Lefamulin efficacy and safety in a pooled phase 3 clinical trial population with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and common clinical comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Lefamulin, a first-in-class pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was noninferior to moxifloxacin in the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 intravenous-to-oral switch study and the LEAP 2 oral-only study. Using pooled LEAP 1/2 data, we examined lefamulin efficacy/safety overall and within subgroups of patients presenting with comorbidities typical in CABP management. METHODS: In LEAP 1, adults with CABP were randomized to receive intravenous lefamulin (150 mg every 12 h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch if predefined improvement criteria were met. In LEAP 2, adults with CABP were randomized to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 h) for 5 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days. Both studies assessed early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after first study drug dose and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test-of-cure (5‒10 days after last dose). Pooled analyses of the overall population used a 10% noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Lefamulin (n = 646) was noninferior to moxifloxacin (n = 643) for ECR (89.3% vs 90.5%, respectively; difference - 1.1%; 95% CI - 4.4 to 2.2); IACR success rates at test-of-cure were similarly high (≥ 85.0%). High efficacy with both lefamulin and moxifloxacin was also demonstrated across all well-represented patient subgroups, including those with advanced age, diabetes mellitus, a history of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmia) or chronic lung diseases (e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), elevated liver enzymes, or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Lefamulin may provide a valuable intravenous/oral monotherapy alternative to fluoroquinolones or macrolides for empiric treatment of patients with CABP, including cases of patients at risk for poor outcomes due to age or various comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov LEAP 1 (NCT02559310; Registration Date: 24/09/2015) and LEAP 2 (NCT02813694; Registration Date: 27/06/2016).

Pathways to Leadership: Reflections of Recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Leaders During Conception and Launch of the Inclusion, Diversity, Access, and Equity Movement Within the IDSA.

Opportunities for leadership in the specialty of infectious diseases (ID) have markedly increased over the last decade, including in newly recognized areas. Commensurate with the expansion of opportunities in ID, pathways to leadership positions within the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) are expanding as the Society seeks to advance the field for IDSA members. Acknowledging both the importance of diverse leaders to organizational success and shortfalls in diverse representation within IDSA leadership led to concentrated efforts to enhance transparency and opportunities for members to participate broadly in the work of IDSA. Herein, IDSA leaders reflect on their paths to IDSA leadership, hoping to help guide members seeking to partner with the Society. Features identified as important to individual success include mentorship, networking, participation in ID and IDSA volunteer experiences, passion for ID, and working with IDSA staff to advance the programs and initiatives of IDSA on behalf of members.

Lefamulin: A Novel Semisynthetic Pleuromutilin Antibiotic for Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Antimicrobial resistance, including in pathogens that cause CABP, continues to spread at an alarming rate. Because of these factors, the development of new antibiotic classes is urgently needed. Lefamulin, previously known as BC-3781, is a semisynthetic pleuromutilin antibiotic that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of CABP in adults. Available in both oral and intravenous formulations, lefamulin has potent in vitro activity against both typical and atypical CABP pathogens. The first pleuromutilin to be used systemically in humans, lefamulin has a unique mechanism of action that inhibits protein synthesis by preventing the binding of tRNA for peptide transfer. This review summarizes the available data on lefamulin, including recent evidence from 2 phase III clinical trials (LEAP 1 and LEAP 2), and discusses its potential role in the treatment of CABP.

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

BACKGROUND: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5-21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, -27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, -46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02452047.

An Integrated Safety Summary of Omadacycline, a Novel Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic.

Omadacycline is a semisynthetic tetracycline antibiotic. Phase III clinical trial results have shown that omadacycline has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Similar to most tetracyclines, transient nausea and vomiting and low-magnitude increases in liver aminotransferases were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in phase III studies but were not treatment limiting. Package insert warnings and precautions for omadacycline include tooth discoloration; enamel hypoplasia; inhibition of bone growth following use in late pregnancy, infancy, or childhood up to 8 years of age; an imbalance in mortality (2%, compared with 1% in moxifloxacin-treated patients) was observed in the phase III study in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Omadacycline has no effect on the QT interval, and its affinity for muscarinic M2 receptors resulted in transient heart rate increases following dosing.

Charting the Path Forward: Development, Goals and Initiatives of the 2019 Infectious Diseases Society of America Strategic Plan.

