Hostage to history - questioning the duration of systemic antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of canine superficial bacterial folliculitis.

Current guidelines for the use of systemic antimicrobials for the treatment of superficial bacterial folliculitis in dogs include the recommendation that the disease be treated for a minimum of 3 weeks and for at least 1 week beyond clinical resolution. With increasing antimicrobial resistance being noted for bacteria involved in this condition, as well as the increased use of evidence-based medicine, this dogma needs to be reevaluated.

A plain language summary of how lefamulin alone can be used to treat pneumonia caught outside of the hospital due to common bacterial causes, including drug-resistant bacteria.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Bacterial pneumonia is an infection of the lung caused by bacteria that is potentially deadly, costly, and affects millions of people worldwide every year. Treatment is becoming more challenging-many current treatments no longer work well because some strains of bacteria that cause pneumonia have become resistant to current antibiotics. Many of the antibiotics that do still work have undesirable side effects. Therefore, new antibiotics that work differently are needed to treat bacterial pneumonia. Lefamulin (brand name, Xenleta®) is an antibiotic that was approved to treat bacterial pneumonia caught outside a hospital (also called community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, or CABP) based on results of two clinical studies. In both studies, participants started treatment with lefamulin before the type of bacteria causing the infection was known. Lefamulin was well tolerated and worked well in 5 to 7 days to kill the bacteria causing the infection and to improve symptoms in almost all participants with CABP. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: After the studies were completed, the researchers looked back at what kinds of bacteria were identified from the study participants. Lefamulin worked well to kill bacteria and to improve CABP symptoms for most kinds of infecting bacteria, including bacteria resistant to many current antibiotics. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results suggest that lefamulin, by itself, provides a much-needed treatment option for CABP that covers most of the key bacteria causing this infection.

Pooled microbiological findings and efficacy outcomes by pathogen in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 phase 3 trials of lefamulin versus moxifloxacin.

OBJECTIVES: Lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was evaluated for microbiological efficacy in a prespecified pooled analysis of LEAP 1 and 2 phase 3 clinical trial data in patients with CABP. METHODS: In LEAP 1, adults (PORT risk class III‒V) received intravenous (IV) lefamulin 150 mg every 12 h (q12h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h (q24h) for 7 days, with optional IV-to-oral switch. In LEAP 2, adults (PORT II‒IV) received oral lefamulin 600 mg q12h for 5 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg q24h for 7 days. Primary outcomes were early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after treatment start and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) 5‒10 days after the last dose. Secondary outcomes included ECR and IACR in patients with a baseline CABP pathogen (detected via culture, urinary antigen testing, serology and/or real-time PCR). RESULTS: Baseline CABP pathogens were detected in 709/1289 patients (55.0%; microbiological intention-to-treat population). The most frequently identified pathogens were Streptococcus pneumoniae (61.9% of patients) and Haemophilus influenzae (29.9%); 25.1% had atypical pathogens and 33.1% had polymicrobial infections. Pathogens were identified most frequently by PCR from sputum, followed by culture from respiratory specimens. In patients with baseline CABP pathogens, ECR rates were 89.3% (lefamulin) and 93.0% (moxifloxacin); IACR success rates were 83.2% and 86.7%, respectively. Results were consistent across CABP pathogens, including drug-resistant isolates and polymicrobial infections. CONCLUSION: Lefamulin is a valuable IV and oral monotherapy option for empirical and directed CABP treatment in adults.

Lefamulin in Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Caused by Atypical Respiratory Pathogens: Pooled Results from Two Phase 3 Trials.

Lefamulin was the first systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia based on two phase 3 trials (Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia [LEAP]-1 and LEAP-2). This pooled analysis evaluated lefamulin efficacy and safety in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by atypical pathogens (Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and Chlamydia pneumoniae). In LEAP-1, participants received intravenous lefamulin 150 mg every 12 h for 5-7 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch. In LEAP-2, participants received oral lefamulin 600 mg every 12 h for 5 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days. Primary outcomes were early clinical response at 96 ± 24 h after first dose and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5-10 days after last dose). Atypical pathogens were identified in 25.0% (91/364) of lefamulin-treated patients and 25.2% (87/345) of moxifloxacin-treated patients; most were identified by ≥1 standard diagnostic modality (M. pneumoniae 71.2% [52/73]; L. pneumophila 96.9% [63/65]; C. pneumoniae 79.3% [46/58]); the most common standard diagnostic modality was serology. In terms of disease severity, more than 90% of patients had CURB-65 (confusion of new onset, blood urea nitrogen > 19 mg/dL, respiratory rate ≥ 30 breaths/min, blood pressure <90 mm Hg systolic or ≤60 mm Hg diastolic, and age ≥ 65 years) scores of 0-2; approximately 50% of patients had PORT (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team) risk class of III, and the remaining patients were more likely to have PORT risk class of II or IV versus V. In patients with atypical pathogens, early clinical response (lefamulin 84.4-96.6%; moxifloxacin 90.3-96.8%) and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (lefamulin 74.1-89.7%; moxifloxacin 74.2-97.1%) were high and similar between arms. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in the lefamulin (34.1% [31/91]) and moxifloxacin (32.2% [28/87]) groups. Limitations to this analysis include its post hoc nature, the small numbers of patients infected with atypical pathogens, the possibility of PCR-based diagnostic methods to identify non-etiologically relevant pathogens, and the possibility that these findings may not be generalizable to all patients. Lefamulin as short-course empiric monotherapy, including 5-day oral therapy, was well tolerated in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and demonstrated high clinical response rates against atypical pathogens.

