbonyl group. Vaborbactam (formerly known as RPX7009) is a non-ß-lactam, cyclic, boronic acid-based, ß-lactamase inhibitor. The structure of vaborbactam is unlike any other currently marketed ß-lactamase inhibitor. Both inhibitors display activity against Ambler class A [including extended-spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBLs), Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs)] and class C ß-lactamases (AmpC). Little is known about the potential for relebactam or vaborbactam to select for resistance; however, inactivation of the porin protein OmpK36 in K. pneumoniae has been reported to confer resistance to both imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam. The addition of relebactam significantly improves the activity of imipenem against most species of Enterobacteriaceae [by lowering the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) by 2- to 128-fold] depending on the presence or absence of ß-lactamase enzymes. Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the addition of relebactam also improves the activity of imipenem (MIC reduced eightfold). Based on the data available, the addition of relebactam does not improve the activity of imipenem against Acinetobacter baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and most anaerobes. Similar to imipenem-relebactam, the addition of vaborbactam significantly (2- to > 1024-fold MIC reduction) improves the activity of meropenem against most species of Enterobacteriaceae depending on the presence or absence of ß-lactamase enzymes. Limited data suggest that the addition of vaborbactam does not improve the activity of meropenem against A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, or S. maltophilia. The pharmacokinetics of both relebactam and vaborbactam are described by a two-compartment, linear model and do not appear to be altered by the co-administration of imipenem and meropenem, respectively. Relebactam's approximate volume of distribution (V d) and elimination half-life (t ½) of ~ 18 L and 1.2-2.1 h, respectively, are similar to imipenem. Likewise, vaborbactam's V d and t½ of ~ 18 L and 1.3-2.0 h, respectively, are comparable to meropenem. Like imipenem and meropenem, relebactam and vaborbactam are both primarily renally excreted, and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. In vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic studies have reported bactericidal activity for imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam against various Gram-negative ß-lactamase-producing bacilli that are not inhibited by their respective carbapenems alone. These data also suggest that pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters correlating with efficacy include time above the MIC for the carbapenems and overall exposure for their companion ß-lactamase inhibitors. Phase II clinical trials to date have reported that imipenem-relebactam is as effective as imipenem alone for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis. Imipenem-relebactam is currently in two phase III clinical trials for the treatment of imipenem-resistant bacterial infections, as well as hospital-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). A phase III clinical trial has reported superiority of meropenem-vaborbactam over piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis. Meropenem-vaborbactam has recently demonstrated higher clinical cure rates versus best available therapy for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), as well as for HABP and VABP. The safety and tolerability of imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase II and III clinical trials. Both combinations appear to be well tolerated in healthy subjects and hospitalized patients, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events reported to date. In conclusion, relebactam and vaborbactam serve to broaden the spectrum of imipenem and meropenem, respectively, against ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli. The exact roles for imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam will be defined by efficacy and safety data from further clinical trials. Potential roles in therapy for these agents include the treatment of suspected or documented infections caused by resistant Gram-negative bacilli-producing ESBL, KPC, and/or AmpC ß-lactamases. The usage of these agents in patients with CRE infections will likely become the standard of care. Finally, increased activity of imipenem-relebactam against P. aeruginosa may be of clinical benefit to patients with suspected or documented P. aeruginosa infections.

