Exposure-Efficacy Analyses Support Optimal Dosing Regimens of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in Participants with Hospital-Acquired/Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia in ASPECT-NP.

An exposure-efficacy analysis of the phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial was performed to evaluate the relationship between plasma exposure of ceftolozane and tazobactam and efficacy endpoints (primary: 28-day all-cause mortality; key secondary: clinical cure at test-of-cure visit) in adult participants with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Participants (N = 231) from the ceftolozane/tazobactam treatment group in the intention-to-treat population who had pharmacokinetic data available and relevant baseline lower respiratory tract (LRT) pathogen(s) susceptibility data were included. Population pharmacokinetic models were used to predict individual ceftolozane and tazobactam plasma exposure measures (percentage of the interdose interval with free drug concentrations above the MIC [%ƒT>MIC] and %ƒT above a threshold [%ƒT>CT = 1 µg/mL], respectively) associated with the last dose using the highest ceftolozane/tazobactam MIC for the relevant baseline LRT pathogens. Efficacy measures were comparable between the baseline LRT pathogens and across MIC cutoffs (1-8 µg/mL). Most participants (82%) had 99% ƒT>MIC for ceftolozane; 9% (N = 21/231) had 0% ƒT>MIC due to high MICs of the LRT pathogen (64-256 µg/mL). The %ƒT>MIC for ceftolozane exceeded 73% for all participants with baseline LRT pathogen(s) MIC ≤4 µg/mL. All 231 participants achieved the tazobactam pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target of >20% ƒT>CT where CT = 1 µg/mL. For either efficacy endpoint, median ceftolozane %ƒT>MIC was 99% in participants achieving efficacy. No exposure-efficacy trend was observed for ceftolozane or tazobactam. These results further support the recommended ceftolozane/tazobactam dosing regimens evaluated in ASPECT-NP for patients with HABP/VABP.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia due to ESBL-producing Enterobacterales: a subgroup analysis of the ASPECT-NP clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: After the MERINO trial with piperacillin/tazobactam, the efficacy of ß-lactam/tazobactam combinations in serious infections involving extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing pathogens merits special evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To further confirm the efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) involving ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-producing Enterobacterales. METHODS: Retrospective subgroup analysis of the ASPECT-NP trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating HABP/VABP in mechanically ventilated adults (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). ESBLs were identified using whole genome sequencing. Chromosomal AmpC production was quantified employing a high-sensitivity mRNA transcription assay. RESULTS: Overall, 61/726 (8.4%) participants had all baseline lower respiratory tract (LRT) isolates susceptible to both study treatments and ≥1 baseline ESBL-positive/AmpC-overproducing Enterobacterales isolate. In this subgroup (ceftolozane/tazobactam n = 30, meropenem n = 31), baseline characteristics were generally comparable between treatment arms. The most frequent ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-overproducing Enterobacterales isolates (ceftolozane/tazobactam n = 31, meropenem n = 35) overall were Klebsiella pneumoniae (50.0%), Escherichia coli (22.7%), and Proteus mirabilis (7.6%). The most prevalent ESBLs were CTX-M-15 (75.8%), other CTX-M (19.7%), and SHV (4.5%); 10.6% of isolates overproduced chromosomal AmpC. Overall, 28 day all-cause mortality was 6.7% (2/30) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 32.3% (10/31) with meropenem (25.6% difference, 95% CI: 5.54 to 43.84). Clinical cure rate at test-of-cure, 7-14 days after end of therapy, was 73.3% (22/30) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 61.3% (19/31) with meropenem (12.0% difference, 95% CI: -11.21 to +33.51). Per-isolate microbiological response at test-of-cure was 64.5% (20/31) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 74.3% (26/35) with meropenem (-9.8% difference, 95% CI: -30.80 to +12.00). CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm ceftolozane/tazobactam as an effective treatment option for HABP/VABP involving ceftolozane/tazobactam-susceptible ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-producing Enterobacterales.

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.