Lefamulin efficacy and safety in a pooled phase 3 clinical trial population with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and common clinical comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Lefamulin, a first-in-class pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was noninferior to moxifloxacin in the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 intravenous-to-oral switch study and the LEAP 2 oral-only study. Using pooled LEAP 1/2 data, we examined lefamulin efficacy/safety overall and within subgroups of patients presenting with comorbidities typical in CABP management. METHODS: In LEAP 1, adults with CABP were randomized to receive intravenous lefamulin (150 mg every 12 h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch if predefined improvement criteria were met. In LEAP 2, adults with CABP were randomized to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 h) for 5 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days. Both studies assessed early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after first study drug dose and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test-of-cure (5‒10 days after last dose). Pooled analyses of the overall population used a 10% noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Lefamulin (n = 646) was noninferior to moxifloxacin (n = 643) for ECR (89.3% vs 90.5%, respectively; difference - 1.1%; 95% CI - 4.4 to 2.2); IACR success rates at test-of-cure were similarly high (≥ 85.0%). High efficacy with both lefamulin and moxifloxacin was also demonstrated across all well-represented patient subgroups, including those with advanced age, diabetes mellitus, a history of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmia) or chronic lung diseases (e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), elevated liver enzymes, or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Lefamulin may provide a valuable intravenous/oral monotherapy alternative to fluoroquinolones or macrolides for empiric treatment of patients with CABP, including cases of patients at risk for poor outcomes due to age or various comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov LEAP 1 (NCT02559310; Registration Date: 24/09/2015) and LEAP 2 (NCT02813694; Registration Date: 27/06/2016).

Safety and efficacy of omadacycline for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in patients with mild-to-moderate renal impairment.

BACKGROUND: Many antibiotics require dosage adjustments in patients with renal impairment. In Phase III studies, omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin and linezolid in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), respectively. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety measures from three omadacycline studies by patient renal function. METHODS: Patients were stratified as having normal renal function (creatinine clearance >89 mL/min), mild renal impairment (creatinine clearance 60-89 mL/min) or moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance <60 mL/min); creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min (severe renal impairment) was an exclusion criterion. Efficacy endpoints were clinical success at the early clinical response (ECR) and post-treatment evaluation (PTE) time-points. Safety was evaluated as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory measures. RESULTS: This subgroup analysis included 773 patients with CABP and 1339 patients with ABSSSI in intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations, respectively. Clinical success rates were high at ECR and PTE across the studies (CABP 75-90%; ABSSSI 74-95%), and broadly similar between treatments, irrespective of renal function. Rates of TEAEs in patients with ABSSSI ranged from 33% to 52%, and were similar across renal function groups. In patients with CABP, higher rates were observed in patients with moderate renal impairment (56-61%) compared with patients with normal renal function or mild renal impairment (35-49%). The most common TEAEs were nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical success was similar across renal function groups, indicating no notable difference in the efficacy of omadacycline in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Omadacycline and comparators displayed similar safety profiles. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRY: OPTIC (NCT02531438); OASIS-1 (NCT02378480); OASIS-2 (NCT02877927).

The Role of Antibiotic Stewardship and Telemedicine in the Management of Multidrug-Resistant Infections.

This article summarizes the literature describing how antimicrobial stewardship and telemedicine interventions affect antimicrobial resistance. Discussion includes why we need stewardship, how to collaborate with team members, and the evidence of stewardship's and telemedicine's impact on resistance.

Pathways to Leadership: Reflections of Recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Leaders During Conception and Launch of the Inclusion, Diversity, Access, and Equity Movement Within the IDSA.

Opportunities for leadership in the specialty of infectious diseases (ID) have markedly increased over the last decade, including in newly recognized areas. Commensurate with the expansion of opportunities in ID, pathways to leadership positions within the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) are expanding as the Society seeks to advance the field for IDSA members. Acknowledging both the importance of diverse leaders to organizational success and shortfalls in diverse representation within IDSA leadership led to concentrated efforts to enhance transparency and opportunities for members to participate broadly in the work of IDSA. Herein, IDSA leaders reflect on their paths to IDSA leadership, hoping to help guide members seeking to partner with the Society. Features identified as important to individual success include mentorship, networking, participation in ID and IDSA volunteer experiences, passion for ID, and working with IDSA staff to advance the programs and initiatives of IDSA on behalf of members.

Impact of the expansion of antimicrobial stewardship services during transitions of care at an academic hospital.

Antimicrobial stewardship of anti-infectives prescribed upon hospital discharge was implemented to improve the rate of appropriate prescribing at discharge. Appropriate prescribing significantly improved from 47.5% to 85.2% (P < .001), antimicrobial days of therapy decreased, and 30-day readmission rates decreased. Discharge antimicrobial stewardship was effective in improving anti-infective prescribing practices.

