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.

Does moderate renal impairment affect clinical outcomes in complicated intra-abdominal and complicated urinary tract infections? Analysis of two randomized controlled trials with ceftolozane/tazobactam.

Objectives: For reasons not well understood, antibacterials can yield lower cure rates in renally impaired patients. We explored this subject for the novel antibacterial ceftolozane/tazobactam. Methods: ASPECT-complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) and ASPECT-complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) were randomized, double-blinded clinical trials. Analyses in moderate [creatinine clearance (CL CR ) 30-50 mL/min] and mild/no (CL CR > 50 mL/min) renal impairment (RI) patients were pre-specified as exploratory endpoints in the statistical analysis plans. We also explored variables potentially impacting outcomes in these subgroups. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01445665/NCT01445678 and NCT01345929/NCT01345955. Results: At baseline, 4.5% (36/806) of cIAI patients and 7.3% (58/795) of cUTI patients had moderate RI. Moderate RI patients were older, had more comorbid conditions and had higher APACHE-II scores. In the cIAI microbiological intent-to-treat population, response rates were 48% and 69% in moderate RI patients receiving ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively; among moderate RI cIAI patients considered treatment failures, indeterminate responses were more frequent with ceftolozane/tazobactam (39%; 9/23) than meropenem (8%; 1/13). In the cUTI microbiological modified intent-to-treat population, response rates were 81% and 78% in moderate RI patients receiving ceftolozane/tazobactam and levofloxacin, respectively. In both studies, response rates in moderate RI patients were similar between treatment arms in microbiologically evaluable populations, which excluded indeterminate responses due to missing data/protocol deviations (cIAI: 72.7% ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 71.4% meropenem; cUTI: 87% ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 80% levofloxacin). Conclusions: Regardless of treatment, clinical cure rates in cIAI and cUTI were lower in moderate versus mild/no RI patients. In moderate RI cIAI patients, numerical differences in response rates between treatments were attributable to imbalances in the numerical patients deemed indeterminate.

Efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam against urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections caused by ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: a pooled analysis of Phase 3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The increase in infections caused by drug-resistant ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-ENT) is a global concern. The characteristics and outcomes of patients infected with ESBL-ENT were examined in a pooled analysis of Phase 3 clinical trials of ceftolozane/tazobactam in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (ASPECT-cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (ASPECT-cIAI). METHODS: Trials were randomized and double blind. The ASPECT-cUTI regimen was 7 days of either intravenous ceftolozane/tazobactam (1.5 g) every 8 h or levofloxacin (750 mg) once daily. The ASPECT-cIAI regimen was 4-14 days of either intravenous ceftolozane/tazobactam (1.5 g) plus metronidazole (500 mg) or meropenem (1 g) every 8 h. Baseline cultures were obtained in both indications. Enterobacteriaceae were selected for ESBL characterization based on predefined criteria and were verified genotypically. Outcomes were assessed at the test-of-cure visit 5-9 days post-therapy in ASPECT-cUTI and 24-32 days post-randomization in ASPECT-cIAI among microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients. RESULTS: Of 2076 patients randomized, 1346 were included in the pooled ME population and 150 of 1346 (11.1%) had ESBL-ENT at baseline. At US FDA/EUCAST breakpoints of ≤2/≤1 mg/L, 81.8%/72.3% of ESBL-ENT (ESBL-Escherichia coli, 95%/88.1%; ESBL-Klebsiella pneumoniae, 56.7%/36.7%) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 25.3%/24.1% susceptible to levofloxacin and 98.3%/98.3% susceptible to meropenem at CLSI/EUCAST breakpoints. Clinical cure rates for ME patients with ESBL-ENT were 97.4% (76/78) for ceftolozane/tazobactam [ESBL-E. coli, 98.0% (49 of 50); ESBL-K. pneumoniae, 94.4% (17 of 18)], 82.6% (38 of 46) for levofloxacin and 88.5% (23 of 26) for meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trial data demonstrated high clinical cure rates with ceftolozane/tazobactam treatment of cIAI and cUTI caused by ESBL-ENT.