Outcomes in participants with failure of initial antibacterial therapy for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia prior to enrollment in the randomized, controlled phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a combination antibacterial agent comprising an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin and ß-lactamase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in adults. Participants in the ASPECT-NP trial received ceftolozane/tazobactam (3 g [2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam] every 8 h) or meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Participants failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) rates with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem treatment. Here, we report a post hoc analysis examining this result. METHODS: The phase 3, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter, noninferiority trial compared ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of adults with ventilated HABP/VABP; eligibility included those failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry. The primary and key secondary endpoints were 28-day ACM and clinical response at test of cure (TOC), respectively. Participants who were failing prior therapy were a prospectively defined subgroup; however, subgroup analyses were not designed for noninferiority testing. The 95% CIs for treatment differences were calculated as unstratified Newcombe CIs. Post hoc analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the impact of baseline characteristics and treatment on clinical outcomes in the subgroup who were failing prior antibacterial therapy. RESULTS: In the ASPECT-NP trial, 12.8% of participants (93/726; ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 53; meropenem, n = 40) were failing prior antibacterial therapy at study entry. In this subgroup, 28-day ACM was higher in participants who received meropenem versus ceftolozane/tazobactam (18/40 [45.0%] vs 12/53 [22.6%]; percentage difference [95% CI]: 22.4% [3.1 to 40.1]). Rates of clinical response at TOC were 26/53 [49.1%] for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 15/40 [37.5%] for meropenem (percentage difference [95% CI]: 11.6% [- 8.6 to 30.2]). Multivariable regression analysis determined concomitant vasopressor use and treatment with meropenem were significant factors associated with risk of 28-day ACM. Adjusting for vasopressor use, the risk of dying after treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam was approximately one-fourth the risk of dying after treatment with meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis further supports the previously demonstrated lower ACM rate for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem among participants who were failing prior therapy, despite the lack of significant differences in clinical cure rates. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT02070757 . Registered February 25, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757 .

Ceftolozane/tazobactam probability of target attainment and outcomes in participants with augmented renal clearance from the randomized phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial evaluated the efficacy of 3 g of ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) versus 1 g of meropenem infused every 8 h for 8 to 14 days for treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). We assessed the probability of target attainment and compared efficacy outcomes from ASPECT-NP in participants with augmented renal clearance (ARC) versus those with normal renal function. METHODS: Baseline renal function was categorized as normal renal function (creatinine clearance 80-130 mL/min) or ARC (creatinine clearance > 130 mL/min). Population pharmacokinetic models informed Monte Carlo simulations to assess probability of target attainment in plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid. Outcomes included 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure and per-participant microbiologic cure rates at the test-of-cure visit. RESULTS: A > 99% and > 80% probability of target attainment was demonstrated for ceftolozane and tazobactam, respectively, in simulated plasma and epithelial lining fluid. Within treatment arms, 28-day all-cause mortality rates in participants with normal renal function (C/T, n = 131; meropenem, n = 123) and ARC (C/T, n = 96; meropenem, n = 113) were comparable (data comparisons presented as rate; treatment difference [95% CI]) (C/T: normal renal function, 17.6%; ARC, 17.7%; 0.2 [- 9.6 to 10.6]; meropenem: normal renal function, 20.3%; ARC, 17.7%; - 2.6 [- 12.6 to 7.5]). Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure were also comparable across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 57.3%; ARC, 59.4%; - 2.1 [- 14.8 to 10.8]; meropenem: normal renal function, 59.3%; ARC, 57.5%; 1.8 [- 10.6 to 14.2]). Per-participant microbiologic cure rates at test-of-cure were consistent across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 72.2% [n/N = 70/97]; ARC, 71.4% [n/N = 55/77]; 0.7 [- 12.4 to 14.2]; meropenem: normal renal function, 75.0% [n/N = 66/88]; ARC, 70.0% [n/N = 49/70]; 5.0 [- 8.7 to 19.0]). CONCLUSIONS: C/T and meropenem resulted in 28-day all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiologic cure rates that were comparable between participants with ARC or normal renal function. In conjunction with high probability of target attainment, these results confirm that C/T (3 g) every 8 h is appropriate in patients with HABP/VABP and ARC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02070757, registered February 25, 2014; EudraCT: 2012-002862-11.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Perspectives on the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam: a review of clinical trial data and real-world evidence.

Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are common healthcare-associated infections linked to high morbidity and mortality. Gram-negative pathogens, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, exhibit multidrug resistance and are recognized as major public health concerns, particularly among critically ill patients with HABP/VABP. Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a novel combination antibacterial agent comprising ceftolozane (a potent antipseudomonal cephalosporin) and tazobactam (a ß-lactamase inhibitor). Phase III trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of ceftolozane/tazobactam to comparators, leading to the approval of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and nosocomial pneumonia. In this article, we review the clinical trial evidence and key real-world effectiveness data of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of serious healthcare-associated Gram-negative infections, focusing on patients with HABP/VABP.

