Ceftaroline fosamil therapy in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections with systemic inflammatory signs: A retrospective dose comparison across three pivotal trials.

This post-hoc analysis compared the pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12 (q12h) versus every 8 hours (q8h) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSI) and signs of sepsis. Clinical outcomes at test-of-cure in patients with ABSSSI and systemic inflammatory signs/systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as well as ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against baseline pathogens were compared between the COVERS trial (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q8h, 2-h infusion) and the CANVAS 1 and 2 trials (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h, 1-h infusion). Ceftaroline exposure among patients in COVERS with or without markers of sepsis was compared using population pharmacokinetic modelling. In COVERS, 62% (312/506) and 41% (208/506) of ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients had ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS, respectively, compared with 55% (378/693) and 22% (155/693), respectively, in the CANVAS trials. Clinical cure rates for the modified intent-to-treat population in COVERS and CANVAS were similar for ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients with ≥1 sign of sepsis [82% (255/312) and 85% (335/394)] and for those with SIRS [84% (168/199) and 85% (131/155)]. Ceftaroline MIC distributions were similar across trials. Sepsis did not affect predicted individual steady-state ceftaroline exposure. Clinical cure rates in patients with ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS were comparable for both ceftaroline fosamil dosage regimens. Pathogen susceptibilities to ceftaroline were similar across trials. Ceftaroline exposure was not affected by disease severity. Ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h is a robust dosage regimen for most ABSSSI patients with sepsis [ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01499277, NCT00424190, NCT00423657].

Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.

Iclaprim, a diaminopyrimidine antimicrobial, was compared with vancomycin for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two studies (REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2). Here, the efficacy and tolerability of iclaprim in a pooled analysis of results from both studies was explored. REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2 were phase 3, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, active-controlled, non-inferiority (margin of 10%) trials, each designed to enrol 600 patients with ABSSSI using identical study protocols. Iclaprim 80 mg and vancomycin 15 mg/kg were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction from baseline in lesion size [early clinical response (ECR)] at the early time point (ETP) (48-72 h after starting study drug) in the intent-to-treat population. In REVIVE-1, ECR at the ETP was 80.9% with iclaprim versus 81.0% with vancomycin (treatment difference -0.13%, 95% CI -6.42% to 6.17%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 78.3% with iclaprim versus 76.7% with vancomycin (treatment difference 1.58%, 95% CI -5.10% to 8.26%). The pooled ECR was 79.6% with iclaprim versus 78.8% with vancomycin (treatment difference 0.75%, 95% CI -3.84 to 5.35%). Iclaprim and vancomycin were comparable for the incidence of mostly mild adverse events, except for a higher incidence of elevated serum creatinine with vancomycin (n = 7) compared with iclaprim (n = 0). Iclaprim achieved non-inferiority compared with vancomycin for ECR at the ETP and secondary endpoints with a similar safety profile in two phase 3 studies for treatment of ABSSSI suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. [Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02600611 and NCT02607618.].

Assessment of telavancin minimal inhibitory concentrations by revised broth microdilution method in phase 3 complicated skin and skin-structure infection clinical trial isolates.

The broth microdilution (BMD) MIC testing method for telavancin was recently revised BMD (rBMD) to improve accuracy and reproducibility. Staphylococcus aureus isolates from telavancin phase 3 complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI) studies were tested using the rBMD method. Retesting of 1132 isolates produced MICs ranging from ≤0.015 to 0.12µg/mL that were 8-fold lower than the original method. All isolates tested remained susceptible to telavancin at the revised susceptibility breakpoint of 0.12µg/mL. The clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were 90% (368/409) and 89% (366/409) for telavancin-treated patients, and were similar for patients with methicillin-susceptible and -resistant S. aureus isolates and S. aureus isolates with elevated vancomycin MICs (≥1µg/mL). The data presented here are aimed to update the literature and better inform clinicians and clinical microbiologists about the revised telavancin MICs, as well as the corresponding clinical and microbiological cure rates for cSSSI patients.

Pooled analysis of single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens, including a large patient subset with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with bactericidal activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The phase 3 studies SOLO I and SOLO II demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety of a single dose of oritavancin compared with 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs). The present analysis assessed clinical responses by pathogen at 48-72 h and at study days 14-24 in SOLO patients within the pooled data set. Of the 1959 patients in the pooled SOLO studies, 1067 had at least one baseline Gram-positive pathogen and 405 had MRSA. Clinical response rates were similar for oritavancin- and vancomycin-treated patients by pathogen, including Staphylococcus aureus with or without the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (pvl) gene and from different clonal complexes, and were similar for pathogens within each treatment group. Oritavancin exhibited potent in vitro activity against all baseline pathogens, with MIC90 values (minimum inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of the isolates) of 0.12 µg/mL for Staphylococcus aureus, 0.25 µg/mL for Streptococcus pyogenes and 0.06 µg/mL for Enterococcus faecalis. Whereas both oritavancin and vancomycin achieved similarly high rates of clinical response by pathogen, including methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus, oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin to treat ABSSSIs.