A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections in the Phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Introduction. Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to Gram-positive pathogens.Aim. This analysis evaluates patients with wound infections from two Phase 3 trials of ABSSSI.Methodology. Six-hundred-two patients with wound infections from two Phase 3, double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active controlled trials (REVIVE-1/-2) were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of iclaprim 80 mg compared with vancomycin 15 mg kg-1 administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was to determine whether iclaprim was non-inferior (10 % margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20 % reduction from baseline in lesion size 48-72 h after starting study drug (early clinical response [ECR]). Safety was assessed.Results. In REVIVE-1, ECR was 83.5 % with iclaprim versus 79.7 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 3.77%, 95 % CI -4.50%, 12.04%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 82.7 % with iclaprim versus 76.3 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 6.38%, 95 % CI -3.35%, 16.12%). In the pooled dataset, iclaprim had similar ECR rates compared with vancomycin among wound infection patients (83.2 % vs 78.2 %) with a treatment difference of 5.01 % (95 % CI -1.29%, 11.32%). The safety profile was similar in iclaprim- and vancomycin-treated patients, except for a higher incidence of diarrhea with vancomycin (n=17) compared with iclaprim (n=6) and fatigue with iclaprim (n=17) compared with vancomycin (n=8).Conclusion. Based on early clinical response, iclaprim achieved non-inferiority to vancomycin with a similar safety profile in patients with wound infections suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for wound infections.

Lefamulin: A Novel Semisynthetic Pleuromutilin Antibiotic for Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Antimicrobial resistance, including in pathogens that cause CABP, continues to spread at an alarming rate. Because of these factors, the development of new antibiotic classes is urgently needed. Lefamulin, previously known as BC-3781, is a semisynthetic pleuromutilin antibiotic that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of CABP in adults. Available in both oral and intravenous formulations, lefamulin has potent in vitro activity against both typical and atypical CABP pathogens. The first pleuromutilin to be used systemically in humans, lefamulin has a unique mechanism of action that inhibits protein synthesis by preventing the binding of tRNA for peptide transfer. This review summarizes the available data on lefamulin, including recent evidence from 2 phase III clinical trials (LEAP 1 and LEAP 2), and discusses its potential role in the treatment of CABP.

Evaluation of Renal Safety Between Imipenem/Relebactam and Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-Nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections in the Randomized, Phase 3 RESTORE-IMI 1 Study.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized controlled RESTORE-IMI 1 clinical trial (NCT02452047), imipenem/cilastatin (IMI) with relebactam (IMI/REL) was as effective as colistin plus IMI for the treatment of imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative infections. Differences in nephrotoxicity were observed between treatment arms. As there is no standard definition of nephrotoxicity used in clinical trials, we conducted analyses to further understand the renal safety profile of both treatments. METHODS: Nephrotoxicity was retrospectively evaluated using 2 acute kidney injury assessment criteria (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] and Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney Disease [RIFLE]). Additional outcomes included time to onset of protocol-defined nephrotoxicity and incidence of renal adverse events. RESULTS: Of 47 participants receiving treatment, 45 had sufficient data to assess nephrotoxicity (IMI/REL, n = 29; colistin plus IMI, n = 16). By KDIGO criteria, no participants in the IMI/REL but 31.3% in the colistin plus IMI group experienced stage 3 acute kidney injury. No IMI/REL-treated participants experienced renal failure by RIFLE criteria, vs 25.0% for colistin plus IMI. Overall, the time to onset of nephrotoxicity varied considerably (2-22 days). Fewer renal adverse events (12.9% vs 37.5%), including discontinuations due to drug-related renal adverse events (0% vs 12.5%), were observed in the IMI/REL group compared with the colistin plus IMI group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses confirm the findings of a preplanned end point and provide further evidence that IMI/REL had a more favorable renal safety profile than colistin-based therapy in patients with serious, imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative bacterial infections. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02452047.

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

BACKGROUND: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5-21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, -27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, -46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02452047.

Charting the Path Forward: Development, Goals and Initiatives of the 2019 Infectious Diseases Society of America Strategic Plan.

In October 2018, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Board of Directors (BOD) decided to develop a 2019 IDSA Strategic Plan. The IDSA BOD has invested in strategic planning at regular intervals as part of an ongoing process to review and to renew the vision and direction of IDSA. Herein, the 2018-2019 strategic planning process and outcomes are described. The 2019 IDSA Strategic Plan presents 4 key initiatives: (1) optimize the development, dissemination, and adoption of timely and relevant ID guidance and guidelines that improve the outcomes of clinical care; (2) quantify, communicate, and advocate for the value of ID physicians to increase professional fulfillment and compensation; (3) facilitate the growth and development of the ID workforce to meet emerging scientific, clinical, and leadership needs; and (4) develop and position a new tool to serve as the leading US benchmark to measure and drive national progress on antimicrobial resistance. The BOD looks forward to developing, implementing, assessing, and advancing the 2019 IDSA Strategic Plan working with member volunteers, Society partners, and IDSA staff.