Highlights from a review of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of serious infectionsSerious infections that can affect people in hospitals can cause serious illness or loss of life. Antibiotics are a type of medicine designed to kill the bacteria that cause these infections. However, bacteria have evolved over time, which means that antibiotics are not as effective at killing the bacteria and treating the infection. This is known as antibiotic resistance. To treat serious infections in hospital, there is a need for new antibiotics that can overcome this resistance and successfully fight off bacteria. This paper looks at an antibiotic known as ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T), which can be used to treat people with serious infections that are picked up in hospitals. Clinical and laboratory studies have been reviewed to evaluate how effective, safe, and suitable C/T is for patients. The studies discussed in this paper highlight how well C/T works in people with serious infections, including those who are already ill and have been put on a ventilator to help with their breathing. Some of these studies showed that C/T worked well against lots of different types of bacteria that are known to cause serious infections in hospital and are linked to a high risk of death. Antibiotic resistance is a major problem all over the world. There is a need for effective antibiotics that can treat a range of infections caused by resistant bacteria. The results of this paper show that there is a lot of evidence to support the use of C/T in hospitals for people with serious bacterial infections.

Subgroup analysis of phase 2 study of ceftolozane/tazobactam in neonates and young infants with pyelonephritis.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for the treatment of patients from birth to <18 y old with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI). This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem in neonates and young infants. NCT03230838 was a phase 2, randomized, active comparator-controlled, double-blind study of patients from birth to <18 y of age with cUTI, including pyelonephritis, given ceftolozane/tazobactam or meropenem in a 3:1 ratio. This subset analysis included only neonates and young infants < 3 mo of age. The microbiologic modified intent-to-treat population (mMITT) included 20 patients (ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 14; meropenem, n = 6). All patients had pyelonephritis at baseline; two patients in each treatment group had bacteremia (overall 4/20, 20%). Escherichia coli was the most common baseline pathogen (overall 16/20, 80%). Safety and efficacy results were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the overall pediatric population. There were no serious drug-related adverse events (AEs), no discontinuations due to AEs, and no AEs leading to death in either treatment group. For the ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem treatment groups, clinical cure rates in the mMITT population were 92.9% and 100%, respectively. The population PK analysis of neonates and young infants demonstrated similar ceftolozane and tazobactam exposures to those of adults, achieving pharmacodynamic targets associated with clinical and microbiologic cure. Ceftolozane/tazobactam has a favorable safety profile and achieves high clinical cure and microbiologic eradication rates in neonates and young infants < 3 mo of age with cUTI and pyelonephritis. IMPORTANCE Extrapolation of antibacterial agent pharmacokinetics from adults to newborns and young infants may not be appropriate; similarly, the clinical manifestations of infectious diseases and outcomes following antibacterial treatment may not be similar. Ceftolozane/tazobactam is an antibacterial drug combination active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. A clinical study led to the approval for ceftolozane/tazobactam in patients from birth to 18 y of age who have complicated urinary tract infections, including those with serious kidney infections. Based on data collected during that clinical study, we compared newborns and young infants who were treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam (14 patients) and those who were treated with meropenem (6 patients). We found that ceftolozane/tazobactam treatment of newborns and young infants up to 3 mo of age who have complicated urinary tract infections demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high clinical cure and microbiologic eradication rates, similar to meropenem.

Probability of Target Attainment Analyses to Inform Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Dosing Regimens for Patients With Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia and End-Stage Renal Disease Receiving Intermittent Hemodialysis.

