A randomized non-inferiority study comparing imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam with standard-of-care Gram-negative coverage in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overuse leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance that threatens immunocompromised cancer patients. Infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens are difficult to treat and associated with high mortality. Hence, empirical therapy with standard-of-care (SOC) antibiotics could be suboptimal in these vulnerable patients. New antibiotics covering potential resistant pathogens may be considered. METHODS: We conducted a randomized non-inferiority study comparing safety and efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IPM/REL), a ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combination, with SOC antibiotics (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem) in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients received at least 48 h of IV antibiotics and were assessed at end-of-IV (EOIV) therapy, test of cure (TOC; Days 21-28), and late follow-up (LFU; Days 35-42). RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were enrolled (49 IPM/REL and 50 SOC). Demographics and rates of documented microbiological infections were similar in both groups. In the SOC arm, 86% of antibiotics consisted of cefepime. Patients on IPM/REL had a higher favourable clinical response at EOIV than those on SOC (90% versus 74%; P = 0.042); however, responses were similar at TOC and LFU. Microbiological eradication was comparable at all three timepoints. Study drug-related adverse events and adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were similar in both groups, with no study drug-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that compared with SOC antibiotics, predominantly cefepime, IPM/REL for empirical coverage of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients is generally safe and could be associated with a better clinical outcome at EOIV. The current SOC consisting mainly of agents that do not cover for ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales bacteria should be reconsidered.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam in Children with Confirmed or Suspected Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: A Phase 1b, Open-Label, Single-Dose Clinical Trial.

Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is approved for the treatment of serious gram-negative bacterial infections in adults. This study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of a single dose of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (with a fixed 2:1 ratio of imipenem/cilastatin to relebactam, and with a maximum dose of 15 mg/kg imipenem and 15 mg/kg cilastatin [≤500 mg imipenem and ≤500 mg cilastatin] and 7.5 mg/kg relebactam [≤250 mg relebactam]) in children with confirmed/suspected gram-negative bacterial infections receiving standard-of-care antibacterial therapy. In this phase 1, noncomparative study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03230916), PK parameters from 46 children were analyzed using both population modeling and noncompartmental analysis. The PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) target for imipenem was percent time of the dosing interval that unbound plasma concentration exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT>MIC) of ≥30% (MIC = 2 mcg/mL). For relebactam, the PK/PD target was a free drug area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) normalized to MIC (at 2 mcg/mL) of ≥8.0 (equivalent to an AUC from time zero extrapolated to infinity of ≥20.52 mcg·h/mL). Safety was assessed up to 14 days after drug infusion. For imipenem, the ranges for the geometric mean %fT>MIC and maximum concentration (Cmax ) across age cohorts were 56.5%-93.7% and 32.2-38.2 mcg/mL, respectively. For relebactam, the ranges of the geometric mean Cmax and AUC from 0 to 6 hours across age cohorts were 16.9-21.3 mcg/mL and 26.1-55.3 mcg·h/mL, respectively. In total, 8/46 (17%) children experienced ≥1 adverse events (AEs) and 2/46 (4%) children experienced nonserious AEs that were deemed drug related by the investigator. Imipenem and relebactam exceeded plasma PK/PD targets; single doses of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam were well tolerated with no significant safety concerns identified. These results informed imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam dose selection for further pediatric clinical evaluation.

