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.].

Clostridium difficile: biological therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Biological therapies for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) include probiotics and faecal microbiota transplant (FMT). There is significant interest in their use in treating refractory/recurrent CDI. This review summarizes the latest evidence for these approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: The small number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using probiotics in CDI have produced variable results; the most recent showed no benefit in preventing disease. However, several meta-analyses published in the last year have suggested benefit in their use, but these conclusions are limited by the poor quality of many of the primary studies, and lack of standardization of the probiotic administered. In contrast, FMT appears highly effective for the treatment of CDI. In the only published RCT, the cure rate was 81%, which is close to the rate shown by meta-analyses of previous case series. The use of artificially produced bacterial mixtures in place of faecal samples is now under investigation. SUMMARY: Biological therapies for CDI, especially FMT, will continue to attract attention. Further, large-scale RCTs are required to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from these therapies in the future.

Antimicrobial activity of LFF571 and three treatment agents against Clostridium difficile isolates collected for a pan-European survey in 2008: clinical and therapeutic implications.

OBJECTIVES: In November 2008, a study was performed with support from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to obtain an overview of Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) in European hospitals. A collection of 398 C. difficile isolates obtained from this hospital-based survey was utilized to identify antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of common C. difficile PCR ribotypes across Europe. METHODS: The MICs of three approved therapeutic agents (vancomycin, metronidazole and fidaxomicin) and LFF571 (a novel semi-synthetic thiopeptide antibiotic) were determined by the agar dilution method. RESULTS: MICs of fidaxomicin and LFF571 were in general 2-4-fold lower than those of vancomycin and metronidazole. Isolates belonging to clade 2, including the hypervirulent ribotype 027, had one-dilution higher MIC50 and MIC90 values for fidaxomicin and metronidazole, whereas similar MIC values were observed for vancomycin and LFF571. Isolates belonging to C. difficile PCR ribotype 001 were more susceptible to fidaxomicin than other frequently found PCR ribotypes 014/020 and 078. Six isolates from three different countries had a metronidazole MIC of 2 mg/L. Four of the six isolates were characterized as PCR ribotype 001. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of in vitro resistance of C. difficile to any of the four agents tested. However, the results suggest type-specific differences in susceptibility for the treatment agents we investigated. Continuous surveillance of C. difficile isolates in Europe is needed to determine the possible clinical implications of ribotype-specific changes in susceptibility to therapeutic agents.

Evaluation of NVB302 versus vancomycin activity in an in vitro human gut model of Clostridium difficile infection.

OBJECTIVES: First-line treatment options for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are limited. NVB302 is a novel type B lantibiotic under evaluation for the treatment of CDI. We compared the responses to NVB302 and vancomycin when used to treat simulated CDI in an in vitro gut model. METHODS: We used ceftriaxone to elicit simulated CDI in an in vitro gut model primed with human faeces. Vancomycin and NVB302 were instilled into separate gut models and the indigenous gut microbiota and C. difficile total viable counts, spores and toxin levels were monitored throughout. RESULTS: Ceftriaxone instillation promoted C. difficile germination and high-level toxin production. Commencement of NVB302 and vancomycin instillation reduced C. difficile total viable counts rapidly with only C. difficile spores remaining within 3 and 4 days, respectively. Cytotoxin was reduced to undetectable levels 5 and 7 days after vancomycin and NVB302 instillation commenced in vessel 2 and 3, respectively, and remained undetectable for the remainder of the experiments. C. difficile spores were unaffected by the presence of vancomycin or NVB302. NVB302 treatment was associated with faster resolution of Bacteroides fragilis group. CONCLUSIONS: Both NVB302 and vancomycin were effective in treating simulated CDI in an in vitro gut model. C. difficile spore recrudescence was not observed following successful treatment with either NVB302 or vancomycin. NVB302 displayed non-inferiority to vancomycin in the treatment of simulated CDI, and had less deleterious effects against B. fragilis group. NVB302 warrants further clinical investigation as a potentially novel antimicrobial agent for the treatment of CDI.

Evaluation of linezolid for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection caused by epidemic strains using an in vitro human gut model.

OBJECTIVES: Therapeutic options in Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are limited. We examined linezolid activity in vitro and potential therapeutic efficacy using a gut model of CDI. METHODS: MICs were determined by agar incorporation for 118 diverse C. difficile faecal isolates, including epidemic strains and strains with reduced susceptibility to metronidazole. CDI was established in two gut model experiments using C. difficile epidemic strains (ribotypes 027 and 106) and linezolid was dosed to achieve human gut concentrations. RESULTS: Linezolid demonstrated good in vitro activity against 98% of the isolates. Two isolates (PCR ribotypes 023 and 067) demonstrated resistance to linezolid, although supplementary susceptibility testing of ribotype 023 isolates did not detect further resistance. In a gut model that simulates CDI, linezolid reduced the duration of cytotoxin production by C. difficile PCR ribotype 027 without influencing viable counts of vegetative forms of the organism. C. difficile PCR ribotype 106 viable counts declined at a faster rate than those of PCR ribotype 027 following dosing with linezolid, but cytotoxin titres declined at a similar rate to an untreated control. Gut flora perturbation occurring on linezolid exposure reversed after drug cessation. Recrudescence of spore germination with subsequent cytotoxin was seen with the C. difficile ribotype 106 strain. Resistance to linezolid was not detected either during linezolid instillation or post-dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid may reduce toxin levels, as reported in staphylococci and streptococci. Further evaluation is warranted of the effect of linezolid on expression of C. difficile toxin, and to investigate potential recurrence of CDI following cessation of linezolid.

Tolevamer is not efficacious in the neutralization of cytotoxin in a human gut model of Clostridium difficile infection.

The efficacy of tolevamer, a nonantimicrobial styrene derivative toxin-binding agent, in treating simulated Clostridium difficile infection in an in vitro human gut model was investigated. Tolevamer reduced neither the duration nor magnitude of cytotoxin activity by C. difficile, reflecting poor efficacy observed in recent phase III clinical trials.