Antimicrobial surveillance: A 20-year history of the SMART approach to addressing global antimicrobial resistance into the future.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global public health threat, particularly affecting patients in resource-poor settings. Comprehensive surveillance programmes are essential to reducing the high mortality and morbidity associated with AMR and are integral to informing treatment decisions and guidelines, appraising the effectiveness of intervention strategies, and directing development of new antibacterial agents. Various surveillance programmes exist worldwide, including those administered by government bodies or funded by the pharmaceutical industry. One of the largest and longest running industry-sponsored AMR surveillance programme is the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART), which recently completed its 20th year. The SMART database has grown to almost 500 000 isolates from over 200 sites in more than 60 countries, encompassing all major geographic regions and including many sites in low- and middle-income countries. The SMART surveillance programme has evolved in scope over time, including additional antibacterial agents, pathogens and infection sites, in line with changing epidemiology and medical need. Surveillance data from SMART and similar programmes have been used successfully to detect emerging resistance threats and AMR patterns in specific countries and regions, thus informing national and local clinical treatment guidelines. The SMART database can be accessed readily by physicians and researchers globally, which may be especially valuable to those from countries with limited healthcare resources, where surveillance and resistance data are rarely collected. Continued participation from as many sites as possible worldwide and maintenance of adequate funding are critical factors to fully realising the potential of large-scale AMR surveillance programmes into the future.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia due to ESBL-producing Enterobacterales: a subgroup analysis of the ASPECT-NP clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: After the MERINO trial with piperacillin/tazobactam, the efficacy of ß-lactam/tazobactam combinations in serious infections involving extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing pathogens merits special evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To further confirm the efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) involving ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-producing Enterobacterales. METHODS: Retrospective subgroup analysis of the ASPECT-NP trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating HABP/VABP in mechanically ventilated adults (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). ESBLs were identified using whole genome sequencing. Chromosomal AmpC production was quantified employing a high-sensitivity mRNA transcription assay. RESULTS: Overall, 61/726 (8.4%) participants had all baseline lower respiratory tract (LRT) isolates susceptible to both study treatments and ≥1 baseline ESBL-positive/AmpC-overproducing Enterobacterales isolate. In this subgroup (ceftolozane/tazobactam n = 30, meropenem n = 31), baseline characteristics were generally comparable between treatment arms. The most frequent ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-overproducing Enterobacterales isolates (ceftolozane/tazobactam n = 31, meropenem n = 35) overall were Klebsiella pneumoniae (50.0%), Escherichia coli (22.7%), and Proteus mirabilis (7.6%). The most prevalent ESBLs were CTX-M-15 (75.8%), other CTX-M (19.7%), and SHV (4.5%); 10.6% of isolates overproduced chromosomal AmpC. Overall, 28 day all-cause mortality was 6.7% (2/30) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 32.3% (10/31) with meropenem (25.6% difference, 95% CI: 5.54 to 43.84). Clinical cure rate at test-of-cure, 7-14 days after end of therapy, was 73.3% (22/30) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 61.3% (19/31) with meropenem (12.0% difference, 95% CI: -11.21 to +33.51). Per-isolate microbiological response at test-of-cure was 64.5% (20/31) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 74.3% (26/35) with meropenem (-9.8% difference, 95% CI: -30.80 to +12.00). CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm ceftolozane/tazobactam as an effective treatment option for HABP/VABP involving ceftolozane/tazobactam-susceptible ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-producing Enterobacterales.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Daptomycin for Pediatric Gram-Positive Acute Hematogenous Osteomyelitis.

BACKGROUND: We prospectively evaluated efficacy and safety of daptomycin versus active comparator in children with acute hematogenous osteomyelitis (AHO). METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, global, multicenter, phase 3 trial. Patients 1-17 years of age with suspected/confirmed AHO requiring hospitalization and intravenous therapy were randomized 1:1 to intravenous daptomycin (once-daily, age-adjusted doses) or comparator (vancomycin, nafcillin or equivalent) ≥4 days, followed by oral therapy (14-42 days total). Primary endpoint: protocol-defined clinical improvement by Day 5 in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population (confirmed AHO, ≥1 dose of study treatment); differences between study arms were evaluated using a prespecified 15% noninferiority margin for daptomycin. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients per arm received treatment. Pathogens were isolated from 62% of patients (83% methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, 9% methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]). Clinical improvement by Day 5 was observed in 55/71 (78%) daptomycin- and 58/70 (83%) comparator-treated MITT patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: -19.4, 7.4). This difference was not statistically significant; however, daptomycin did not meet the prespecified 15% noninferiority margin, since the lower bound of the 95% CI extended below 15%. Overall, 82% of daptomycin and 87% of comparator patients achieved clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (secondary endpoint). More comparator patients had treatment-emergent (63% vs. 46%) and treatment-related (18% vs. 7%) adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between daptomycin and comparator for the primary endpoint were not statistically significant; however, prespecified noninferiority criteria for daptomycin were not met. With insufficient cases of confirmed MRSA, we could not evaluate daptomycin for MRSA AHO. Our nonvalidated protocol design yields valuable information for implementing future trials in AHO (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01922011).

Daptomycin for Complicated Skin Infections: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) are common in children. Due to safety and resistance issues with recommended agents, new treatment options would be advantageous. METHODS: Multicenter, evaluator-blinded clinical trial. Patients 1 to 17 years old with cSSSI caused by Gram-positive pathogens were randomized 2:1 to intravenous daptomycin or standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for ≤14 days. Daptomycin was administered once daily with dosing by patient age: 12 to 17 years, 5 mg/kg; 7 to 11 years, 7 mg/kg; 2 to 6 years, 9 mg/kg; 12 to 23 months, 10 mg/kg. The primary objective was to evaluate daptomycin safety. The secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of daptomycin compared with SOC. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population consisted of all randomized patients with any dose of study drug. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 257 daptomycin and 132 SOC patients (primarily clindamycin or vancomycin); 35% had confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (7% daptomycin, 5% SOC) and increased creatine phosphokinase (6% daptomycin, 5% SOC). The proportions of safety population patients with treatment-related adverse events were similar between the daptomycin (14%) and SOC (17%) groups. Clinical success rates (blinded evaluator-assessed complete/partial resolution of cSSSI signs and symptoms 7-14 days after end-of-treatment) in the ITT population were also similar for the daptomycin (91%) and SOC groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily daptomycin was well tolerated, with safety and efficacy comparable to SOC in children/adolescents with cSSSI caused by Gram-positive pathogens, including community-acquired methicillin-resistant S aureus.