Analysis of patients with diabetes and complicated intra-abdominal infection or complicated urinary tract infection in phase 3 trials of ceftolozane/tazobactam.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia are associated with increased susceptibility to bacterial infections and poor treatment outcomes. This post hoc evaluation of the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) and complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) aimed to evaluate baseline characteristics, efficacy, and safety in patients with and without diabetes treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and comparators. Ceftolozane/tazobactam is an antibacterial with potent activity against Gram-negative pathogens and is approved for the treatment of cIAI (with metronidazole) and cUTI (including pyelonephritis). METHODS: Patients from the phase 3 ASPECT studies with (n = 245) and without (n = 1802) diabetes were compared to evaluate the baseline characteristics, efficacy, and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam and active comparators. RESULTS: Significantly more patients with than without diabetes were 65 years of age or older; patients with diabetes were also more likely to weigh ≥75 kg at baseline (57.1% vs 44.5%), to have renal impairment (48.5% vs 30.2%), or to have APACHE II scores ≥10 (33.8% vs 17.0%). More patients with diabetes had comorbidities and an increased incidence of complicating factors in both cIAI and cUTI. Clinical cIAI and composite cure cUTI rates across study treatments were lower in patients with than without diabetes (cIAI, 75.4% vs 86.1%, P = 0.0196; cUTI, 62.4% vs 74.7%, P = 0.1299) but were generally similar between the ceftolozane/tazobactam and active comparator treatment groups. However, significantly higher composite cure rates were reported with ceftolozane/tazobactam than with levofloxacin in patients without diabetes with cUTI (79.5% vs 69.9%; P = 0.0048). Significantly higher rates of adverse events observed in patients with diabetes were likely due to comorbidities because treatment-related adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, patients with diabetes in general were older, heavier, and had a greater number of complicating comorbidities. Patients with diabetes had lower cure rates and a significantly higher frequency of adverse events than patients without diabetes, likely because of the higher rates of medical complications in this subgroup. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was shown to be at least as effective as comparators in treating cUTI and cIAI in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: cIAI, NCT01445665 and NCT01445678 (both trials registered prospectively on September 26, 2011); cUTI, NCT01345929 and NCT01345955 (both trials registered prospectively on April 28, 2011).

Characteristics and Outcomes of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections Involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Study.

Ceftolozane-tazobactam is active against Gram-negative pathogens, including multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa In a subgroup analysis of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) involving P. aeruginosa from a phase 3 program, ceftolozane-tazobactam demonstrated potent in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa Clinical cure in the microbiologically evaluable population was 100% (26/26) for ceftolozane-tazobactam plus metronidazole and 93.1% (27/29) for meropenem. These findings support the use of ceftolozane-tazobactam in the management of cIAI when P. aeruginosa is suspected or confirmed. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01445665 and NCT01445678.).

Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Plus Metronidazole for Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections in an Era of Multidrug Resistance: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (ASPECT-cIAI).