Ceftaroline: clinical and microbiology experience with focus on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus after regulatory approval in the USA.

Ceftaroline fosamil was approved in 2010 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USA-FDA) for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). After approval, several studies and case reports have described the postmarketing clinical experience with ceftaroline in ABSSSIs and CABP and in patients with invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, many of whom had failed prior antibiotics. Successful clinical outcomes observed among the majority of these patients were supported by preapproval and postapproval in vitro surveillance of ceftaroline activity using breakpoint criteria that have been harmonized between the USA-FDA and CLSI. MIC90 values/percentage of strains susceptible to ceftaroline has remained stable over the period 2009-2012. Taken together, these postapproval studies support the use of ceftaroline for ABSSSI as well as CABP. Importantly, these data also suggest that ceftaroline can be effective in patients with serious invasive MRSA infections who have failed other therapies.

Telavancin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia: findings from the ATTAIN studies.

Treatment options for hospital-acquired pneumonia caused by Gram-positive organisms are far from ideal. The increase in vancomycin MICs among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates, and the slow bactericidal action and poor lung penetration of vancomycin have driven the search for an alternative agent. Telavancin, a once-daily lipoglycopeptide, displays strong bactericidal activity against S. aureus. Two large Phase III randomized trials have recently compared intravenous telavancin (10 mg/kg every 24 h) with vancomycin (1 g intravenously every 12 h) for 7-21 days for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia caused by Gram positives. No significant differences were observed in the cure rates in the all-treated (n = 1503), the clinically evaluable (n = 654) and the microbiologically evaluable (n =480) populations. Telavancin performed better than vancomycin in patients with monomicrobial S. aureus pneumonia (84.2 vs 74.3%; 95% CI: 0.7-19.1), with MRSA (81.8 vs 74.1%; 95% CI: -3.5 to 19.3), and with strains having vancomycin MICs ≥1 µg/ml (87.1 vs 74.3; 95% CI: 0.5-23). The rate of adverse events, including serious adverse events, was similar in both groups, with a slightly higher rate of serum creatinine increase in the telavancin-treated group. Based on these results, telavancin (already approved for this indication by the EMA) could certainly be added to the current treatment options, particularly in patients with MRSA pneumonia.

Inoculum effect with cefazolin among clinical isolates of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: frequency and possible cause of cefazolin treatment failure.

Methicillin (meticillin)-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) strains producing large amounts of type A beta-lactamase (Bla) have been associated with cefazolin failures, but the frequency and impact of these strains have not been well studied. Here we examined 98 MSSA clinical isolates and found that 26% produced type A Bla, 15% type B, 46% type C, and none type D and that 13% lacked blaZ. The cefazolin MIC(90) was 2 microg/ml for a standard inoculum and 32 microg/ml for a high inoculum, with 19% of isolates displaying a pronounced inoculum effect (MICs of >or=16 microg/ml with 10(7) CFU/ml) (9 type A and 10 type C Bla producers). At the high inoculum, type A producers displayed higher cefazolin MICs than type B or C producers, while type B and C producers displayed higher cefamandole MICs. Among isolates from hemodialysis patients with MSSA bacteremia, three from the six patients who experienced cefazolin failure showed a cefazolin inoculum effect, while none from the six patients successfully treated with cefazolin showed an inoculum effect, suggesting an association between these strains and cefazolin failure (P = 0.09 by Fisher's exact test). In summary, 19% of MSSA clinical isolates showed a pronounced inoculum effect with cefazolin, a phenomenon that could explain the cases of cefazolin failure previously reported for hemodialysis patients with MSSA bacteremia. These results suggest that for serious MSSA infections, the presence of a significant inoculum effect with cefazolin could be associated with clinical failure in patients treated with this cephalosporin, particularly when it is used at low doses.

Daptomycin versus vancomycin plus gentamicin for treatment of bacteraemia and endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus: subset analysis of patients infected with methicillin-resistant isolates.

