In Vitro Activity of Ceftazidime-Avibactam against Isolates from Respiratory and Blood Specimens from Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia, in a Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

Nosocomial pneumonia (NP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), is increasingly associated with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. This study describes the in vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftazidime, and relevant comparator agents against bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with NP, including VAP, enrolled in a ceftazidime-avibactam phase 3 trial. Gram-positive pathogens were included if coisolated with a Gram-negative pathogen. In vitro susceptibility was determined at a central laboratory using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods. Of 817 randomized patients, 457 (55.9%) had ≥1 Gram-negative bacterial pathogen(s) isolated at baseline, and 149 (18.2%) had ≥1 Gram-positive pathogen(s) coisolated. The most common isolated pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (18.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15.8%), and Staphylococcus aureus (11.5%). Ceftazidime-avibactam was highly active in vitro against 370 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae, with 98.6% susceptible (MIC90, 0.5 µg/ml) compared with 73.2% susceptible for ceftazidime (MIC90, >64 µg/ml). The percent susceptibility values for ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftazidime against 129 P. aeruginosa isolates were 88.4% and 72.9% (MIC90 values of 16 µg/ml and 64 µg/ml), respectively. Among ceftazidime-nonsusceptible Gram-negative isolates, ceftazidime-avibactam percent susceptibility values were 94.9% for 99 Enterobacteriaceae and 60.0% for 35 P. aeruginosa MIC90 values for linezolid and vancomycin (permitted per protocol for Gram-positive coverage) were within their respective MIC susceptibility breakpoints against the Gram-positive pathogens isolated. This analysis demonstrates that ceftazidime-avibactam was active in vitro against the majority of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa isolates from patients with NP, including VAP, in a phase 3 trial. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01808092.).

Randomized Trial of Ceftazidime-Avibactam vs Meropenem for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (REPROVE): Analyses per US FDA-Specified End Points.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP; nosocomial pneumonia) due to Gram-negative pathogens are associated with significant morbidity and mortality; treatment options for multidrug-resistant infections are limited. The pivotal phase III REPROVE trial evaluated the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) vs meropenem in the treatment of patients with HAP/VAP. Study results for prespecified analyses per US Food and Drug Administration-recommended trial end points are reported here. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with HAP/VAP proven or suspected to be caused by a Gram-negative pathogen were randomized 1:1 to receive CAZ-AVI or meropenem for 7 to 14 days. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure at test of cure (TOC) in the ITT and microbiological ITT (micro-ITT) populations, and safety and tolerability throughout the study. RESULTS: hundred seventy randomized patients received treatment and were included in the ITT population (CAZ-AVI, n = 436; meropenem, n = 434). CAZ-AVI was noninferior to meropenem for the primary end point (28-day all-cause mortality; ITT) based on the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin (CAZ-AVI, 9.6%; meropenem, 8.3%; difference, 1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.4% to 5.3%) and for the clinical cure end point in the ITT population based on a prespecified -10% noninferiority margin (CAZ-AVI, 67.2%; meropenem, 69.1%; difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -8.1% to 4.3%). Clinical cure rates at TOC for patients infected with CAZ-nonsusceptible pathogens were similar (CAZ-AVI, 75.5%; meropenem, 71.2%; micro-ITT). Safety data were consistent with established safety profiles for both agents. CONCLUSIONS: CAZ-AVI provides an important new treatment option for HAP/VAP due to Gram-negative pathogens, including CAZ-nonsusceptible strains.

Ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (REPROVE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial pneumonia is commonly associated with antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia, compared with meropenem in a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (REPROVE). METHODS: Adults with nosocomial pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia), enrolled at 136 centres in 23 countries, were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2000 mg ceftazidime and 500 mg avibactam (by 2 h intravenous infusion every 8 h) or 1000 mg meropenem (by 30-min intravenous infusion every 8 h) for 7-14 days; regimens were adjusted for renal function. Computer-generated randomisation codes were stratified by infection type and geographical region with a block size of four. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (21-25 days after randomisation). Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -12·5% in the coprimary clinically modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01808092) and EudraCT (2012-004006-96). FINDINGS: Between April 13, 2013, and Dec 11, 2015, 879 patients were randomly assigned. 808 patients were included in the safety population, 726 were included in the clinically modified intention-to-treat population, and 527 were included in the clinically evaluable population. Predominant Gram-negative baseline pathogens in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat population (n=355) were Klebsiella pneumoniae (37%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (30%); 28% were ceftazidime-non-susceptible. In the clinically modified intention-to-treat population, 245 (68·8%) of 356 patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group were clinically cured, compared with 270 (73·0%) of 370 patients in the meropenem group (difference -4·2% [95% CI -10·8 to 2·5]). In the clinically evaluable population, 199 (77·4%) of 257 participants were clinically cured in the ceftazidime-avibactam group, compared with 211 (78·1%) of 270 in the meropenem group (difference -0·7% [95% CI -7·9 to 6·4]). Adverse events occurred in 302 (75%) of 405 patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group versus 299 (74%) of 403 in the meropenem group (safety population), and were mostly mild or moderate in intensity and unrelated to study treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (19%) patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group and 54 (13%) patients in the meropenem group. Four serious adverse events (all in the ceftazidime-avibactam group) were judged to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Ceftazidime-avibactam was non-inferior to meropenem in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. These results support a role for ceftazidime-avibactam as a potential alternative to carbapenems in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia) caused by Gram-negative pathogens. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.