BACKGROUND: Increasing antimicrobial resistance among pathogens causing complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) supports the development of new antimicrobials. Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a novel antimicrobial therapy, is active against multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and most extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae. METHODS: ASPECT-cIAI (Assessment of the Safety Profile and Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections) was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Hospitalized patients with cIAI received either ceftolozane/tazobactam (1.5 g) plus metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours or meropenem (1 g) every 8 hours intravenously for 4-14 days. The prospectively defined objectives were to demonstrate statistical noninferiority in clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit (24-32 days from start of therapy) in the microbiological intent-to-treat (primary) and microbiologically evaluable (secondary) populations using a noninferiority margin of 10%. Microbiological outcomes and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in the primary (83.0% [323/389] vs 87.3% [364/417]; weighted difference, -4.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.91 to .54) and secondary (94.2% [259/275] vs 94.7% [304/321]; weighted difference, -1.0%; 95% CI, -4.52 to 2.59) endpoints, meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin. In patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, clinical cure rates were 95.8% (23/24) and 88.5% (23/26) in the ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and meropenem groups, respectively, and 100% (13/13) and 72.7% (8/11) in patients with CTX-M-14/15 ESBLs. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was similar in both treatment groups (44.0% vs 42.7%); the most common AEs in either group were nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in adult patients with cIAI, including infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01445665 and NCT01445678.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Versus Meropenem in Neonates and Children With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection, Including Pyelonephritis: A Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a cephalosporin-ß-lactamase inhibitor combination, active against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, is approved for treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI). Safety and efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam in pediatric participants with cUTI, including pyelonephritis, were assessed. METHODS: This phase 2 study (NCT03230838) compared ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treatment of cUTI in participants from birth to <18 years of age. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. Key secondary end points included clinical cure and per-participant microbiologic response rates at end of treatment (EOT) and test of cure (TOC) visits. RESULTS: The microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population included 95 participants (ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 71; meropenem, n = 24). The most common diagnosis and pathogen were pyelonephritis (ceftolozane/tazobactam, 84.5%; meropenem, 79.2%) and Escherichia coli (ceftolozane/tazobactam, 74.6%; meropenem, 87.5%); 5.7% (ceftolozane/tazobactam) and 4.8% (meropenem) of E. coli isolates were extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producers. Rates of adverse events were similar between treatment groups (any: ceftolozane/tazobactam, 59.0% vs. meropenem, 60.6%; drug-related: ceftolozane/tazobactam, 14.0% vs. meropenem, 15.2%; serious: ceftolozane/tazobactam, 3.0% vs. meropenem, 6.1%). Rates of clinical cure for ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem at EOT were 94.4% and 100% and at TOC were 88.7% and 95.8%, respectively. Rates of microbiologic eradication for ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem at EOT were 93.0% and 95.8%, and at TOC were 84.5% and 87.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftolozane/tazobactam had a favorable safety profile in pediatric participants with cUTI; rates of clinical cure and microbiologic eradication were high and similar to meropenem. Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a safe and effective new treatment option for children with cUTI, especially due to antibacterial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Plus Metronidazole Versus Meropenem From a Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial in Pediatric Participants With Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a cephalosporin-ß-lactamase inhibitor combination, is approved for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI). The safety and efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam in pediatric participants with cIAI were assessed. METHODS: This phase 2 study (NCT03217136) randomized participants to either ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole or meropenem for treatment of cIAI in pediatric participants (<18 years). The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of intravenous ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole. Clinical cure at end of treatment (EOT) and test of cure (TOC) visits were secondary end points. RESULTS: The modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population included 91 participants (ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole, n = 70; meropenem, n = 21). Complicated appendicitis was the most common diagnosis (93.4%); Escherichia coli was the most common pathogen (65.9%). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 80.0% and 61.9% of participants receiving ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole and meropenem, drug-related AEs occurred in 18.6% and 14.3% and serious AEs occurred in 11.4% and 0% of participants receiving ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole and meropenem, respectively. No drug-related serious AEs or discontinuations due to drug-related AEs occurred. Rates of the clinical cure for ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole and meropenem at EOT were 80.0% and 95.2% (difference: -14.3; 95% confidence interval: -26.67 to 4.93) and at TOC were 80.0% and 100.0% (difference: -19.1; 95% confidence interval: -30.18 to -2.89), respectively; 6 of the 14 clinical failures for ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole at TOC were indeterminate responses imputed as failures per protocol. CONCLUSION: Ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole was well tolerated in pediatric participants with cIAI and had a safety profile similar to the established safety profile in adults. In this descriptive efficacy analysis, ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole appeared efficacious.

Efficacy and Safety of Adintrevimab (ADG20) for the Treatment of High-Risk Ambulatory Patients With Mild or Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a Phase 2/3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial (STAMP) Conducted During Delta Predominance and Early Emergence of Omicron.

Background: Safe and effective treatments are needed to prevent severe outcomes in individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We report results from STAMP, a phase 2/3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adintrevimab, an extended half-life monoclonal antibody, for treatment of high-risk ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Methods: Nonhospitalized, unvaccinated participants aged ≥12 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 and ≥1 risk factor for disease progression were randomized to receive a single intramuscular injection of 300 mg adintrevimab or placebo. Enrollment was paused due to the global emergence of the Omicron BA.1/BA1.1 variants, against which adintrevimab showed reduced activity in vitro. The primary efficacy endpoint was COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause death through day 29 in participants with COVID-19 due to laboratory-confirmed or suspected non-Omicron severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants. Results: Between 8 August 2021 and 11 January 2022, 399 participants were randomized to receive adintrevimab (n = 198) or placebo (n = 201), including 336 with COVID-19 due to non-Omicron variants. COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause death through day 29 occurred in 8 of 169 (4.7%) participants in the adintrevimab group and 23 of 167 (13.8%) participants in the placebo group, a 66% relative risk reduction in favor of adintrevimab (standardized risk difference, -8.7% [95% confidence interval, -14.71% to -2.67%]; P = .0047). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar between treatment groups (33.9% for adintrevimab and 39.5% for placebo). No adintrevimab-related serious TEAEs were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with a single intramuscular injection of adintrevimab provided protection against severe outcomes in high-risk ambulatory participants with COVID-19 due to susceptible variants, without safety concerns. Clinical Trial Registration. NCT04805671.