Evaluation of cefazolin antimicrobial prophylaxis during cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Objectives: Although clinical practice guidelines recommend standard cefazolin antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) dosing for cardiac surgery, limited data exist as to whether adequate concentrations are achieved in this patient population. The goal of our study was to characterize intraoperative cefazolin concentrations particularly at wound closure with regards to maintaining target cefazolin closure concentrations ≥40 mg/L. Methods: Adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and receiving cefazolin AP according to protocol were studied. Blood samples were collected after the preoperative cefazolin dose, prior to intraoperative cefazolin doses and at wound closure. Intraoperative trough and closure concentrations were characterized and evaluated against a target threshold of ≥ 40 mg/L (≥8 mg/L unbound, assuming 80% protein binding). Results: Fifty-five subjects (64.9 ±âŸ10.4 years, 89.7 ±âŸ16.5 kg, CLCR >50 mL/min/72 kg) completed the study. Total cefazolin concentrations were <40 mg/L in 40% (12 of 30) of intraoperative trough samples and 9.8% (5 of 51) of closure samples. Below-target concentrations at some time during surgery were documented in 30.9% (17 of 55) of subjects. In multivariate analyses, lower body weight (P = 0.027) and shorter duration of surgery (P = 0.045) were significant predictors of closure concentrations <40 mg/L. A total cefazolin exposure (preoperative and intraoperative doses) of ≥ 7.6 mg/kgdosing weight for every hour of surgery (intermittent dosing) was required to achieve target closure concentrations. Conclusions: The standard cefazolin AP regimen was not reliable in maintaining target closure concentrations ≥40 mg/L in patients with normal renal function undergoing elective cardiac surgery with CPB. The findings supported a cefazolin AP regimen consisting of at least 2 g preoperatively and every 3 h during surgery.

No role for patient body weight on renal function assessment for drug dosing.

Objectives: To evaluate the ability of body-weight-driven renal function assessment (RFA) formulae to predict on-target elimination rate ranges for gentamicin in patients with varying degrees of renal function. Methods: A 6 year retrospective pharmacokinetic study was conducted at a university teaching hospital. Results: A total of 85 patients met the inclusion criteria and 127 pharmacokinetic files were analysed from patients on medical-surgical wards (53%) and medical-surgical ICUs (13%) receiving intravenous gentamicin for treatment, as well as those for patients receiving it for surgical prophylaxis (34%). Each RFA formula was examined against standard dosing tables for gentamicin. A table of acceptable elimination rates was generated using a traditional peak of 8 mg/L and trough between 0.5 and 2 mg/L associated with each of the dosing interval extensions. The ability of each RFA formula to select on-target elimination rates was evaluated. The RFA formula assuming a normalized body weight of 72 kg and a modified creatinine reagent adjustment factor of 90% provided the most accurate on-target elimination rate selection. This method was superior to dosing interval selection based on the Modification in Diet Renal Disease (MDRD) formula, Sanford's guide method, as well as the Cockcroft-Gault formulae using total body weight, ideal body weight or lean body weight ( P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Based on the use of gentamicin as a surrogate guide for renally adjusted drugs, these results support dosing interval selection based on a normalized body weight method and a formula reagent adjustment factor of 90% within the Cockcroft-Gault formula.

Microbiological Trends and Antimicrobial Resistance in Peritoneal Dialysis-Related Peritonitis, 2005 to 2014.

♦ BACKGROUND: Information related to the microbiology of peritonitis is critical to the optimal management of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). The goal was to characterize the microbiological etiology and antimicrobial susceptibilities of PD-related peritonitis (PDRP) from 2005 to 2014, inclusive. ♦ METHODS: The distribution of organisms in culture-positive PDRP was described for new episodes and relapse infections, and further detailed for monomicrobial and polymicrobial peritonitis. Annual and overall rates of PDRP were also characterized. Antimicrobial susceptibility rates were calculated for the most common and significant organisms. ♦ RESULTS: We identified 539 episodes of PDRP including 501 new and 38 relapse infections. New episodes of peritonitis were associated with a single organism in 85% of cases, and 44% of those involved staphylococci. Polymicrobial PDRP was more likely to involve gram-negative organisms, observed in 58% versus 24% of monomicrobial infections. Antimicrobial resistance was relatively stable from 2005 to 2014. Methicillin resistance was present in 57% of Staphylococcus epidermidis and 20% of other coagulase-negative staphylococci. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) accounted for only 11% of S. aureus peritonitis compared with 2% in our previous study of PDRP from 1991 to 1998. Ciprofloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli increased from 3% in our previous study to 24% in 2005 - 2014. ♦ CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes important differences in the distribution of organisms in new episodes of PDRP and relapse infections, as well as monomicrobial versus polymicrobial peritonitis. It also shows relatively stable rates of antimicrobial resistance from 2005 to 2014, but some increases compared with our previous study.

