The pharmacokinetic evaluation of omadacycline (Oral Only Dosing Regimen) for the treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP).

INTRODUCTION: Omadacycline is a new analog of the tetracycline class active against atypical bacteria, as well as against staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant strains, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. AREAS COVERED: This review has summarized the available clinical evidence on the use of oral omadacycline in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and described the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameters in healthy and special populations and the latest research on omadacycline. EXPERT OPINION: The available clinical evidence on oral omadacycline for the treatment of CAP shows that its properties provide reliable empirical coverage for pathogens such as Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and species of Legionella, Chlamydia, and Mycoplasma. Omadacycline is also active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); penicillin-resistant and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Streptococcus agalactiae; and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. A dose of 450 mg orally once daily is recommended, followed by a maintenance dose of 300 mg orally once daily. Importantly, omadacycline does not require dose adjustment for patients based on BMI, age, gender, or renal or hepatic impairment.

Ceftaroline for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A real-world two-centre experience in Italy and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Ceftaroline is one of latest additions to the armamentarium for treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aimed to describe the outcome of severe CAP (SCAP) in a cohort of hospitalised patients treated with ceftaroline. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study of patients with SCAP treated with ceftaroline in two hospitals in Spain and Italy. The primary objective was to explore 30-day mortality after diagnosis of SCAP. RESULTS: During the study period the following were observed: there were 89 cases of SCAP treated with ceftaroline and 53 cases used in combination with other antibiotics (60%). Overall, 30-day mortality and clinical failure were 20% (18 of 89) and 36% (32 of 89), respectively. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were: increasing age (OR for 1 year increase 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.1, P 0.043), presence of solid neoplasm (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.0-15.1, P 0.044) and concomitant therapy with oseltamivir (OR 8.5, 95% CI 1.2°57.3, P 0.029). The only independent predictor of clinical failure was the time elapsing from SCAP diagnosis to ceftaroline therapy (OR for each passing day 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P 0.003). The clinical success rate was 64% (57 of 89). In the subgroups of patients with proven Streptococcus pneumoniae, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infection, clinical success was 83% (10 of 12), 75% (three of four) and 56% (five of nine), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Considering its spectrum of activity, ceftaroline could represent an important therapeutic option for SCAP. Further studies are needed to identify the precise clinical success rate against MRSA in a larger cohort of patients with SCAP.

Evaluation of severity score-guided approaches to macrolide use in community-acquired pneumonia.

International guidelines including those in the UK, Japan, Australia and South Africa recommend the avoidance of macrolides in patients with low-severity community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We hypothesised that severity scores are poor predictors of atypical pneumonia and response to macrolide therapy, and thus, inadequate tools for guiding antibiotic prescriptions.Secondary analysis of four independent prospective CAP datasets was conducted. The predictive values of the CURB-65 and pneumonia severity index (PSI) for clinically important groups of causative pathogens were evaluated. The effect of macrolide use according to risk class was assessed by multivariable analysis. Patients (3297) were evaluated, and the predictive values of CURB-65 and PSI for atypical pathogens were poor (AUC values of 0.37 and 0.42, respectively). No significant differences were noted among the effects of macrolide use on mortality in patients with mild, moderate and severe CAP, according to either CURB-65 (interaction testing severe versus mild disease OR=0.74 (0.29-1.89)) or PSI (severe versus mild disease OR=3.4 (0.055-2.10)), indicating that severity scores were not significant modifiers of response to macrolide therapy.Severity scores did not accurately predict response to macrolide therapy in CAP, suggesting that current guidance to use these tools for empirical antibiotic choices might not be justified.