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).

Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Daptomycin Versus Standard-of-care in Pediatric Patients With Staphylococcal Bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus, including community-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus, is an important cause of pediatric bacteremia. Daptomycin is a well-established treatment option for Gram-positive bacteremia in adults, but its safety and efficacy in children require confirmation. METHODS: This was a randomized (2:1), evaluator-blinded, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial comparing intravenous daptomycin with standard-of-care (SOC) for treatment of S. aureus bacteremia in 1- to 17-year-old patients (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01728376). Total treatment duration (intravenous followed by oral step-down therapy) was 5-42 days. Daptomycin was dosed once daily by patient age: 12-17 years, 7 mg/kg; 7-11 years, 9 mg/kg and 1-6 years, 12 mg/kg. The primary objective was to evaluate daptomycin safety in children who received ≥1 dose; secondary objectives included comparing daptomycin efficacy with SOC (the trial was not designed to confirm noninferiority) and pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-five children were randomized to daptomycin and 27 to SOC (primarily vancomycin or cefazolin); 90% had S. aureus. In both groups, 15% of patients had drug-related adverse events, primarily diarrhea (4% daptomycin, 8% SOC) and increased creatine phosphokinase (4% daptomycin, 0% SOC). Clinical success (blinded evaluator-assessed complete/partial resolution of bacteremia signs and symptoms 7-14 days after end-of-treatment) rates were similar for daptomycin (88%) and SOC (77%; 95% confidence interval for difference: -9% to 31%). Daptomycin plasma levels across age groups were comparable with those in adults receiving daptomycin at 6 mg/kg. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily, age-appropriate daptomycin was well tolerated in children with staphylococcal bacteremia; efficacy was comparable with SOC. Daptomycin in age-adjusted doses is a safe treatment alternative in this setting.

PK/PD Target Attainment With Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Using Monte Carlo Simulation in Patients With Various Degrees of Renal Function, Including Augmented Renal Clearance and End-Stage Renal Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is an antibacterial agent with potent in vitro activity against Gram-negative pathogens, including many extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae and drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Because ceftolozane/tazobactam is primarily excreted renally, appropriate dose adjustments are needed for patients with renal impairment. Monte Carlo simulations were used to determine the probability of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment for patients with varying degrees of renal function, including augmented renal clearance (ARC) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) with hemodialysis. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were conducted for 1000 patients with ARC and normal renal function, mild renal impairment, moderate renal impairment, or severe renal impairment, and for 5000 patients with ESRD. Simulated dosing regimens were based on approved doses for each renal function category. Attainment targets for ceftolozane were 24.8% (bacteriostasis), 32.2% (1-log kill; bactericidal), and 40% (2-log kill) fT > minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). The target for tazobactam was to achieve a 20% fT > minimum effective concentration (MEC) at an MEC of 1 mg/L, which was derived from a neutropenic mouse thigh infection model and was confirmed by efficacy data from clinical studies for complicated intraabdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections. RESULTS: In patients with ARC or normal renal function, ≥91% achieved bactericidal activity (32.2% fT > MIC) up to an MIC of 4 mg/L with a 1000-mg ceftolozane dose. In patients with renal impairment (mild, moderate, severe, ESRD), ≥93% achieved bactericidal activity up to an MIC of 8 mg/L. In patients of all renal function categories, the approved dosing regimens of tazobactam achieved ≥91% target attainment against a target of 20% fT > MEC. CONCLUSIONS: At the approved dosing regimens for ceftolozane/tazobactam, ≥91% of patients in all renal function categories, including ARC (up to 200 mL/min) and ESRD, reached target attainment for bactericidal activity at MICs that correspond to susceptibility breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa.