Clinical and microbiological outcomes, by causative pathogen, in the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled, Phase 3 trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: In the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated. METHODS: Mechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7-14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population. RESULTS: The mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: -4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: -18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: -4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Randomized Trial of Molnupiravir or Placebo in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir is an oral prodrug of ß-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, active against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in animal models. We report data from the phase 2 component of MOVe-IN, a clinical trial evaluating molnupiravir in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2/3 trial in patients 18 years old and older requiring in-hospital treatment for laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset 10 or fewer days before randomization. Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or molnupiravir 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg (1:1:1:1 ratio), twice daily for 5 days. Primary end points were safety and sustained recovery (participant alive and either not hospitalized or medically ready for discharge) through day 29. RESULTS: Of 304 randomly assigned participants, 218 received at least one dose of molnupiravir and 75 of placebo. At baseline, 74.0% had at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19. Adverse events were reported in 121 of 218 (55.5%) molnupiravir-treated and 46 of 75 (61.3%) placebo-treated participants, with no apparent dose effect on adverse event rates and no evidence of hematologic toxicity based on prespecified adverse events. Of 16 confirmed deaths, most were in participants with severe Covid-19 (75.0%), with underlying comorbidities (87.5%), older than 60 years of age (81.3%), and/or symptom duration longer than 5 days (75.0%) at randomization. Median time to sustained recovery was 9 days in all groups, with similar day 29 recovery rates ranging from 81.5% to 85.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 trial of patients hospitalized with Covid-19, a 5-day course of molnupiravir up to 800 mg twice daily was not associated with dose-limiting side effects or adverse events, but did not demonstrate clinical benefit. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04575584.)

Phase 2/3 Trial of Molnupiravir for Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Adults.

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective oral treatments are needed to improve clinical outcomes for nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19. Molnupiravir is an orally administered, small-molecule ribonucleoside prodrug shown to inhibit replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro and in animal models. METHODS: MOVe-OUT is an ongoing, phase 2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluating the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of molnupiravir in nonhospitalized adults. In the phase 2 component, participants had mild or moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 with sign/symptom onset up to (and including) 7 days before randomization. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to receive 200, 400, or 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days, stratified by time since sign/symptom onset and by being at increased risk for severe illness from Covid-19. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants who were hospitalized and/or died through day 29. RESULTS: The phase 2 component randomly assigned 302 participants to treatment; baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups. Molnupiravir had no apparent dose-related effect on adverse events, and no clinically meaningful abnormalities in laboratory test results were observed in relation to dose or treatment. Eleven participants were hospitalized or died through day 29. Of 225 participants in the combined molnupiravir group, 7 (3.1%) were hospitalized or died, compared with 4 of 74 participants (5.4%) in the placebo group. Subgroup analyses suggested lower incidences of hospitalization and/or death in the molnupiravir versus placebo groups in participants older than 60 years of age, those with increased risk for severe illness, those with symptom onset up to (and including) 5 days before randomization, and those with both symptom onset up to (and including) 5 days before randomization and increased risk for severe illness. CONCLUSIONS: These interim study results support further evaluation of molnupiravir as a potential treatment to reduce hospitalizations and/or death in nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.)

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.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. METHODS: In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, -1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, -7.6%; 97.5% CI: -15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02019420.

Evaluation of Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions of the Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir and Grazoprevir with Pitavastatin, Rosuvastatin, Pravastatin, and Atorvastatin in Healthy Adults.

BACKGROUND: Many people infected with hepatitis C virus have comorbidities, including hypercholesterolemia, that are treated with statins. In this study, we evaluated the drug-drug interaction potential of the hepatitis C virus inhibitors elbasvir (EBR) and grazoprevir (GZR) with statins. Pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, and atorvastatin are substrates of organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B, whereas rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are also breast cancer resistance protein substrates. METHODS: Three open-label, phase I clinical trials in healthy adults were conducted with multiple daily doses of oral GZR or EBR/GZR and single oral doses of statins. Trial 1: GZR 200 mg plus pitavastatin 10 mg. Trial 2: Part 1, GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg, then EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg; Part 2, EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus pravastatin 40 mg. Trial 3: EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg. RESULTS: Neither GZR nor EBR pharmacokinetics were meaningfully affected by statins. Coadministration of EBR/GZR did not result in clinically relevant changes in the exposure of pitavastatin or pravastatin. However, EBR/GZR increased exposure to rosuvastatin (126%) and atorvastatin (94%). Coadministration of statins plus GZR or EBR/GZR was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Although statins do not appreciably affect EBR or GZR pharmacokinetics, EBR/GZR can impact the pharmacokinetics of certain statins, likely via inhibition of breast cancer resistance protein but not organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B. Coadministration of EBR/GZR with pitavastatin or pravastatin does not require adjustment of either dose of statin, whereas the dose of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin should be decreased when coadministered with EBR/GZR.

Safety and Efficacy of Oral and/or Intravenous Tedizolid Phosphate From a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Adolescents With Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

BACKGROUND: Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone prodrug approved in 2014 for treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs); however, efficacy has not previously been evaluated in children. This study compared the safety and efficacy of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) with active antibacterial comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs in adolescents. METHODS: This was a randomized, assessor-blind, global phase 3 study of tedizolid versus active comparators for the treatment of Gram-positive ABSSSIs in adolescents (12 to <18 years of age; NCT02276482). Enrolled participants were stratified by region and randomized 3:1 to receive tedizolid phosphate 200 mg (oral and/or intravenous) once daily for 6 days or active comparator, selected by investigator from an allowed list per local standard of care, for 10 days. The primary endpoint was safety; blinded investigator's assessment of clinical success at the test-of-cure visit (18-25 days after the first dose) was a secondary efficacy endpoint. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were not performed. RESULTS: Of the 121 participants enrolled, 120 were treated (tedizolid, n = 91; comparator, n = 29). Treatment-emergent adverse events were balanced between treatment groups (tedizolid, 14.3%; comparator, 10.3%). Overall, 3 participants (3.3%) in the tedizolid group and 1 (3.4%) in the comparator group experienced a single drug-related TEAE. Clinical success rates were high in both treatment groups: 96.7% and 93.1% at the test-of-cure visit for the tedizolid and comparator groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tedizolid demonstrated safety and efficacy similar to comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs in adolescents.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study).

BACKGROUND: Imipenem combined with the ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7-14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. RESULTS: Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02493764.

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.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Analysis Populations in the RESTORE-IMI 1 Phase 3 Trial of Imipenem-Cilastatin-Relebactam versus Colistin plus Imipenem-Cilastatin in Patients with Imipenem-Nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

The RESTORE-IMI 1 phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) combined with relebactam (REL) for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. The objective of this analysis was to compare the outcomes among patients meeting eligibility requirements based on central laboratory susceptibility versus local laboratory susceptibility. Patients with serious infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible, colistin-susceptible, and imipenem-REL-susceptible pathogens were randomized 2:1 to IMI-REL plus placebo or colistin plus IMI for 5 to 21 days. The primary endpoint was a favorable overall response. Key endpoints included the clinical response and all-cause mortality. We compared outcomes between the primary microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population, where eligibility was based on central laboratory susceptibility testing, and the supplemental mMITT (SmMITT) population, where eligibility was based on local, site-level testing. The SmMITT (n = 41) and MITT (n = 31) populations had similar baseline characteristics, including sex, age, illness severity, and renal function. In both analysis populations, favorable overall response rates in the IMI-REL treatment group were >70%. Favorable clinical response rates at day 28 were 71.4% for IMI-REL and 40.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 75.0% for IMI-REL and 53.8% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. Day 28 all-cause mortality rates were 9.5% for IMI-REL and 30.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 10.7% for IMI-REL and 23.1% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. The outcomes in the SmMITT population were generally consistent with those in the mMITT population, suggesting that outcomes may be applicable to the real-world use of IMI-REL for treating infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative pathogens. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under 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.

Impact of renal impairment and human organic anion transporter inhibition on pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of relebactam combined with imipenem and cilastatin.