Solithromycin: A Novel Fluoroketolide for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

Solithromycin is a novel fluoroketolide developed in both oral and intravenous formulations to address increasing macrolide resistance in pathogens causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). When compared with its macrolide and ketolide predecessors, solithromycin has several structural modifications which increase its ribosomal binding and reduce its propensity to known macrolide resistance mechanisms. Solithromycin, like telithromycin, affects 50S ribosomal subunit formation and function, as well as causing frame-shift errors during translation. However, unlike telithromycin, which binds to two sites on the ribosome, solithromycin has three distinct ribosomal binding sites. Its desosamine sugar interacts at the A2058/A2059 cleft in domain V (as all macrolides do), an extended alkyl-aryl side chain interacts with base pair A752-U2609 in domain II (similar to telithromycin), and a fluorine at C-2 of solithromycin provides additional binding to the ribosome. Studies describing solithromycin activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae have reported that it does not induce erm-mediated resistance because it lacks a cladinose moiety, and that it is less susceptible than other macrolides to mef-mediated efflux due to its increased ribosomal binding and greater intrinsic activity. Solithromycin has demonstrated potent in vitro activity against the most common CABP pathogens, including macrolide-, penicillin-, and fluoroquinolone-resistant isolates of S. pneumoniae, as well as Haemophilus influenzae and atypical bacterial pathogens. Solithromycin displays multi-compartment pharmacokinetics, a large volume of distribution (>500 L), approximately 67% bioavailability when given orally, and serum protein binding of 81%. Its major metabolic pathway appears to follow cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, with metabolites of solithromycin undergoing biliary excretion. Its serum half-life is approximately 6-9 h, which is sufficient for once-daily administration. Pharmacodynamic activity is best described as fAUC0-24/MIC (the ratio of the area under the free drug concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h to the minimum inhibitory concentration of the isolate). Solithromycin has completed one phase II and two phase III clinical trials in patients with CABP. In the phase II trial, oral solithromycin was compared with oral levofloxacin and demonstrated similar clinical success rates in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (84.6 vs 86.6%). Clinical success in the clinically evaluable patients group was 83.6% of patients receiving solithromycin compared with 93.1% for patients receiving levofloxacin. In SOLITAIRE-ORAL, a phase III trial which assessed patients receiving oral solithromycin or oral moxifloxacin for CABP, an equivalent (non-inferior) early clinical response in the ITT population was demonstrated for patients receiving either solithromycin (78.2%) or moxifloxacin (77.9%). In a separate phase III trial, SOLITAIRE-IV, patients receiving intravenous-to-oral solithromycin (79.3%) demonstrated non-inferiority as the primary outcome of early clinical response in the ITT population compared with patients receiving intravenous-to-oral moxifloxacin (79.7%). Overall, solithromycin has been well tolerated in clinical trials, with gastrointestinal adverse events being most common, occurring in approximately 10% of patients. Transaminase elevation occurred in 5-10% of patients and generally resolved following cessation of therapy. None of the rare serious adverse events that occurred with telithromycin (i.e., hepatotoxicity) have been noted with solithromycin, possibly due to the fact that solithromycin (unlike telithromycin) does not possess a pyridine moiety in its chemical structure, which has been implicated in inhibiting nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Because solithromycin is a possible substrate and inhibitor of both CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein (P-gp), it may display drug interactions similar to macrolides such as clarithromycin. Overall, the in vitro activity, clinical efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of solithromycin demonstrated to date suggest that it continues to be a promising treatment for CABP.