In October 2018, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Board of Directors (BOD) decided to develop a 2019 IDSA Strategic Plan. The IDSA BOD has invested in strategic planning at regular intervals as part of an ongoing process to review and to renew the vision and direction of IDSA. Herein, the 2018-2019 strategic planning process and outcomes are described. The 2019 IDSA Strategic Plan presents 4 key initiatives: (1) optimize the development, dissemination, and adoption of timely and relevant ID guidance and guidelines that improve the outcomes of clinical care; (2) quantify, communicate, and advocate for the value of ID physicians to increase professional fulfillment and compensation; (3) facilitate the growth and development of the ID workforce to meet emerging scientific, clinical, and leadership needs; and (4) develop and position a new tool to serve as the leading US benchmark to measure and drive national progress on antimicrobial resistance. The BOD looks forward to developing, implementing, assessing, and advancing the 2019 IDSA Strategic Plan working with member volunteers, Society partners, and IDSA staff.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous-to-oral Lefamulin, a Pleuromutilin Antibiotic, for the Treatment of Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: The Phase III Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, is active against pathogens commonly causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) study was a global noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lefamulin for the treatment of CABP. METHODS: In this double-blind study, adults with CABP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class ≥III were randomized 1:1 to receive lefamulin at 150 mg intravenously (IV) every 12 hours or moxifloxacin at 400 mg IV every 24 hours. After 6 doses, patients could be switched to an oral study drug if prespecified improvement criteria were met. If methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was suspected, either linezolid or placebo was added to moxifloxacin or lefamulin, respectively. The US Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint was an early clinical response (ECR) 96 ± 24 hours after the first dose of the study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (noninferiority margin, 12.5%). The European Medicines Agency co-primary endpoints were an investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) 5-10 days after the last dose of the study drug in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (noninferiority margin, 10%). RESULTS: There were 551 patients randomized (n = 276 lefamulin; n = 275 moxifloxacin). Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for ECR (87.3% vs 90.2%, respectively; difference -2.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] g -8.5 to 2.8) and IACR (mITT, 81.7% vs 84.2%, respectively; difference -2.6%, 95% CI -8.9 to 3.9; CE, 86.9% vs 89.4%, respectively; difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.4 to 3.4). Rates of study drug discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 2.9% for lefamulin and 4.4% for moxifloxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the primary efficacy endpoints and was generally safe and well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02559310.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2018 Update on Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management of Seasonal Influenzaa.

These clinical practice guidelines are an update of the guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) in 2009, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This document addresses new information regarding diagnostic testing, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal influenza. It is intended for use by primary care clinicians, obstetricians, emergency medicine providers, hospitalists, laboratorians, and infectious disease specialists, as well as other clinicians managing patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza. The guidelines consider the care of children and adults, including special populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and immunocompromised patients.

Antibiotics and adverse events: the role of antimicrobial stewardship programs in 'doing no harm'.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global threat worldwide, with deaths associated with AMR infections projected to exceed 10 million per year by the year 2050. The overuse and misuse of antibiotics is the primary driver of this resistance, with up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed in the hospital setting being either unnecessary or inappropriate. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs (ASPs) can mitigate some of this resistance, with the benefits well recognized; however, if we are to truly advance the state of AMS, the principles and practices should align with patient safety. RECENT FINDINGS: In a recent evaluation, among 1488 adult patients receiving systemic antibiotic therapy, 298 (20%) experienced at least one antibiotic-associated adverse drug event (ADE). Fifty-six (20%) nonclinically indicated antibiotic regimens were associated with an ADE. It is also well recognized that besides ADEs, the inappropriate use of antibiotics is associated the development of multidrug-resistant infections and Clostridium difficile infection. SUMMARY: Currently, there is a significant gap in ASPs correlating initiatives with patient safety goals, including reductions in antibiotic-associated ADEs and multidrug-resistant infections. Therefore, in this article, we provide the rationale for why ASPs are best suited to lead a collaborative effort to prevent antibiotic-associated ADEs and multidrug-resistant infections.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim Vs Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed to be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens: REVIVE-1.

Background: Our objective in this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim compared with vancomycin for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Methods: REVIVE-1 was a phase 3, 600-patient, double-blinded, randomized (1:1), active-controlled trial among patients with ABSSSI that compared the safety and efficacy of iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose with vancomycin 15 mg/kg, both administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint of this study was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size (early clinical response [ECR]) compared with baseline among patients randomized to iclaprim or vancomycin at the early time point (ETP), 48 to 72 hours after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Results: ECR among patients who received iclaprim and vancomycin at the ETP was 80.9% (241 of 298) of patients receiving iclaprim compared with 81.0% (243 of 300) of those receiving vancomycin (treatment difference, -0.13%; 95% confidence interval, -6.42%-6.17%). Iclaprim was well tolerated in the study, with most adverse events categorized as mild. Conclusions: Iclaprim achieved noninferiority (10% margin) at ETP compared with vancomycin and was well tolerated in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of ABSSSI. Based on these results, iclaprim appears to be an efficacious and safe treatment for ABSSSI suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02600611.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim versus Vancomycin for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed To Be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens (REVIVE-2 Study).

Iclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine antibiotic that may be an effective and safe treatment for serious skin infections. The safety and effectiveness of iclaprim were assessed in a global phase 3, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial. Six hundred thirteen adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens were randomized to iclaprim (80 mg) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg of body weight), both of which were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5 to 14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size compared with that at the baseline at 48 to 72 h after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Among patients randomized to iclaprim, 78.3% (231 of 295) met this primary endpoint, whereas 76.7% (234 of 305) of those receiving vancomycin met this primary endpoint (difference, 1.58%; 95% confidence interval, -5.10% to 8.26%). This met the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin. Iclaprim was well tolerated, with most adverse events being categorized as mild. In conclusion, iclaprim was noninferior to vancomycin in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. On the basis of these results, iclaprim may be an efficacious and safe treatment for skin infections suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens. (This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02607618.).

Eight Habits of Highly Effective Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs to Meet the Joint Commission Standards for Hospitals.

In an effort to decrease antimicrobial resistance and inappropriate antibiotic use, The Joint Commission (TJC) recently issued new antimicrobial stewardship standards, consisting of 8 elements of performance, applicable to hospitals effective January 1, 2017. These standards coincide with those recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA) guidelines. Little guidance exists on the "how" from these guidance documents. We review the 8 standards and provide real-world experience from established antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) on how institutions can comply with these guidelines to reduce inappropriate antibiotic usage, decrease antimicrobial resistance, and optimize patient outcomes. TJC antimicrobial stewardship standards demonstrate actions being taken at the national level to make quality and patient safety a priority.

Approaches to Modifying the Behavior of Clinicians Who Are Noncompliant With Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Guidelines.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are a key national initiative to promote appropriate use of antibiotics and to reduce the burden of resistance. The dilemma of managing the outlier physician is especially complex. We outline strategies to establish a successful ASP that reviews appropriate efforts to achieve the goal of modifying outlier physicians' behavior. One must try to differentiate deviation from ASP norms from all other issues of outliers. Essential elements include identifying and understanding the local problems, planning, and achieving hospital administration and medical staff support. A successful ASP includes effective communication and acceptance of evidence-based recommendations, so that patient clinical outcomes will be optimized.

SOLITAIRE-IV: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous-to-Oral Solithromycin to Intravenous-to-Oral Moxifloxacin for Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Solithromycin, a novel macrolide antibiotic with both intravenous and oral formulations dosed once daily, has completed 2 global phase 3 trials for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. METHODS: A total of 863 adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team [PORT] class II-IV) were randomized 1:1 to receive either intravenous-to-oral solithromycin or moxifloxacin for 7 once-daily doses. All patients received 400 mg intravenously on day 1 and were permitted to switch to oral dosing when clinically indicated. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (10% margin) of solithromycin to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response (ECR) assessed 3 days after first dose in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary endpoints included demonstrating noninferiority in ECR in the microbiological ITT population (micro-ITT) and determination of investigator-assessed success rates at the short-term follow-up (SFU) visit 5-10 days posttherapy. RESULTS: In the ITT population, 79.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.7% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, -0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to 5.2). In the micro-ITT population, 80.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.1% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, 1.26; 95% CI, -8.1 to 10.6). In the ITT population, 84.6% of solithromycin patients and 88.6% of moxifloxacin patients achieved clinical success at SFU based on investigator assessment. Mostly mild/moderate infusion events led to higher incidence of adverse events overall in the solithromycin group. Other adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous-to-oral solithromycin was noninferior to intravenous-to-oral moxifloxacin. Solithromycin has potential to provide an intravenous and oral option for monotherapy for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01968733.

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

Executive Summary: Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trials of adults hospitalized with pneumonia outcomes research team (PORT) risk class 3-4 community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) receiving ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone. METHODS: Three Phase III trials (clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers NCT00621504, NCT00509106 and NCT01371838) including 1916 hospitalized patients with CAP randomized 1:1 to empirical ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h) or ceftriaxone (1-2 g every 24 h) for 5-7 days were included in the meta-analysis. Primary outcome was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (8-15 days after end of treatment) in the PORT risk class 3-4 modified ITT (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations. Data were tested for heterogeneity (χ(2) test) and, if not significant, results were pooled and OR and 95% CI constructed. A logistic regression analysis assessed factors impacting cure rate and treatment interactions. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates in each trial consistently favoured ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone, with no evidence of heterogeneity. In the meta-analysis, ceftaroline fosamil was superior to ceftriaxone in the MITT (OR: 1.66; 95% CI 1.34, 2.06; P < 0.001) and CE (OR: 1.65; 95% CI 1.26, 2.16; P < 0.001) populations. Results were consistent across various patient- and disease-related factors including patients' age and PORT score. Prior antimicrobial use within 96 h of starting study treatment was associated with diminished differences in cure rates between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline fosamil was superior to ceftriaxone for empirical treatment of adults hospitalized with CAP. Receipt of prior antimicrobial therapy appeared to diminish the observed treatment effect.