AIMS: Two phase 1, open-label studies were conducted to investigate the effect of renal impairment (RI) and organic anion transporter (OAT) inhibition on pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of relebactam (REL) plus imipenem/cilastatin (IMI). METHODS: Study PN005 evaluated the PK of REL (125 mg) plus IMI (250 mg) in participants with RI vs healthy controls. Study PN019 evaluated the PK of REL (250 mg) and imipenem (500 mg; dosed as IMI) with/without probenecid (1 g; OAT inhibitor) in healthy adults. RESULTS: Geometric mean ratios (RI/healthy matched controls) of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞ ; 90% confidence interval) for REL, imipenem and cilastatin increased as RI increased from mild (1.6 [1.1, 2.4], 1.4 [1.1, 1.8] and 1.6 [1.0, 2.5], respectively) to severe (4.9 [3.4, 7.0], 2.5 [1.9, 3.3] and 5.6 [3.6, 8.6], respectively). For all 3 analytes, plasma and renal clearance decreased and corresponding plasma apparent terminal half-life increased with increasing RI. Geometric mean ratios ([probenecid+IMI/REL]/[IMI/REL]) of plasma exposure for REL and imipenem were 1.24 (1.19, 1.28) and 1.16 (1.13, 1.20), respectively. The dose fraction excreted (fe) in the urine decreased progressively from mild to severe RI. Probenecid reduced renal clearance of REL and imipenem by 25 and 31%, respectively. Compared with IMI/REL, coadministration of IMI/REL with probenecid yielded lower fe for REL and imipenem. In both studies, treatment was well tolerated; there were no serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: RI increased plasma exposure and similarly decreased clearance of REL, imipenem and cilastatin; IMI/REL dose adjustment (fixed-ratio) will be required for patients with RI. Probenecid had no clinically meaningful impact on the PK of REL or imipenem.

A Mortality Analysis of Letermovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) in CMV-seropositive Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial, letermovir reduced clinically significant cytomegalovirus infections (CS-CMVi) and all-cause mortality at week 24 versus placebo in CMV-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients. This post hoc analysis of phase 3 data further investigated the effects of letermovir on all-cause mortality. METHODS: Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated by treatment group for all-cause mortality. Observations were censored at trial discontinuation for reasons other than death or at trial completion. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox modeling, adjusting for risk factors associated with mortality. RESULTS: Of 495 patients with no detectable CMV DNA at randomization, 437 had vital-status data available through week 48 post-HCT at trial completion (101 deaths, 20.4%). Following letermovir prophylaxis, the HR for all-cause mortality was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35-0.98; P = .04) at week 24 and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.49-1.11; P = .14) at week 48 post-HCT versus placebo. Incidence of all-cause mortality through week 48 post-HCT in the letermovir group was similar in patients with or without CS-CMVi (15.8 vs 19.4%; P = .71). However, in the placebo group, all-cause mortality at week 48 post-HCT was higher in patients with versus those without CS-CMVi (31.0% vs 18.2%; P = .02). The HR for all-cause mortality in patients with CS-CMVi was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.21-1.00; P = .05) at week 48 for letermovir versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir may reduce mortality by preventing or delaying CS-CMVi in HCT recipients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02137772.

Outcomes of patients with detectable CMV DNA at randomization in the phase III trial of letermovir for the prevention of CMV infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Letermovir, a cytomegalovirus (CMV) terminase-complex inhibitor, is indicated for prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease in adult CMV-seropositive recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). In a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial, letermovir significantly reduced the risk of clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) vs placebo through Week 24 post-HCT. This analysis investigated outcomes in participants with detectable CMV DNA at randomization, who were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis. In total, 70 of 565 randomized participants had detectable CMV DNA at randomization (letermovir 48; placebo 22). Study treatment completion rates were greater in letermovir-treated participants compared with placebo (52.1% vs 9.1%). The incidence of CS-CMVi or imputed primary endpoint events through Week 24 were 64.6% and 90.9% in the letermovir and placebo groups, respectively (treatment difference -26.1%; P = .010). Kaplan-Meier event rates for CS-CMVi onset through Week 14 (end-of-treatment period) were 33.1% for letermovir and 86.6% for placebo (P < .001). Median viral loads at the CS-CMVi events was similar in both treatment arms. All-cause mortality through Week 24 posttransplant was 15.0% for letermovir and 18.2% for placebo; through Week 48, mortality rates were 26.5% and 40.9%, respectively (P = .268). Overall, clinical outcomes were similar to those reported for participants with undetectable CMV DNA at randomization.

Ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (ASPECT-NP): a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial drug ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were undergoing mechanical ventilation, and had nosocomial pneumonia (either ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation (block size four), stratified by type of nosocomial pneumonia and age (<65 years vs ≥65 years), to receive either 3 g ceftolozane-tazobactam or 1 g meropenem intravenously every 8 h for 8-14 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality (at a 10% non-inferiority margin). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after the end of therapy; 12·5% non-inferiority margin). Both endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Investigators, study staff, patients, and patients' representatives were masked to treatment assignment. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received study treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02070757. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and April 27, 2018, 726 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 362 to the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 364 to the meropenem group. Overall, 519 (71%) patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia, 239 (33%) had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of at least 20, and 668 (92%) were in the intensive care unit. At 28 days, 87 (24·0%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 92 (25·3%) in the meropenem group had died (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -5·1 to 7·4]). At the test-of-cure visit 197 (54%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 194 (53%) in the meropenem group were clinically cured (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -6·2 to 8·3]). Ceftolozane-tazobactam was thus non-inferior to meropenem in terms of both 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure at test of cure. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 38 (11%) of 361 patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 27 (8%) of 359 in the meropenem group. Eight (2%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and two (1%) in the meropenem group had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: High-dose ceftolozane-tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Assessment of Drug Interaction Potential Between the Hepatitis C Virus Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and the Nucleotide Analog Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitor Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate.

Treatment of individuals coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) requires careful consideration of potential drug-drug interactions. We evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction of the direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir and grazoprevir coadministered with the nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Three open-label, multidose studies in healthy adults were conducted. In the first study (N = 10), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, elbasvir 50 mg once daily, and elbasvir coadministered with TDF. In the second study (N = 12), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, grazoprevir 200 mg once daily, and grazoprevir coadministered with TDF. In the third study (N = 14), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily and TDF 300 mg coadministered with coformulated elbasvir/grazoprevir 50 mg/100 mg once daily. Pharmacokinetics and safety were evaluated. Following coadministration, the tenofovir area under the plasma concentration-time curve to 24 hours and maximum plasma concentration geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for tenofovir and coadministered drug(s) versus tenofovir were 1.3 (1.2, 1.5) and 1.5 (1.3, 1.6), respectively, when coadministered with elbasvir; 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.2), respectively, when coadministered with grazoprevir; and 1.3 (1.2, 1.4) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.4), respectively, when coadministered with the elbasvir/grazoprevir coformulation. TDF had minimal effect on elbasvir and grazoprevir pharmacokinetics. Elbasvir and/or grazoprevir coadministered with TDF resulted in no clinically meaningful tenofovir exposure increases and was generally well tolerated, with no deaths, serious adverse events (AEs), discontinuations due to AEs, or laboratory AEs reported. No dose adjustments for elbasvir/grazoprevir or TDF are needed for coadministration in HCV/HIV-coinfected people.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions between the Hepatitis C Virus Inhibitors Elbasvir and Grazoprevir and HIV Protease Inhibitors Ritonavir, Atazanavir, Lopinavir, and Darunavir in Healthy Volunteers.

The combination of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor elbasvir and the NS3/4A protease inhibitor grazoprevir is a potent, once-daily therapy indicated for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in individuals coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We explored the pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir and grazoprevir with ritonavir and ritonavir-boosted HIV protease inhibitors in three phase 1 trials. Drug-drug interaction trials with healthy participants were conducted to evaluate the effect of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of grazoprevir (n = 10) and the potential two-way pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir (n = 30) or grazoprevir (n = 39) when coadministered with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, lopinavir, or darunavir. Coadministration of ritonavir with grazoprevir increased grazoprevir exposure; the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for grazoprevir plus ritonavir versus grazoprevir alone area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) was 1.91 (90% confidence interval [CI]; 1.31 to 2.79). Grazoprevir exposure was markedly increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for grazoprevir AUC0-24 of 10.58 (90% CI, 7.78 to 14.39), 12.86 (90% CI, 10.25 to 16.13), and 7.50 (90% CI, 5.92 to 9.51), respectively. Elbasvir exposure was increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for elbasvir AUC0-24 of 4.76 (90% CI, 4.07 to 5.56), 3.71 (90% CI, 3.05 to 4.53), and 1.66 (90% CI, 1.35 to 2.05), respectively. Grazoprevir and elbasvir had little effect on atazanavir, lopinavir, and darunavir pharmacokinetics. Coadministration of elbasvir-grazoprevir with atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or darunavir-ritonavir is contraindicated, owing to an increase in grazoprevir exposure. Therefore, HIV treatment regimens without HIV protease inhibitors should be considered for HCV/HIV-coinfected individuals who are being treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir.