Bedaquiline safety, efficacy, utilization and emergence of resistance following treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients in South Africa: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study assessed benefits and risks of bedaquiline treatment in multidrug-resistant-tuberculosis (MDR-TB) combination therapy by evaluating safety, effectiveness, drug utilization and emergence of resistance to bedaquiline. METHODS: Data were extracted from a register of South African drug-resistant-tuberculosis (DR-TB) patients (Electronic DR-TB Register [EDRWeb]) for newly diagnosed patients with MDR-TB (including pre-extensively drug-resistant [XDR]-TB and XDR-TB and excluding rifampicin-mono-resistant [RR]-TB, as these patients are by definition not multidrug-resistant), receiving either a bedaquiline-containing or non-bedaquiline-containing regimen, at 14 sites in South Africa. Total duration of treatment and follow-up was up to 30 months, including 6 months' bedaquiline treatment. WHO treatment outcomes within 6 months after end-of-treatment were assessed in both patient groups. Longer term mortality (up to 30 months from treatment start) was evaluated through matching to the South African National Vital Statistics Register. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to predict association between receiving a bedaquiline-containing regimen and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Data were extracted from EDRWeb for 5981 MDR-TB patients (N = 3747 bedaquiline-treated; N = 2234 non-bedaquiline-treated) who initiated treatment between 2015 and 2017, of whom 40.7% versus 80.6% had MDR-TB. More bedaquiline-treated than non-bedaquiline-treated patients had pre-XDR-TB (27.7% versus 9.5%) and XDR-TB (31.5% versus 9.9%) per pre-2021 WHO definitions. Most patients with treatment duration data (94.3%) received bedaquiline for 6 months. Treatment success (per pre-2021 WHO definitions) was achieved in 66.9% of bedaquiline-treated and 49.4% of non-bedaquiline-treated patients. Death was reported in fewer bedaquiline-treated (15.4%) than non-bedaquiline-treated (25.6%) patients. Bedaquiline-treated patients had increased likelihood of treatment success and decreased risk of mortality versus non-bedaquiline-treated patients. In patients with evaluable drug susceptibility testing data, 3.5% of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates at baseline acquired phenotypic resistance. Few patients reported bedaquiline-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (1.8%), TEAE-related bedaquiline discontinuations (1.4%) and QTcF values > 500 ms (2.5%) during treatment. CONCLUSION: Data from this large cohort of South African patients with MDR-TB showed treatment with bedaquiline-containing regimens was associated with survival and effectiveness benefit compared with non-bedaquiline-containing regimens. No new safety signals were detected. These data are consistent with the positive risk-benefit profile of bedaquiline and warrant continued implementation in combination therapy for MDR-TB treatment.

Defining Bedaquiline Susceptibility, Resistance, Cross-Resistance and Associated Genetic Determinants: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Bedaquiline (BDQ) is a novel agent approved for use in combination treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). We sought to determine BDQ epidemiological cut-off values (ECVs), define and assess interpretive criteria against putative resistance associated variants (RAVs), microbiological outcomes and cross resistance with clofazimine (CFZ). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to BDQ were determined using 7H9 broth microdilution (BMD) and MGIT960. RAVs were genetically characterised using whole genome sequencing. BDQ ECVs were determined using ECOFFinder and compared with 6-month culture conversion status and CFZ MICs. FINDINGS: A total of 391 isolates were analysed. Susceptible and intermediate categories were determined to have MICs of ≤0.125µg/ml and 0.25µg/ml using BMD and ≤1µg/ml and 2µg/ml using MGIT960 respectively. Microbiological failures occurred among BDQ exposed patients with a non-susceptible BDQ MIC, an Rv0678 mutation and ≤2 active drug classes. The Rv0678 RAVs were not the dominant mechanism of CFZ resistance and cross resistance was limited to isolates with an Rv0678 mutation. INTERPRETATION: Criteria for BDQ susceptibility are defined and will facilitate improved early detection of resistance. Cross- resistance between BDQ and CFZ is an emerging concern but in this study was primarily among those with an Rv0678 mutation.

Worldwide experience with the use of doripenem against extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing and ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: analysis of six phase 3 clinical studies.

The worldwide increase in fluoroquinolone-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae pathogens has led to doripenem and other carbapenems assuming a greater role in the treatment of serious infections. We analyzed data from 6 phase 3 multinational doripenem clinical trials on ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolates consisting of all genera (CIPRE) and ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates consisting of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Proteus spp. with ceftazidime MICs of >or=2 microg/ml (ESBLE) for prevalence by geographic region and disease type, in vitro activities of doripenem and comparator agents, and clinical or microbiologic outcomes in doripenem- and comparator-treated patients across disease types (complicated intra-abdominal infection [cIAI], complicated urinary tract infection [cUTI], and nosocomial pneumonia [NP]). Of 1,830 baseline Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 88 (4.8%) were ESBLE and 238 (13.0%) were CIPRE. The incidence of ESBLE was greatest in Europe (7.8%); that of CIPRE was higher in South America (15.9%) and Europe (14.4%). ESBLE incidence was highest in NP (12.9%) cases; that of CIPRE was higher in cUTI (18.3%) and NP (14.9%) cases. Against ESBLE and CIPRE, carbapenems appeared more active than other antibiotic classes. Among carbapenems, doripenem and meropenem were most potent. Doripenem had low MIC(90)s for CIPRE (0.5 microg/ml) and ESBLE (0.25 microg/ml). Doripenem and comparators were highly clinically effective in infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae, irrespective of their ESBL statuses. The overall cure rates were the same for doripenem (82%; 564/685) and the comparators (82%; 535/652) and similar for ESBLE (73% [16/22] versus 72% [21/29]) and CIPRE (68% [47/69] versus 52% [33/64]). These findings indicate that doripenem is an important therapeutic option for treating serious infections caused by ESBLE and CIPRE.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of doripenem versus imipenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter, randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: Doripenem is an investigational carbapenem with broad-spectrum activity against gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens, including multidrug-resistant strains, commonly responsible for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This large, phase III study compared doripenem with imipenem for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, parallel randomized, active-controlled, open-label study. SETTING: Intensive care units. PATIENTS: Adults (N = 531) who met clinical and radiologic criteria for ventilator-associated pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were stratified by duration of mechanical ventilation (< 5 vs. > or = 5 days), severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score < or = 15 vs. > 15), and geographic region and then randomly assigned to doripenem 500 mg every 8 hrs via a 4-hr intravenous infusion or imipenem 500 mg every 6 hrs or 1000 mg every 8 hrs via 30- or 60-min intravenous infusions, respectively, for 7-14 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary efficacy end points were the clinical cure rates in the clinical modified intent-to-treat (cMITT) and clinically evaluable populations. Doripenem was noninferior to imipenem (lower boundary of 95% confidence interval around the difference between treatments > or = -20%). Clinical cure rates were 68.3% (doripenem) and 64.2% (imipenem) in the clinically evaluable and 59.0% (doripenem) and 57.8% (imipenem) in the cMITT populations. In patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinical cure was 80.0% (doripenem) and 42.9% (imipenem) (p not significant); microbiological cure was 65.0% (doripenem) and 37.5% (imipenem). Only 18% (5 of 28) of P. aeruginosa isolates had minimum inhibitory concentration > or = 8 microg/mL at baseline or following therapy in the doripenem arm compared with 64% (16 of 25) in the imipenem treatment group (p = .001). Clinical cure rate was higher with doripenem than imipenem at higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores and older ages. Doripenem was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, phase III study of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia, a 4-hr intravenous infusion of doripenem was clinically efficacious and therapeutically noninferior to imipenem.

Efficacy of telavancin (TD-6424), a rapidly bactericidal lipoglycopeptide with multiple mechanisms of action, in a murine model of pneumonia induced by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

The efficacy of telavancin, a bactericidal lipoglycopeptide, was compared to that of vancomycin and linezolid against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a murine pneumonia model. Telavancin produced greater reductions in lung bacterial titer and mortality than did vancomycin and linezolid at human doses equivalent to those described by the area under the concentration-time curve. These results suggest the potential utility of telavancin for treatment of MRSA pneumonia.