Effectiveness and Safety of Intra-arterial Imipenem/Cilastatin Sodium Infusion for Patients with Hand Osteoarthritis-Related Interphalangeal Joint Pain.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intra-arterial imipenem/cilastatin sodium (IPM/CS) infusion for painful interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with interphalangeal joint OA who underwent intra-arterial IPM/CS infusion were retrospectively evaluated. Intra-arterial infusions were performed via percutaneous wrist arterial access. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA), and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale scores were assessed at intervals of 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Clinical success was evaluated based on PGIC. RESULTS: All patients were followed up for at least 6 months after treatment. Of them, 30 and 6 patients were followed up for 12 and 18 months, respectively. No severe or life-threatening adverse events were encountered. The mean NRS score was 6.0 ± 1.4 at baseline, which significantly decreased to 2.8 ± 1.4, 2.2 ± 1.9, and 2.4 ± 1.9 at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment, respectively (all P < .001). The mean NRS scores were 2.8 ± 1.7 and 2.9 ± 1.9 at 12 and 18 months, respectively, in the remaining patients. The mean FIHOA score significantly decreased from 9.8 ± 5.0 at the baseline to 4.1 ± 3.5 at 3 months (P < .001). The mean FIHOA score was 4.5 ± 3.3 at 12 months in the remaining 30 patients. The clinical success rates based on PGIC at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months were 62.1%, 77.6%, 70.7%, 63.4%, and 50.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-arterial IPM/CS infusion is a potential treatment option for interphalangeal joint OA refractory to medical management.

Imipenem cilastatin sodium-associated thrombocytopenia in an older patient: A case report and literature review.

Imipenem cilastatin sodium, as a member of a new generation of ß-lactam antibiotics, has a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity and a very wide range of application. Thrombocytopenia has been reported as a rare adverse event in several studies of patients treated with imipenem cilastatin sodium. In this study, we present a case of thrombocytopenia associated with imipenem cilastatin sodium in an older patient. The 78-year-old male patient with pulmonary infection was initiated on anti-infection therapy with imipenem cilastatin sodium. On the 9th day after imipenem cilastatin sodium administration, the patient experienced a sudden and dramatic decrease in platelet count. Similarly, on the 4th day after the re-administration of imipenem cilastatin sodium for anti-infection therapy, the patient's platelet count showed a remarkable downward trend again. A time correlation between the drug therapy and the occurrence of platelet reaction was found. The patient's platelet count gradually returned to the normal level on the 6th day after the first drug withdrawal and the 13th day after the second drug withdrawal, respectively. Considering the widespread use of imipenem cilastatin sodium, healthcare providers should improve the notification of thrombocytopenia associated with imipenem cilastatin sodium.

Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam: A new carbapenem ß-lactamase inhibitor combination.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antimicrobial activity, efficacy, safety, and current regulatory status of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam are reviewed. SUMMARY: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is a newly approved anti-infective combination of a well-established ß-lactam and a new ß-lactamase inhibitor for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including pyelonephritis, and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) caused by susceptible gram-negative bacteria in patients 18 years of age or older with limited or no alternative treatment options. The antibiotic is also indicated for the treatment of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). The antibiotic is active in vitro against a wide range of pathogens, including multidrug-resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) such as Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase. The addition of relebactam does not restore the activity of imipenem against metallo-ß-lactamase (MBL)-producing Enterobacterales and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Two phase 3 clinical trials of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam were conducted. In the RESTORE-IMI 1 trial, the efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was found to be comparable to that of imipenem/cilastatin plus colistin for the treatment of infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative bacteria in patients with HABP/VABP, cUTIs, and cIAIs, with a significantly lower incidence of nephrotoxicity reported with the new antibiotic. The RESTORE-IMI 2 trial demonstrated the noninferiority of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam to piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of HABP/VABP. Commonly reported adverse events in clinical trials included anemia, elevated liver enzymes, electrolyte imbalances, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, fever, phlebitis and/or infusion-site reactions, and hypertension. CONCLUSION: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is a new ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against MDR gram-negative bacteria, including many CRE but excluding MBL-producing Enterobacterales and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. It is approved for the treatment of cUTIs, cIAIs, and HABP/VABP.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study).

BACKGROUND: Imipenem combined with the ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7-14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. RESULTS: Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02493764.

A Single- and Multiple-Dose Study To Characterize the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Imipenem and Relebactam in Healthy Chinese Participants.

Relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin is approved in the United States to treat complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections in patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP)/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). Initial pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability studies of relebactam with and without imipenem/cilastatin included mostly Caucasian participants. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin in 12 healthy Chinese participants after three single doses of increasing concentrations (relebactam at 125, 250, or 500 mg; cilastatin at 250, 500, or 1,000 mg; and imipenem at 250, 500, or 1,000 mg) and after multiple doses every 6 h of a single concentration (relebactam at 250 mg, cilastatin at 500 mg, and imipenem at 500 mg) for 14 days. After single doses, the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) extrapolated to infinity (relebactam, 15.0 to 70.7 h · mg/liter; imipenem, 24.1 to 109.8 h · mg/liter; cilastatin, 18.4 to 95.3 h · mg/liter) and the AUC from 0 to 6 h (relebactam, 14.2 to 66.3 h · mg/liter; imipenem, 23.4 to 107.3 h · mg/liter; cilastatin, 18.3 to 94.4 h · mg/liter) increased in a dose-dependent manner; clearance (relebactam, 6.9 to 8.3 liters/h; imipenem, 8.6 to 10.4 liters/h; cilastatin, 10.5 to 13.6 liters/h) and half-life (relebactam, 1.4 to 1.6 h; imipenem, 1.0 to 1.2 h; cilastatin, 0.7 to 1.0 h) were consistent between doses. Pharmacokinetic parameters after multiple doses were similar to parameters after a single dose (geometric mean ratios of 0.8 to 1.0 for all three agents). Relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin was well tolerated; mild adverse events occurred during single dosing, and one participant experienced serious adverse events after multiple doses. Pharmacokinetics and safety data are comparable with data from participants of other ethnicities, supporting the use of relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin at the approved dose and schedule in Chinese patients.

The safety and efficacy of relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin in Japanese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection or complicated urinary tract infection: A multicenter, open-label, noncomparative phase 3 study.

INTRODUCTION: Relebactam, a novel class A/C ß-lactamase inhibitor developed as a fixed-dose combination with imipenem/cilastatin, restores imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, open-label, noncomparative study (NCT03293485) evaluated relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin (250 mg/500 mg/500 mg) dosed every 6 h for 5-14 days in Japanese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) or complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including those with secondary sepsis. Sepsis was defined as an infection-induced systemic inflammatory response syndrome, with a documented positive blood culture; patients meeting these protocol-defined criteria were evaluated for efficacy against sepsis. RESULTS: Of 83 patients enrolled, 81 patients (cIAI, n = 37; cUTI, n = 44) received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Escherichia coli was the most common baseline pathogen isolated in both patients with cIAI and cUTI. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 74.1% (n = 60/81) of patients, and drug-related AEs occurred in 18.5% (n = 15/81). The most common AEs were diarrhea and nausea (8.6%). Serious AEs occurred in nine patients, including one death, but none were considered treatment related. The primary efficacy endpoint for patients with cIAI was clinical response at end of treatment (EOT) in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population, and for patients with cUTI was microbiological response at EOT in the ME population. The proportion of cIAI and cUTI patients achieving favorable responses were 85.7% (n = 24/28) and 100.0% (n = 39/39), respectively. All patients with sepsis (cIAI, n = 1; cUTI, n = 5) achieved a favorable composite clinical and microbiological response at EOT. CONCLUSIONS: A favorable safety and efficacy profile for relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin was observed in Japanese patients with cIAI and cUTI.

Impact of renal impairment and human organic anion transporter inhibition on pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of relebactam combined with imipenem and cilastatin.

AIMS: Two phase 1, open-label studies were conducted to investigate the effect of renal impairment (RI) and organic anion transporter (OAT) inhibition on pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of relebactam (REL) plus imipenem/cilastatin (IMI). METHODS: Study PN005 evaluated the PK of REL (125 mg) plus IMI (250 mg) in participants with RI vs healthy controls. Study PN019 evaluated the PK of REL (250 mg) and imipenem (500 mg; dosed as IMI) with/without probenecid (1 g; OAT inhibitor) in healthy adults. RESULTS: Geometric mean ratios (RI/healthy matched controls) of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞ ; 90% confidence interval) for REL, imipenem and cilastatin increased as RI increased from mild (1.6 [1.1, 2.4], 1.4 [1.1, 1.8] and 1.6 [1.0, 2.5], respectively) to severe (4.9 [3.4, 7.0], 2.5 [1.9, 3.3] and 5.6 [3.6, 8.6], respectively). For all 3 analytes, plasma and renal clearance decreased and corresponding plasma apparent terminal half-life increased with increasing RI. Geometric mean ratios ([probenecid+IMI/REL]/[IMI/REL]) of plasma exposure for REL and imipenem were 1.24 (1.19, 1.28) and 1.16 (1.13, 1.20), respectively. The dose fraction excreted (fe) in the urine decreased progressively from mild to severe RI. Probenecid reduced renal clearance of REL and imipenem by 25 and 31%, respectively. Compared with IMI/REL, coadministration of IMI/REL with probenecid yielded lower fe for REL and imipenem. In both studies, treatment was well tolerated; there were no serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: RI increased plasma exposure and similarly decreased clearance of REL, imipenem and cilastatin; IMI/REL dose adjustment (fixed-ratio) will be required for patients with RI. Probenecid had no clinically meaningful impact on the PK of REL or imipenem.

