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.

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.

Quality of electronic records documenting adverse drug reactions within a hospital setting: identification of discrepancies and information completeness.

AIM: Incomplete and incorrect documentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can restrict prescribing choices resulting in suboptimal pharmaceutical care. This study aimed to examine the quality of information held within electronic systems in a hospital setting, to determine the preciseness of ADR documentation, and identify discrepancies where multiple electronic systems are utilised. METHOD: Over a four-week period, consecutive patients admitted to the general medical ward at the study hospital had their electronic profiles reviewed. Patient demographic information (de-identified), ADR history and discrepancies between information sources (as recorded in all electronic systems utilised at initial prescribing) were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Over the four-week period, 332 patient profiles were reviewed, and over 1,200 alerts were identified and analysed (including duplicates of ADR reactions). Of these patients, 151 (45.5%) had at least one documented allergy or intolerance which generated 585 reactions, relating to 526 unique events. A further 151 (45.5%) were classified as having no known (drug) allergies or intolerances; however, 20 (15%) of these patients did have at least one allergy documented in at least one other electronic system. The remaining 30 (9%) patients were classified as having an unknown allergy status and of those nine had allergies documented in at least one other electronic system. Further, most systems contained information duplication, which had not been addressed during the admission process. CONCLUSION: ADR information was both imprecise and inaccurate, as multiple discrepancies between ADR information recorded in different electronic patient management systems were found to exist. Information sharing between systems needs to be prioritised in order to allow full, accurate and complete ADR information to be collected, stored and utilised; both to reduce current inadequacies and to allow optimal pharmaceutical care.

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.

Selective DOT1L, LSD1, and HDAC Class I Inhibitors Reduce HOXA9 Expression in MLL-AF9 Rearranged Leukemia Cells, But Dysregulate the Expression of Many Histone-Modifying Enzymes.

Mixed lineage leukemia results from chromosomal rearrangements of the gene mixed lineage leukemia (MLL). MLL-AF9 is one such rearrangement that recruits the lysine methyltransferase, human disruptor of telomere silencing 1-like (DOT1L) and lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1), resulting in elevated expression of the Homeobox protein A9 (HOXA9), and leukemia. Inhibitors of LSD1 or DOT1L reduce HOXA9 expression, kill MLL-rearranged cells, and may treat leukemia. To quantify their effects on histone modifying enzyme activity and expression in MLL-rearranged leukemia, we tested inhibitors of DOT1L (EPZ-5676), LSD1 (GSK2879552), and HDAC (mocetinostat), in the MLL-AF9 cell line MOLM-13. All inhibitors reduced MOLM-13 viability but only mocetinostat induced apoptosis. EPZ-5676 increased total histone lysine dimethylation, which was attributed to a reduction in LSD1 expression, and was indistinguishable from direct LSD1 inhibition by GSK2879552. All compounds directly inhibit, or reduce the expression of, HOXA9, DOT1L and LSD1 by qPCR, increase total histone lysine methylation and acetylation by LC-MS/MS, and specifically reduce H3K79Me2 and increase H3K14Ac. Each inhibitor altered the expression of many histone modifying enzymes which may precipitate additional changes in expression. To the extent that this decreases HOXA9 expression it benefits mixed lineage leukemia treatment, all other expression changes are off-target effects.

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.

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.