Clinical and microbiological outcomes, by causative pathogen, in the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled, Phase 3 trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: In the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated. METHODS: Mechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7-14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population. RESULTS: The mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: -4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: -18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: -4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

Systematic review on the first line treatment of amphotericin B in critically ill adults with candidemia or invasive candidiasis.

INTRODUCTION: Invasive candidiasis is the most common fungal infection affecting critically ill adults. International guidelines provide differing recommendations for first-line antifungal therapy, with echinocandins considered first-line in the majority. Amphotericin B has broad activity and low minimum inhibitory concentration resistance patterns across most Candida species and guidance away from its use should be supported by the available evidence. Areas Covered: A systematic literature review was conducted from August to September 2017 to determine whether treatment with echinocandins or other available drugs, namely voriconazole, confers a therapeutic or survival benefit over amphotericin B in critically ill adults with invasive candidiasis. Inclusion criteria were: (1) studies describing critically ill adults with invasive candidiasis, (2) studies describing therapeutic benefit or survival as an outcome, and (3) studies comparing amphotericin B, deoxycholate or lipid preparations, with any newer antifungal agent. Eight studies were included in the final review, incorporating 2352 unique patients. No difference in treatment efficacy or mortality outcomes in critically ill patients with invasive candidiasis receiving an amphotericin B formulation compared with those receiving an echinocandin or voriconazole was shown. Expert Commentary: We conclude that in the existing literature, there is no evidence that choice between echinocandins, voriconazole, or amphotericin B formulations as first-line therapy for critically ill adults with invasive candidiasis is associated with a therapeutic or survival benefit. Clinicians must therefore consider other factors in the selection of first-line therapy.

Meropenem population pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients with septic shock and continuous renal replacement therapy: influence of residual diuresis on dose requirements.

Meropenem dosing in critically ill patients with septic shock and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is complex, with the recommended maintenance doses being 500 mg to 1,000 mg every 8 h (q8h) to every 12 h. This multicenter study aimed to describe the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of meropenem in this population to identify the sources of PK variability and to evaluate different dosing regimens to develop recommendations based on clinical parameters. Thirty patients with septic shock and CRRT receiving meropenem were enrolled (153 plasma samples were tested). A population PK model was developed with data from 24 patients and subsequently validated with data from 6 patients using NONMEM software (v.7.3). The final model was characterized by CL = 3.68 + 0.22 · (residual diuresis/100) and V = 33.00 · (weight/73)(2.07), where CL is total body clearance (in liters per hour), residual diuresis is the volume of residual diuresis (in milliliters per 24 h), and V is the apparent volume of distribution (in liters). CRRT intensity was not identified to be a CL modifier. Monte Carlo simulations showed that to maintain concentrations of the unbound fraction (fu ) of drug above the MIC of the bacteria for 40% of dosing interval T (referred to as 40% of the ƒ uT >MIC), a meropenem dose of 500 mg q8h as a bolus over 30 min would be sufficient regardless of the residual diuresis. If 100% of the ƒ uT >MIC was chosen as the target, oligoanuric patients would require 500 mg q8h as a bolus over 30 min for the treatment of susceptible bacteria (MIC < 2 mg/liter), while patients with preserved diuresis would require the same dose given as an infusion over 3 h. If bacteria with MICs close to the resistance breakpoint (2 to 4 mg/liter) were to be treated with meropenem, a dose of 500 mg every 6 h would be necessary: a bolus over 30 min for oligoanuric patients and an infusion over 3 h for patients with preserved diuresis. Our results suggest that residual diuresis may be an easy and inexpensive tool to help with titration of the meropenem dose and infusion time in this challenging population.