A novel analytical method to assess the effect of imipenem/cilastatin on liver function laboratory indexes in Chinese underage inpatients: Probability distribution curve.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to establish a novel method to assess the effect of imipenem/cilastatin (IMP) on liver function laboratory indexes in Chinese underage inpatients (inpatients aged <18 year-old). METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in 188 underage inpatients who received IMP in Xiangya Hospital from January 2016 to April 2018. Demographic data and clinical information of these inpatients were collected. As there was no reference interval of minors, the occurrence of abnormal liver function was estimated by that of adults, temporarily. A new concept (mean-variance induced by drug, MVID) was introduced to analyze the characteristics of total bilirubin (TBil), direct bilirubin (DBil), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). Effect of MVID of TBil, DBil, ALT and AST in different patients (aged<1 year old and aged ≥ 1 year old) were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Estimating by reference intervals of adults, 57.4% underage inpatients (108/188) had abnormal liver function. According to the probability distribution curve of MVID, IMP can cause the increase of AST in 24% (0.62-0.38) Chinese underage inpatients, and the increase of ALT in 20% (0.60-0.40) Chinese underage inpatients. And liver protecting drugs can decrease MVID of ALT and AST. There were not statistically significant differences in MVID of TBil, DBil, ALT and AST in different patients (aged<1 year old and aged ≥ 1 year old); P value was 0.711, 0.734, 0.067 and 0.086, respectively. CONCLUSION: IMP can affect the liver function of 20-24% Chinese underage inpatients mainly by increasing the AST and ALT. IMP may induce hepatocellular injury, but not cholestasis. And liver protecting drugs can reverse the side effects caused by IMP. Age may not affect the effect of IMP on liver function.

Co-administration of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam is associated with increased renal dysfunction in adult and pediatric burn patients.

BACKGROUND: Burn patients are prone to infections which often necessitate broad antibiotic coverage. Vancomycin is a common antibiotic after burn injury and is administered alone (V), or in combination with imipenem-cilastin (V/IC) or piperacillin-tazobactam (V/PT). Sparse reports indicate that the combination V/PT is associated with increased renal dysfunction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term impact of the three antibiotic administration types on renal dysfunction. METHODS: All pediatric and adult patients admitted to our centers between 2004 and 2016 with a burn injury were included in this retrospective review if they met the criteria of exposition to either V, V/IC, or V/PT for at least 48 h, had normal baseline creatinine, and no pre-existing renal dysfunction. Creatinine was monitored for 7 days after initial exposure; the absolute and relative increase was calculated, and patient renal outcomes were classified according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria depending on creatinine increases and estimated creatinine clearance. Secondary endpoints (demographic and clinical data, incidences of septicemia, and renal replacement therapy) were analyzed. Antibiotic doses were modeled in logistic and linear multivariable regression models to predict categorical KDIGO events and relative creatinine increase. RESULTS: Out of 1449 patients who were screened, 718 met the inclusion criteria, 246 were adults, and 472 were children. Between the study cohorts V, V/IC, and V/PT, patient characteristics at admission were comparable. V/PT administration was associated with a statistically higher serum creatinine, and lower creatinine clearance compared to patients receiving V alone or V/IC in adults and children after burn injury. The incidence of KDIGO stages 1, 2, and 3 was higher after V/PT treatment. In children, the incidence of KDIGO stage 3 following administration of V/PT was greater than after V/IC. In adults, the incidence of renal replacement therapy was higher after V/PT compared with V or V/IC. Multivariate modeling demonstrated that V/PT is an independent predictor of renal dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam is associated with increased renal dysfunction in pediatric and adult burn patients when compared to vancomycin alone or vancomycin plus imipenem-cilastin. The mechanism of this increased nephrotoxicity remains elusive and warrants further scientific evaluation.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 2 dose-ranging study comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin plus relebactam with imipenem/cilastatin alone in patients with complicated urinary tract infections.