ASPECT-NP, a phase 3 trial of ceftolozane/tazobactam in hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP), excluded patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A modeling/simulation approach was undertaken to inform optimal dosing in this population, using previously developed ceftolozane and tazobactam population pharmacokinetic models informed by data from 16 clinical studies. Stochastic simulations were performed using NONMEM to support dose justification. Probability of target attainment (PTA) simulations in plasma and epithelial lining fluid were conducted using a 14-day treatment, with hemodialysis every other weekday for a high-dose (4X), middle-dose (3X), or low-dose (2X) regimen, where X was the recommended dose in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection/complicated urinary tract infection and ESRD (500 mg/250 mg ceftolozane/tazobactam loading dose and 100 mg/50 mg ceftolozane/tazobactam maintenance dose administered by 1-hour infusion every 8 hours). PTA was determined using established pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets: ceftolozane, 30% of the interdose interval (8 hours) in which free ceftolozane concentration exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration value of 4 µg/mL; tazobactam, 20% of the interdose interval in which free tazobactam concentration exceeded 1 µg/mL. Plasma PTA was >90% for both agents for all 3 regimens. Plasma ceftolozane exposures at the high-dose regimen exceeded those from phase 3 study experience. Epithelial lining fluid PTA was >90% for high- and middle-dose regimens but was <80% for tazobactam on dialysis days at the low-dose regimen. For patients with HABP/VABP and ESRD requiring intermittent hemodialysis, the middle-dose regimen of 1.5 g/0.75 g ceftolozane/tazobactam loading + 300 mg/150 mg maintenance every 8 hours by 1-hour infusion is recommended.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Versus Meropenem in Neonates and Children With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection, Including Pyelonephritis: A Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a cephalosporin-ß-lactamase inhibitor combination, active against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, is approved for treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI). Safety and efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam in pediatric participants with cUTI, including pyelonephritis, were assessed. METHODS: This phase 2 study (NCT03230838) compared ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treatment of cUTI in participants from birth to <18 years of age. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. Key secondary end points included clinical cure and per-participant microbiologic response rates at end of treatment (EOT) and test of cure (TOC) visits. RESULTS: The microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population included 95 participants (ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 71; meropenem, n = 24). The most common diagnosis and pathogen were pyelonephritis (ceftolozane/tazobactam, 84.5%; meropenem, 79.2%) and Escherichia coli (ceftolozane/tazobactam, 74.6%; meropenem, 87.5%); 5.7% (ceftolozane/tazobactam) and 4.8% (meropenem) of E. coli isolates were extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producers. Rates of adverse events were similar between treatment groups (any: ceftolozane/tazobactam, 59.0% vs. meropenem, 60.6%; drug-related: ceftolozane/tazobactam, 14.0% vs. meropenem, 15.2%; serious: ceftolozane/tazobactam, 3.0% vs. meropenem, 6.1%). Rates of clinical cure for ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem at EOT were 94.4% and 100% and at TOC were 88.7% and 95.8%, respectively. Rates of microbiologic eradication for ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem at EOT were 93.0% and 95.8%, and at TOC were 84.5% and 87.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftolozane/tazobactam had a favorable safety profile in pediatric participants with cUTI; rates of clinical cure and microbiologic eradication were high and similar to meropenem. Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a safe and effective new treatment option for children with cUTI, especially due to antibacterial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens.

Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Probability of Target Attainment in Patients With Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

Probability of target attainment (PTA) analyses were conducted to support the recommended ceftolozane/tazobactam dosing regimens, adjusted for renal function, in patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Previously published population pharmacokinetic models describing the disposition of ceftolozane and tazobactam in plasma and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) in patients with HABP/VABP were used to simulate ceftolozane and tazobactam concentration-time profiles in plasma and ELF over the course of 14 days. The simulations were conducted for patients with normal renal function and for patients receiving adjusted doses for mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment. PTA was calculated using established pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for ceftolozane and tazobactam. Across renal function groups, plasma PTA was 100% for ceftolozane and >99% for tazobactam; ELF PTA was >99% for ceftolozane and >87% for tazobactam. These results provided support for the currently recommended ceftolozane/tazobactam dosing regimens for HABP/VABP, which were efficacious and well tolerated in the Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Versus Meropenem for Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia (ASPECT-NP) trial.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Plus Metronidazole Versus Meropenem From a Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial in Pediatric Participants With Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a cephalosporin-ß-lactamase inhibitor combination, is approved for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI). The safety and efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam in pediatric participants with cIAI were assessed. METHODS: This phase 2 study (NCT03217136) randomized participants to either ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole or meropenem for treatment of cIAI in pediatric participants (<18 years). The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of intravenous ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole. Clinical cure at end of treatment (EOT) and test of cure (TOC) visits were secondary end points. RESULTS: The modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population included 91 participants (ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole, n = 70; meropenem, n = 21). Complicated appendicitis was the most common diagnosis (93.4%); Escherichia coli was the most common pathogen (65.9%). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 80.0% and 61.9% of participants receiving ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole and meropenem, drug-related AEs occurred in 18.6% and 14.3% and serious AEs occurred in 11.4% and 0% of participants receiving ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole and meropenem, respectively. No drug-related serious AEs or discontinuations due to drug-related AEs occurred. Rates of the clinical cure for ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole and meropenem at EOT were 80.0% and 95.2% (difference: -14.3; 95% confidence interval: -26.67 to 4.93) and at TOC were 80.0% and 100.0% (difference: -19.1; 95% confidence interval: -30.18 to -2.89), respectively; 6 of the 14 clinical failures for ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole at TOC were indeterminate responses imputed as failures per protocol. CONCLUSION: Ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole was well tolerated in pediatric participants with cIAI and had a safety profile similar to the established safety profile in adults. In this descriptive efficacy analysis, ceftolozane/tazobactam+metronidazole appeared efficacious.

