Incidence of outcomes relevant to vaccine safety monitoring in a US commercially-insured population.

BACKGROUND: Background incidence rates (IRs) of potential safety outcomes among vaccine eligible individuals can inform assessment of vaccine safety. Vaccine safety surveillance often uses claims databases, but the impact of outcome definitions on background IR estimates is largely unexplored. Using two definitions for each outcome, we estimated background IRs of 32 cardiac, metabolic, allergic, autoimmune, neurologic, hematologic and nephrologic outcomes among individuals eligible to receive pneumococcal vaccination. METHODS: We defined a cohort of individuals aged 6-100 years in US commercial health plans who had ≥12 months of health plan enrollment between January 2007 and August 2014 and no previous record of conjugate or simple polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccination. We developed a sensitive and a specific definition for each outcome, with the specific definition requiring evidence of additional care consistent with the outcome. IRs per 100,000 person-years for each outcome were presented overall and stratified by age, gender, and invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) risk category. RESULTS: We followed 19.9 million individuals for a median of 2.5 years. Wide variation was seen in IRs across different definitions of the 32 outcomes, with 19 (59%) outcomes having a specific definition IR less than half of the sensitive definition IR. IRs were particularly variable by definition for outcomes categorized as either hematologic/nephrologic or neurologic (mean ratio of specific IR to sensitive IR = 0.26 and 0.30, respectively). Across definitions, the IRs of the 32 outcomes were often highest in females, adults ≥65, and those at higher IPD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Background IRs of safety outcomes relevant to populations indicated for pneumococcal vaccine varied by outcome definitions and population subgroups in this large US commercially-insured population. Given large differences in estimated IRs using sensitive versus specific case definitions, neurologic, and hematologic/nephrologic safety outcomes as compared to allergic and autoimmune outcomes may warrant more refined definitions and medical record validation.

Phase 3 study comparing tigecycline and ertapenem in patients with diabetic foot infections with and without osteomyelitis.

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted in subjects with diabetic foot infections without osteomyelitis (primary study) or with osteomyelitis (substudy) to determine the efficacy and safety of parenteral (intravenous [iv]) tigecycline (150 mg once-daily) versus 1 g once-daily iv ertapenem ± vancomycin. Among 944 subjects in the primary study who received ≥1 dose of study drug, >85% had type 2 diabetes; ~90% had Perfusion, Extent, Depth/tissue loss, Infection, and Sensation infection grade 2 or 3; and ~20% reported prior antibiotic failure. For the clinically evaluable population at test-of-cure, 77.5% of tigecycline- and 82.5% of ertapenem ± vancomycin-treated subjects were cured. Corresponding rates for the clinical modified intent-to-treat population were 71.4% and 77.9%, respectively. Clinical cure rates in the substudy were low (<36%) for a subset of tigecycline-treated subjects with osteomyelitis. Nausea and vomiting occurred significantly more often after tigecycline treatment (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively), resulting in significantly higher discontinuation rates in the primary study (nausea P = 0.007, vomiting P < 0.001). In the primary study, tigecycline did not meet criteria for noninferiority compared with ertapenem ± vancomycin in the treatment of subjects with diabetic foot infections.

Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

To compare efficacy and safety of a tigecycline regimen with an imipenem/cilastatin regimen in hospital-acquired pneumonia patients, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, study evaluated 945 patients. Coprimary end points were clinical response in clinically evaluable (CE) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) populations at test-of-cure. Cure rates were 67.9% for tigecycline and 78.2% for imipenem (CE patients) and 62.7% and 67.6% (c-mITT patients), respectively. A statistical interaction occurred between ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and non-VAP subgroups, with significantly lower cure rates in tigecycline VAP patients compared to imipenem; in non-VAP patients, tigecycline was noninferior to imipenem. Overall mortality did not differ between the tigecycline (14.1%) and imipenem regimens (12.2%), although more deaths occurred in VAP patients treated with tigecycline than imipenem. Overall, the tigecycline regimen was noninferior to the imipenem/cilastatin regimen for the c-mITT but not the CE population; this difference appears to have been driven by results in VAP patients.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tigecycline, a first-in-class broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, has broad-spectrum in vitro activity against bacteria commonly encountered in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), including aerobic and facultative Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobic bacteria. In the current trial, tigecycline was evaluated for safety and efficacy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in hospitalized Chinese patients with cIAIs. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label study, patients were randomly assigned to receive IV tigecycline or imipenem/cilastatin for /=1 dose of study drug and comprised the modified intent-to-treat population. In the microbiologically evaluable population, 86.5% (45 of 52) of tigecycline- and 97.9% (47 of 48) of imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients were cured at the test-of-cure assessment (12-37 days after therapy); in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat population, cure rates were 81.7% (49 of 60) and 90.9% (50 of 55), respectively. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 80.4% for tigecycline vs. 53.9% after imipenem/cilastatin therapy (P < 0.001), primarily due to gastrointestinal-related events, especially nausea (21.6% vs. 3.9%; P < 0.001) and vomiting (12.4% vs. 2.0%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical cure rates for tigecycline were consistent with those found in global cIAI studies. The overall safety profile was also consistent with that observed in global studies of tigecycline for treatment of cIAI, as well as that observed in analyses of Chinese patients in those studies; no novel trends were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00136201.