Objectives: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem non-susceptible pathogens. Methods: To explore relebactam's safety, tolerability and efficacy, we conducted a randomized (1:1:1), controlled, Phase 2 trial comparing imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 250 mg, imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 125 mg and imipenem/cilastatin alone in adults with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) or acute pyelonephritis, regardless of baseline pathogen susceptibility. Treatment was administered intravenously every 6 h for 4-14 days, with optional step-down to oral ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was favourable microbiological response rate (pathogen eradication) at discontinuation of intravenous therapy (DCIV) in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population. Non-inferiority of imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam over imipenem/cilastatin alone was defined as lower bounds of the 95% CI for treatment differences being above -15%. Results: At DCIV, 71 patients in the imipenem/cilastatin + 250 mg relebactam, 79 in the imipenem/cilastatin + 125 mg relebactam and 80 in the imipenem/cilastatin-only group were ME; 51.7% had cUTI and 48.3% acute pyelonephritis. Microbiological response rates were 95.5%, 98.6% and 98.7%, respectively, confirming non-inferiority of both imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam doses to imipenem/cilastatin alone. Clinical response rates were 97.1%, 98.7% and 98.8%, respectively. All 23 ME patients with imipenem non-susceptible pathogens had favourable DCIV microbiological responses (100% in each group). Among all 298 patients treated, 28.3%, 29.3% and 30.0% of patients, respectively, had treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-related adverse events across groups (1.0%-4.0%) were diarrhoea, nausea and headache. Conclusions: Imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam (250 or 125 mg) was as effective as imipenem/cilastatin alone for treatment of cUTI. Both relebactam-containing regimens were well tolerated. (NCT01505634).

Imipenem-cilastatin-induced psychosis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients, in particular, have been reported to develop psychiatric side effects from antibiotics. Clarithromycin, quinolones, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, isoniazid, penicillin, and cephalosporins have been reported to cause psychosis. This case report bridges a void in the medical literature with regards to the psychiatric adverse effects of imipenem-cilastatin. CASE PRESENTATION: A 64-year-old Hispanic man in septic shock due to urinary tract infection was initiated on imipenem-cilastatin and mechanically ventilated, following admission to hospital. His mentation was normal for 72 hours after extubation and discontinuation of sedatives and opioids, following which he was noted to be in acute psychosis. Our patient's imipenem-cilastatin dose had been increased 24 hours prior to his violent visual and auditory hallucinations because his renal function had improved. The physical examination and laboratory tests did not reveal evidence of a new central nervous infection or endocrinopathy. His mentation improved after his antibiotic was switched to ceftriaxone, based on culture and sensitivity testing. Similar psychiatric symptoms developed 2 months later when he was treated with imipenem for a recurrent urinary tract infection. His symptoms again resolved with modification of his antibiotic regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Endocrine dysfunctions (thyroid, adrenal, and pituitary disorders) and toxic ingestions are medical disorders known to cause brief psychotic episodes. Fluoroquinolones, penicillins, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole are common antibiotics associated with this rare adverse effect. Several pharmacokinetic hypotheses have been proposed for this adverse effect: (1) N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor hypofunctioning, (2) sequential blockade of folic acid production, (3) inhibition of prostaglandin E2 and proinflammatory cytokine production, (4) increased central dopamine turnover, and (5) accumulation of toxic levels of the drug. Pre-existing psychopathology, relevant comorbidities, slow acetylation status, and increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier have been suggested to make patients more prone to developing psychosis. According to the literature, this psychiatric manifestation resolves within 2 weeks of discontinuing the offending agent. There appears to be underreporting of the psychiatric manifestations of imipenem-cilastatin, contrary to post-marketing surveillance data. It is imperative that physicians recognize these psychiatric side effects of antibiotics, because they are a fundamental treatment option.

Imipenem/cilastatin-induced acute eosinophilic pneumonia.

Drugs, toxins, and infections are known to cause acute eosinophilic pneumonia. Daptomycin and minocycline are the commonly reported antibiotics associated with acute eosinophilic pneumonia. In this study, we present a case of imipenem/cilastatin-induced acute eosinophilic pneumonia. The patient presented with fever, acute hypoxic respiratory distress, and diffuse ground-glass opacities on the chest CT a day after the initiation of imipenem/cilastatin. Patient also developed peripheral eosinophilia. A reinstitution of imipenem/cilastatin resulted in recurrence of the signs and symptoms. A bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage showed 780 nucleated cells/mm(3) with 15% eosinophil. The patient's clinical condition improved significantly after the discontinuation of imipenem/cilastatin therapy and the treatment with corticosteroid.

Efficacy and safety of World Health Organization group 5 drugs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment.

The efficacy and toxicity of several drugs now used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) have not been fully evaluated. We searched three databases for studies assessing efficacy in MDR-TB or safety during prolonged treatment of any mycobacterial infections, of drugs classified by the World Health Organization as having uncertain efficacy for MDR-TB (group 5). We included 83 out of 4002 studies identified. Evidence was inadequate for meropenem, imipenem and terizidone. For MDR-TB treatment, clarithromycin had no efficacy in two studies (risk difference (RD) -0.13, 95% CI -0.40-0.14) and amoxicillin-clavulanate had no efficacy in two other studies (RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.21-0.35). The largest number of studies described prolonged use for treatment of non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Azithromycin was not associated with excess serious adverse events (SAEs). Clarithromycin was not associated with excess SAEs in eight controlled trials in HIV-infected patients (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02-0.02), nor in six uncontrolled studies in HIV-uninfected patients, whereas six uncontrolled studies in HIV-infected patients clarithromycin caused substantial SAEs (proportion 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.27). For most group 5 drugs we found inadequate evidence of safety for prolonged use or for efficacy for MDR-TB, although macrolides appeared to be safe in prolonged use.

Endothelial Cell Toxicity of Vancomycin Infusion Combined with Other Antibiotics.

French guidelines recommend central intravenous (i.v.) infusion for high concentrations of vancomycin, but peripheral intravenous (p.i.v.) infusion is often preferred in intensive care units. Vancomycin infusion has been implicated in cases of phlebitis, with endothelial toxicity depending on the drug concentration and the duration of the infusion. Vancomycin is frequently infused in combination with other i.v. antibiotics through the same administrative Y site, but the local toxicity of such combinations has been poorly evaluated. Such an assessment could improve vancomycin infusion procedures in hospitals. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) were challenged with clinical doses of vancomycin over 24 h with or without other i.v. antibiotics. Cell death was measured with the alamarBlue test. We observed an excess cellular death rate without any synergistic effect but dependent on the numbers of combined infusions when vancomycin and erythromycin or gentamicin were infused through the same Y site. Incompatibility between vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam was not observed in our study, and rinsing the cells between the two antibiotic infusions did not reduce endothelial toxicity. No endothelial toxicity of imipenem-cilastatin was observed when combined with vancomycin. p.i.v. vancomycin infusion in combination with other medications requires new recommendations to prevent phlebitis, including limiting coinfusion on the same line, reducing the infusion rate, and choosing an intermittent infusion method. Further studies need to be carried out to explore other drug combinations in long-term vancomycin p.i.v. therapy so as to gain insight into the mechanisms of drug incompatibility under multidrug infusion conditions.

A Non-inferiority Pilot Study Comparing the Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Generic Wide-spectrum Antibiotic Use in Septic Oncology Patients.