Outcomes in participants with ventilated nosocomial pneumonia and organ failure treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem: a subset analysis of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ASPECT-NP trial.

BACKGROUND: The pivotal ASPECT-NP trial showed ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we evaluated treatment outcomes by degree of respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction. METHODS: This was a subset analysis of data from ASPECT-NP, a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). Adults with vHABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam or 1 g meropenem every 8 h for 8-14 days. Outcomes in participants with a baseline respiratory component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (R-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of severe respiratory failure), cardiovascular component of the SOFA score (CV-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of shock), or R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 were compared by treatment arm. The efficacy endpoint of primary interest was 28-day all-cause mortality. Clinical response, time to death, and microbiologic response were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 726 participants in the intention-to-treat population; 633 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 (312 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 321 meropenem), 183 with CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (84 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 99 meropenem), and 160 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (69 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 91 meropenem). Baseline characteristics, including causative pathogens, were generally similar in participants with R-SOFA ≥ 2 or CV-SOFA ≥ 2 across treatment arms. The 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.7% and 24.0% [difference: 0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 6.4, 6.9] for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 33.3% and 30.3% (difference: - 3.0%, 95% CI - 16.4, 10.3) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 34.8% and 30.8% (difference: - 4.0%, 95% CI - 18.6, 10.3), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Clinical cure rates were as follows: 55.8% and 54.2% (difference: 1.6%, 95% CI - 6.2, 9.3) for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 53.6% and 55.6% (difference: - 2.0%, 95% CI - 16.1, 12.2) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 53.6% and 56.0% (difference: - 2.4%, 95% CI - 17.6, 12.8), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Time to death was comparable in all SOFA groups across both treatment arms. A higher rate of microbiologic eradication/presumed eradication was observed for CV-SOFA ≥ 2 and R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 with ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of severe respiratory failure or shock did not affect the relative efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem; either agent may be used to treat critically ill patients with vHABP/VABP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757. Registered 25 February 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

A phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem in Chinese participants with complicated intra-abdominal infections.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) plus metronidazole versus meropenem plus placebo for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) in Chinese adult participants. METHODS: In this phase III clinical trial (NCT03830333), Chinese adult participants with cIAI were randomized 1:1 to receive C/T plus metronidazole or meropenem plus placebo. The primary objective was to assess C/T plus metronidazole for noninferiority versus meropenem for clinical response rate at the test of cure (TOC; 28 ± 2 days after study start) visit in the clinically evaluable population. Secondary endpoints included clinical and microbiologic responses at the TOC and end-of-treatment (≤24 hours after last dose) visits and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Clinical cure at the TOC visit in the clinically evaluable population was 95.2% and 93.1% for C/T plus metronidazole and meropenem, respectively (between-treatment difference: 2.1% [95% confidence interval: -4.7%, 8.8%]); thus, noninferiority was met. Clinical responses at the TOC and end-of-treatment visits and microbiologic responses at the TOC visit were consistent with the primary efficacy endpoint. Safety was comparable between study treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In Chinese adult participants with cIAI, C/T plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem, with comparable safety.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis for Plasma and Epithelial Lining Fluid Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Concentrations in Patients With Ventilated Nosocomial Pneumonia.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) is a combination of a novel cephalosporin with tazobactam, recently approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. The plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) of a 3-g dose of C/T (2 g ceftolozane and 1 g tazobactam) administered via a 1-hour infusion every 8 hours in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP) were evaluated in a phase 3 study (ASPECT-NP; NCT02070757). The present work describes the development of population PK models for ceftolozane and tazobactam in plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid (ELF). The concentration-time profiles of both agents were well characterized by 2-compartment models with zero-order input and first-order elimination. Consistent with the elimination pathway, renal function estimated by creatinine clearance significantly affected the clearance of ceftolozane and tazobactam. The central volumes of distribution for both agents and the peripheral volume of distribution for tazobactam were approximately 2-fold higher in patients with pneumonia compared with healthy participants. A hypothetical link model was developed to describe ceftolozane and tazobactam disposition in ELF in healthy participants and patients with pneumonia. Influx (from plasma to the ELF compartment) and elimination (from the ELF compartment) rate constants were approximately 97% lower for ceftolozane and 52% lower for tazobactam in patients with pneumonia versus healthy participants. These population PK models adequately described the plasma and ELF concentrations of ceftolozane and tazobactam, thus providing a foundation for further modeling and simulation, including the probability of target attainment assessments to support dose recommendations of C/T in adult patients with NP.

Ibalizumab: an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of HIV-1 infection.

The majority of currently available agents for the treatment of HIV-1 infection act by targeting one of several intracellular steps in the viral life cycle. Despite improvements in efficacy and tolerability, the development of viral resistance to these agents is common and significant toxicity and adherence issues still occur. For this reason the development of safe, well tolerated antiviral agents that target a novel step in the viral life cycle remains important. Viral entry into host cells affords several potential extracellular targets for antiretroviral therapy. Ibalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to CD4, the primary host cellular receptor for HIV-1 entry, has been shown to block HIV-1 entry in vitro. Early clinical trials have demonstrated significant antiviral efficacy with a >1 log(10) reduction in viral load when given as monotherapy. Its long half-life, which allows weekly dosing, and its administration as an intravenous infusion differentiate it from other currently available antiretroviral agents. These properties may prove useful in allowing improved drug delivery to patients who have had difficulty adhering to daily oral regimens. Its unique mode of action reduces the risk of cross-resistance with currently available antiretroviral agents, with the potential to expand the choices available to treat drug-resistant HIV-1.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of posaconazole intravenous solution and powder for oral suspension in children with neutropenia: an open-label, sequential dose-escalation trial.

Posaconazole is approved for use in adults as an intravenous (IV) solution and two different oral formulations (a suspension and an improved bioavailability tablet). Data on the pharmacokinetics (PK), dosing and safety of posaconazole in children are limited. A novel powder for oral suspension (PFS) offers the bioavailability of the tablet formulated for weight-based dosing in children. A non-randomised, open-label, sequential dose-escalation, phase 1b trial evaluated the PK and safety of posaconazole IV and PFS in children aged 2 to 17 years with documented or expected neutropenia (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02452034; MSD protocol number, MK-5592-P097). Participants received posaconazole IV 3.5, 4.5 or 6.0 mg/kg/d for ≥10 days, with an option to switch to posaconazole PFS at the identical dose for ≤18 days. The target exposure was a mean within-dose cohort average steady-state plasma concentration (Cavg) of ~1200 ng/mL, with ~90% of participants achieving Cavg between 500 and 2500 ng/mL. Doses of 4.5 and 6.0 mg/kg/d achieved the PK target of ~90% of participants with a Cavg ≥500 ng/mL. PFS resulted in lower posaconazole exposures than IV across age groups at all doses. Posaconazole IV and PFS were well tolerated and had safety profiles similar to those reported for adults. Posaconazole PK following IV and PFS administration was well characterised by the data and enable selection of appropriate paediatric doses. Both formulations were well tolerated without dose-, exposure- or age-related differences in the safety profiles.

Ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (ASPECT-NP): a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial drug ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were undergoing mechanical ventilation, and had nosocomial pneumonia (either ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation (block size four), stratified by type of nosocomial pneumonia and age (<65 years vs ≥65 years), to receive either 3 g ceftolozane-tazobactam or 1 g meropenem intravenously every 8 h for 8-14 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality (at a 10% non-inferiority margin). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after the end of therapy; 12·5% non-inferiority margin). Both endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Investigators, study staff, patients, and patients' representatives were masked to treatment assignment. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received study treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02070757. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and April 27, 2018, 726 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 362 to the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 364 to the meropenem group. Overall, 519 (71%) patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia, 239 (33%) had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of at least 20, and 668 (92%) were in the intensive care unit. At 28 days, 87 (24·0%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 92 (25·3%) in the meropenem group had died (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -5·1 to 7·4]). At the test-of-cure visit 197 (54%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 194 (53%) in the meropenem group were clinically cured (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -6·2 to 8·3]). Ceftolozane-tazobactam was thus non-inferior to meropenem in terms of both 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure at test of cure. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 38 (11%) of 361 patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 27 (8%) of 359 in the meropenem group. Eight (2%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and two (1%) in the meropenem group had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: High-dose ceftolozane-tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population. FUNDING: Merck & Co.