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.

Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

To compare efficacy and safety of a tigecycline regimen with an imipenem/cilastatin regimen in hospital-acquired pneumonia patients, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, study evaluated 945 patients. Coprimary end points were clinical response in clinically evaluable (CE) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) populations at test-of-cure. Cure rates were 67.9% for tigecycline and 78.2% for imipenem (CE patients) and 62.7% and 67.6% (c-mITT patients), respectively. A statistical interaction occurred between ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and non-VAP subgroups, with significantly lower cure rates in tigecycline VAP patients compared to imipenem; in non-VAP patients, tigecycline was noninferior to imipenem. Overall mortality did not differ between the tigecycline (14.1%) and imipenem regimens (12.2%), although more deaths occurred in VAP patients treated with tigecycline than imipenem. Overall, the tigecycline regimen was noninferior to the imipenem/cilastatin regimen for the c-mITT but not the CE population; this difference appears to have been driven by results in VAP patients.

A multicenter trial of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus imipenem/cilastatin in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections [Study ID Numbers: 3074A1-301-WW; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00081744].

BACKGROUND: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) remain challenging to treat because of their polymicrobial etiology including multi-drug resistant bacteria. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline, an expanded broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, was compared with imipenem/cilastatin (IMI/CIS) in patients with cIAI. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, multinational trial was conducted in which patients with cIAI randomly received intravenous (IV) tigecycline (100 mg initial dose, then 50 mg every 12 hours [q12h]) or IV IMI/CIS (500/500 mg q6h or adjusted for renal dysfunction) for 5 to14 days. Clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (14-35 days after therapy) for microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiological modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations were the co-primary efficacy endpoint populations. RESULTS: A total of 825 patients received >or= 1 dose of study drug. The primary diagnoses for the ME group were complicated appendicitis (59%), and intestinal (8.8%) and gastric/duodenal perforations (4.6%). For the ME group, clinical cure rates at TOC were 80.6% (199/247) for tigecycline versus 82.4% (210/255) for IMI/CIS (95% CI -8.4, 5.1 for non-inferiority tigecycline versus IMI/CIS). Corresponding clinical cure rates within the m-mITT population were 73.5% (227/309) for tigecycline versus 78.2% (244/312) for IMI/CIS (95% CI -11.0, 2.5). Nausea (31.0% tigecycline, 24.8% IMI/CIS [P = 0.052]), vomiting (25.7% tigecycline, 19.4% IMI/CIS [P = 0.037]), and diarrhea (21.3% tigecycline, 18.9% IMI/CIS [P = 0.435]) were the most frequently reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that tigecycline is as efficacious as imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with cIAI.