The present study is a non-inferiority study based on a descriptive and comparative case series for comparison of generic vs. original intravenous antimicrobials in septic oncology patients at an oncology private ICU. 1906 cancer patients admitted to Arturo Lopez Perez Foundation, Chile, were included in this study. After recruitment, a first retrospective group of 206 septic cancer patients recorded from 1st January, 2008 until July 14th, 2010, treated with original antibiotics (cefoperazone-sulbactam, imipenem-cilastatin, piperacillin-tazobactam) were included for analyses and a second prospective group of 143 septic cancer patients recorded from July 15th, 2010 until January 02, 2013, treated with the same but generic antibiotics were also included for comparisons. The trial protocol was developed in accordance with Helsinki and Good Clinical Practices recommendations. The results of this study showed no significant differences between the 2 groups in days of treatment, rate of success and lab test determinations (white cell count, PCR and procalcitonin), with lower, but not significant, total bed days and CPU bed days for generic antibiotics. Therefore, we conclude that the safety and efficacy of the generic antibiotics cefactam®, imipen® and Piperazam® are not inferior to original antibiotics for the treatment of severe sepsis in hospitalised patients at the Arturo Lopez Perez Foundation.

Clinical efficacy of intravenous doripenem in patients with acute biliary tract infection: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial with imipenem/cilastatin as comparator.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous doripenem (DRPM) in patients with biliary tract infection requiring biliary drainage in comparison with imipenem/cilastatin (IPM/CS). METHODS: After the initial collection of bile, patients were randomly assigned by the registration system of the Clinical Research Organization to receive intravenous drip infusion of DRPM 0.5 g or IPM/CS 0.5 g three times daily in a randomized, open-label manner. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients were enrolled in the trial (DRPM 62, IPM/CS 65). The characteristics of the 122 patients evaluated for efficacy were well balanced, except for the percentage of patients previously receiving antimicrobials, which was higher in the DRPM group than in the IPM/CS group. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between the DRPM group (93.1 %, 54/58 patients) and the IPM/CS group (93.8 %, 60/64). Non-inferiority assessment using confidence intervals demonstrated the non-inferiority of DRPM-IPM/CS. The incidence of adverse events, for which a causal relationship with either treatment was not ruled out, was 3.3 % (2/60) in the DRPM group and 3.1 % (2/65) in the IPM/CS group, and none was serious. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical efficacy of DRPM in treating moderate or severe biliary tract infection requiring drainage was comparable to that of IPM/CS. DRPM was associated with no serious adverse events and a low incidence of adverse events. The results of this trial demonstrate that DRPM is a useful therapeutic option for moderate or severe biliary tract infection.

Cefozopran, meropenem, or imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic adult patients: A multicenter prospective randomized trial.

We conducted an open-label, randomized study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin using cefepime as a control in febrile neutropenia (FN) patients. Three hundred and seventy-six patients received cefepime, cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatinas initial therapy for FN. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of response rates including modification at day 7 in cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin patients compared with cefepime in the per-protocol population (delta = 10%). The response rates for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin were not significantly different compared with cefepime (cefozopran: 54/90 (60%), meropenem: 60/92 (65%), and IPM/CS: 63/88 (72%) versus cefepime: 56/85 (66%) (p = 0.44, 1.0 and 0.51, respectively)), and the differences in treatment success for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime were -5.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): -20.1-8.4), -0.7% (95% CI: -14.6-13.3), and 5.7% (95% CI: -8.1-19.4), respectively. The same tendency was seen in the modified intention-to-treat population. Based on the evaluation of initial drug efficacy performed on days 3-5, there was no significant difference between the four drugs. In the subgroup with an absolute neutrophil count ≤ 100 × 10(6)/L for longer than seven days, there was significantly better efficacy in the carbapenem arm compared to 4th generation beta-lactams (52% versus 27% at days 3-5, p = 0.006, and 76% versus 48% at day 7, p = 0.002). Our results suggest that the effects of these four drugs as empiric therapy were virtually the same for adult FN patients, although non-inferiority was shown only in imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime (clinical trial number: UMIN000000462).