OBJECTIVES: In a prospective, randomized trial, daptomycin was non-inferior to standard therapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and right-sided endocarditis. Since rates of infection due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infection are increasing and treatment outcomes for bacteraemia caused by MRSA are generally worse than those observed with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteraemia, clinical characteristics and treatment results in the trial's pre-specified subset of patients with MRSA were analysed. METHODS: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving daptomycin were compared with those receiving vancomycin plus low-dose gentamicin. Success was defined as clinical improvement with clearance of bacteraemia among patients who completed adequate therapy, received no potentially effective non-study antibiotics and had negative blood cultures 6 weeks after end of therapy. RESULTS: Twenty of the 45 (44.4%) daptomycin patients and 14 of the 43 (32.6%) vancomycin/gentamicin patients were successfully treated (difference 11.9%; confidence interval -8.3 to 32.1). Success rates for daptomycin versus vancomycin/gentamicin were 45% versus 27% in complicated bacteraemia, 60% versus 45% in uncomplicated bacteraemia and 50% versus 50% in right-sided MRSA endocarditis. Cure rates in patients with septic emboli and in patients who received pre-enrolment vancomycin were similar between treatment groups. However, in both treatment groups, success rates were lower in the elderly (>/=75 years). Persisting or relapsing bacteraemia occurred in 27% of daptomycin and 21% of vancomycin/gentamicin patients; among these patients, MICs of >/=2 mg/L occurred in five daptomycin and four vancomycin/gentamicin patients. The clinical course of several patients may have been influenced by lack of surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin was an effective alternative to vancomycin/gentamicin for MRSA bacteraemia or right-sided endocarditis.

Use of vancomycin or first-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of hemodialysis-dependent patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Because of its ease of dosing, vancomycin is commonly used to treat methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Clinical outcomes resulting from such a therapeutic strategy have not been well defined. METHODS: We prospectively identified patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis who received a diagnosis of MSSA bacteremia. Clinical outcomes were grouped according to the predominant antibiotic received during their therapy (vancomycin or a first-generation cephalosporin [cefazolin]). Treatment failure (defined as death or recurrent infection) was determined at 12 weeks after the initial positive blood culture results. A multivariable analysis was used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: During an 84-month period, 123 hemodialysis-dependent patients with MSSA bacteremia were identified. Patients receiving vancomycin (n=77) tended to be younger (51 vs. 57 years; P=.06) and had a lower rates of metastatic complications at presentation (11.7% vs. 36.7%; P=.001) than did those receiving cefazolin (n=46). The 2 groups were similar with regard to Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, comorbidities, source of infection, type of hemodialysis access, and access removal rates. Treatment failure was more common among patients receiving vancomycin (31.2% vs. 13%; P=.02). In the multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with treatment failure included vancomycin use (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-13.45) and retention of the hemodialysis access (odds ratio, 4.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-13.76). CONCLUSIONS: Hemodialysis-dependent patients with MSSA bacteremia treated with vancomycin are at a higher risk of experiencing treatment failure than are those receiving cefazolin. In the absence of patient specific circumstances (e.g., allergy to beta-lactams), vancomycin should not be continued beyond empirical therapy for hemodialysis-dependent patients with MSSA bacteremia.

Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Alternative therapies for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis are needed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 124 patients with S. aureus bacteremia with or without endocarditis to receive 6 mg of daptomycin intravenously per kilogram of body weight daily and 122 to receive initial low-dose gentamicin plus either an antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success 42 days after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Forty-two days after the end of therapy in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a successful outcome was documented for 53 of 120 patients who received daptomycin as compared with 48 of 115 patients who received standard therapy (44.2 percent vs. 41.7 percent; absolute difference, 2.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.2 to 15.1 percent). Our results met prespecified criteria for the noninferiority of daptomycin. The success rates were similar in subgroups of patients with complicated bacteremia, right-sided endocarditis, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Daptomycin therapy was associated with a higher rate of microbiologic failure than was standard therapy (19 vs. 11 patients, P=0.17). In 6 of the 19 patients with microbiologic failure in the daptomycin group, isolates with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin emerged; similarly, a reduced susceptibility to vancomycin was noted in isolates from patients treated with vancomycin. As compared with daptomycin therapy, standard therapy was associated with a nonsignificantly higher rate of adverse events that led to treatment failure due to the discontinuation of therapy (17 vs. 8, P=0.06). Clinically significant renal dysfunction occurred in 11.0 percent of patients who received daptomycin and in 26.3 percent of patients who received standard therapy (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin (6 mg per kilogram daily) is not inferior to standard therapy for S. aureus bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00093067 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).