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.

Risk versus Benefit of Using Hydroxychloroquine to Treat Patients with COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), also known by its trade name Plaquenil®, has been used for over 50 years as a treatment for malaria, systemic lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in the United States and globally in early 2020, HCQ began to garner attention as a potential treatment and as prophylaxis against COVID-19. Preliminary data indicated that HCQ as well as chloroquine (CQ) possessed in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Early clinical data from China and France reported that HCQ and CQ were associated with viral load reduction and clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19 compared to control groups; however, an overwhelming number of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews have since concluded that HCQ used alone, or in combination with azithromycin (AZ), provides no mortality or time-to-recovery benefit in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, these same trials reported adverse events including cardiac, neuropsychiatric, hematologic, and hepatobiliary manifestations in patients with COVID-19 whom had been treated with HCQ. This review article summarizes the available data pertaining to the adverse events associated with HCQ use, alone or in combination with azithromycin, in patients with COVID-19 in order to fully assess the risk versus benefit of treating COVID-19 patients with these agents. The results of this review lead us to conclude that the risks of adverse events associated with HCQ use (with or without AZ) outweigh the potential clinical benefits and thus recommend against its use in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

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.

Oral and Intravenous Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections.

Oral fosfomycin is approved in Canada for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis. Several studies have reported "off label" use of oral fosfomycin in the treatment of patients with complicated lower urinary tract infection (cLUTI). This review summarizes the available literature describing the use of oral fosfomycin in the treatment of patients with cLUTI. Collectively, these studies support the use of a regimen of 3 grams of oral fosfomycin administered once every 48 or 72 hours for a total of 3 doses for patients who have previously failed treatment with another agent, are infected with a multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogen, or cannot tolerate first-line treatment due to intolerance or adverse effects. Additionally, a Phase 2/3 clinical trial, known as the ZEUS study, assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) fosfomycin versus piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of patients with complicated upper urinary tract infection (cUUTI) or acute pyelonephritis (AP) including in patients with concomitant bacteremia. IV fosfomycin was reported to be noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating patients with cUUTI and AP; however, when outcomes were independently evaluated according to baseline diagnosis (i.e., cUUTI versus AP), IV fosfomycin was superior to piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of patients with cUUTI and demonstrated superior microbiological eradication rates, across all resistant phenotypes including extended-spectrum ß-lactamase- (ESBL-) producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. and carbapenem-resistant (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant, and MDR Gram-negative bacilli (primarily Enterobacterales). Based on the ZEUS study, IV fosfomycin dosed at 6 grams every 8 hours for 7 days (14 days in patients with concurrent bacteremia) appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic option in treating patients with upper urinary tract infections, particularly those with cUUTI caused by antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales.

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.

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.

Intravenous Fosfomycin: An Assessment of Its Potential for Use in the Treatment of Systemic Infections in Canada.

Fosfomycin is a bactericidal agent that inhibits cell wall synthesis using a mechanism of action distinct from ß-lactams or other antimicrobial agents. It is a broad-spectrum agent that is frequently active against antimicrobial-resistant bacterial pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacteriaceae, and some isolates of MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Intravenous fosfomycin has been prescribed for a wide variety of infections in many countries for >40 years. It is most frequently used in combination with other antimicrobial agents (e.g., ß-lactams, carbapenems, and aminoglycosides) and has an excellent safety profile, including in neonates and children, even with long-term administration (weeks). Fosfomycin achieves extensive tissue distribution including difficult to reach compartments such as aqueous humor, vitreous humor, abscess fluid, and CSF. Available data, to date, suggest no clinically relevant pharmacological interactions between fosfomycin and other agents, including drugs, stimulants, or food. Intravenous fosfomycin's role in therapy in Canada is likely as an agent used alone or in combination for complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients as well as hospitalized patients with MDR infections who have not responded to first-, and potentially, second-line antimicrobials or in patients who cannot tolerate (due to adverse effects) first- and second-line antimicrobials.

Oral Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Bacterial Prostatitis Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli.

Acute and chronic bacterial prostatitis in outpatients is commonly treated with oral fluoroquinolones; however, the worldwide dissemination of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Escherichia coli has resulted in therapeutic failures with fluoroquinolones. We reviewed the literature regarding the use of oral fosfomycin in the treatment of acute and chronic prostatitis caused by MDR E. coli. All English-language references on PubMed from 1986 to June 2017, inclusive, were reviewed from the search "fosfomycin prostatitis." Fosfomycin demonstrates potent in vitro activity against a variety of antimicrobial-resistant E. coli genotypes/phenotypes including ciprofloxacin-resistant, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-resistant, extended-spectrum ß-lactamase- (ESBL-) producing, and MDR isolates. Fosfomycin attains therapeutic concentrations (≥4 µg/g) in uninflamed prostatic tissue and maintains a high prostate/plasma ratio up to 17 hours after oral administration. Oral fosfomycin's clinical cure rates in the treatment of bacterial prostatitis caused by antimicrobial-resistant E. coli ranged from 50 to 77% with microbiological eradication rates of >50%. An oral regimen of fosfomycin tromethamine of 3 g·q 24 h for one week followed by 3 g·q 48 h for a total treatment duration of 6-12 weeks appeared to be effective. Oral fosfomycin may represent an efficacious and safe treatment for acute and chronic prostatitis caused by MDR E. coli.

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.