Comparative Activities of Novel Therapeutic Agents against Molecularly Characterized Clinical Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Isolates.

Limited treatment options exist for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) bacteria. Fortunately, there are several recently approved antibiotics indicated for CRE infections. Here, we examine the in vitro activity of various novel agents (eravacycline, plazomicin, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam) and comparators (tigecycline, amikacin, levofloxacin, fosfomycin, polymyxin B) against 365 well-characterized CRE clinical isolates with various genotypes. Nonduplicate isolates collected from the largest public health hospital in Singapore between 2007 and 2020 were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing (broth microdilution or antibiotic gradient test strips). Susceptibilities were defined using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) or Food and Drug Administration (FDA) interpretative criteria. Sequence types and resistance mechanisms were characterized using short-read whole-genome sequencing. Overall, tigecycline and plazomicin exhibited the highest susceptibility rates (89.6% and 80.8%, respectively). However, the tigecycline susceptibility breakpoint utilized here may be outdated in view of prevailing pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data. Susceptibility varied by carbapenemase genotype; the ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations were equally active (92.3 to 99.2% susceptible) against KPC producers, but only ceftazidime-avibactam retained high susceptibility (98.7%) against OXA-48-like producers. Against metallo-ß-lactamase producers, only plazomicin exhibited moderate activity (77.0% susceptible). Aminoglycoside activity was also influenced by carbapenemase genotypes. This work provides an insight into the comparative activity and presumptive utility of novel agents in this geographic region. IMPORTANCE This study determined the susceptibilities of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales isolates to various novel antimicrobial agents (ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, eravacycline, and plazomicin). Whole-genome sequencing was performed for all strains. Our study findings provide insights into the comparative activities of novel agents in this geographic region. Plazomicin and ceftazidime-avibactam exhibited the lowest nonsusceptibility rates and may be considered promising agents in the management of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infections. We note also that antibiotic activity is influenced by genotypes and that understanding the geographic region's molecular epidemiology could aid in the definition of the presumptive utility of novel agents and contribute to antibiotic decision-making.

A randomized phase 2B trial of vancomycin versus daptomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia due to isolates with high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations - results of a prematurely terminated study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested the reduced effectiveness of vancomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections with high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations. Alternative agents such as daptomycin may be considered. We conducted a randomized controlled study comparing daptomycin against vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA bloodstream infections with high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive vancomycin or daptomycin for a minimum of 14 days. The primary end point was the rate of all-cause mortality at day 60. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients were randomized in this study, with 7 patients in each treatment arm. The study was terminated early due to slow patient accrual. At day 60, there was one death in the vancomycin arm and none in the daptomycin arm. The median time to microbiological clearance was 4 days in both arms (IQR 3-5 days in the vancomycin arm and 3-7 days in daptomycin arm). Only one patient in the vancomycin arm had recurrence of bacteremia. Rates of adverse events were similar in both arms. There was one case of musculoskeletal toxicity and one case of drug-related nephrotoxicity - both events occurred in the daptomycin arm. None of the patients in either treatment arm required cessation of study treatment or addition of a second anti-MRSA agent because of worsening infection. CONCLUSION: Based on the limited number of patients evaluated in this study, it remains unclear if alternative, more expensive agents such as daptomycin are superior to vancomycin in the treatment of high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration MRSA bloodstream infections. More studies are urgently needed but investigators may wish to consider employing novel, alternative trial methodologies to ensure a greater chance of success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01975662 . Registered on 5 November 2013.

From Bench-Top to Bedside: A Prospective In Vitro Antibiotic Combination Testing (iACT) Service to Guide the Selection of Rationally Optimized Antimicrobial Combinations against Extensively Drug Resistant (XDR) Gram Negative Bacteria (GNB).

INTRODUCTION: Combination therapy is increasingly utilized against extensively-drug resistant (XDR) Gram negative bacteria (GNB). However, choosing a combination can be problematic as effective combinations are often strain-specific. An in vitro antibiotic combination testing (iACT) service, aimed to guide the selection of individualized and rationally optimized combination regimens within 48 hours, was developed. We described the role and feasibility of the iACT service in guiding individualized antibiotic combination selection in patients with XDR-GNB infections. METHODS: A retrospective case review was performed in two Singapore hospitals from April 2009-June 2014. All patients with XDR-GNB and antibiotic regimen guided by iACT for clinical management were included. The feasibility and role of the prospective iACT service was evaluated. The following patient outcomes were described: (i) 30-day in-hospital all-cause and infection-related mortality, (ii) clinical response, and (iii) microbiological eradication in patients with bloodstream infections. RESULTS: From 2009-2014, the iACT service was requested by Infectious Disease physicians for 39 cases (20 P. aeruginosa, 13 A. baumannii and 6 K. pneumoniae). Bloodstream infection was the predominant infection (36%), followed by pneumonia (31%). All iACT recommendations were provided within 48h from request for the service. Prior to iACT-guided therapy, most cases were prescribed combination antibiotics empirically (90%). Changes in the empiric antibiotic regimens were recommended in 21 (54%) cases; in 14 (36%) cases, changes were recommended as the empiric regimens were found to be non-bactericidal in vitro. In 7 (18%) cases, the number of antibiotics used in combination empirically was reduced by the iACT service. Overall, low 30-day infection-related mortality (15%) and high clinical response (82%) were observed. Microbiological eradication was observed in 79% of all bloodstream infections. CONCLUSIONS: The iACT service can be feasibly employed to guide the timely selection of rationally optimized combination regimens, and played a role in reducing indiscreet antibiotic use.

Clinical Efficacy of Polymyxin Monotherapy versus Nonvalidated Polymyxin Combination Therapy versus Validated Polymyxin Combination Therapy in Extensively Drug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacillus Infections.

Polymyxins have emerged as a last-resort treatment of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative Bacillus (GNB) infections, which present a growing threat. Individualized polymyxin-based antibiotic combinations selected on the basis of the results of in vitro combination testing may be required to optimize therapy. A retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients receiving polymyxins for XDR GNB infections from 2009 to 2014 was conducted to compare the treatment outcomes between patients receiving polymyxin monotherapy (MT), nonvalidated polymyxin combination therapy (NVCT), and in vitro combination testing-validated polymyxin combination therapy (VCT). The primary and secondary outcomes were infection-related mortality and microbiological eradication, respectively. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) between treatment groups were assessed. A total of 291 patients (patients receiving MT, n = 58; patients receiving NVCT, n = 203; patients receiving VCT, n = 30) were included. The overall infection-related mortality rate was 23.0% (67 patients). In the multivariable analysis, treatment of XDR GNB infections with MT (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 46.05) and NVCT (aOR, 5.75; 95% CI, 1.25 to 25.73) was associated with an increased risk of infection-related mortality compared to that with treatment with VCT. A higher Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.21) and a higher Charlson comorbidity index (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.47) were also independently associated with an increased risk of infection-related mortality. No increase in the incidence of ADRs was observed in the VCT group. The use of an individualized antibiotic combination which was selected on the basis of the results of in vitro combination testing was associated with significantly lower rates of infection-related mortality in patients with XDR GNB infections. Future prospective randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.

Vancomycin versus daptomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia due to isolates with high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations: study protocol for a phase IIB randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is the standard first-line treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. However, recent consensus guidelines recommend that clinicians consider using alternative agents such as daptomycin when the vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration is greater than 1 ug/ml. To date however, there have been no head-to-head randomized trials comparing the safety and efficacy of daptomycin and vancomycin in the treatment of such infections. The primary aim of our study is to compare the efficacy of daptomycin versus vancomycin in the treatment of bloodstream infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates with high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations (greater than or equal to 1.5 ug/ml) in terms of reducing all-cause 60-day mortality. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multicenter prospective open label phase IIB pilot randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants will be inpatients over 21-years-old with a positive blood culture for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration of greater than or equal to 1.5 ug/ml. Randomization into intervention or active control arms will be performed with a 1:1 allocation ratio. We aim to recruit 50 participants over a period of two years. Participants randomized to the active control arm will receive vancomycin dose-while those randomized to the intervention arm will receive daptomycin. Participants will receive a minimum of 14 days study treatment.The primary analysis will be conducted on the intention-to-treat principle. The Fisher's exact test will be used to compare the 60-day mortality rate from index blood cultures (primary endpoint) between the two treatment arms, and the exact two-sided 95% confidence interval will be calculated using the Clopper and Pearson method. Primary analysis will be conducted using a two sided alpha of 0.05. DISCUSSION: If results from this pilot study suggest that daptomycin shows significant efficacy in the treatment of bloodstream infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates with high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations, we aim to proceed with a larger scale confirmatory study. This would help guide clinicians and inform practice guidelines on the optimal treatment for such infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is listed on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01975662, date of registration: 29 October 2013).