A SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine (S-268019-b) for COVID-19 prevention during the Omicron-dominant period: A phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Clinical trials of new vaccines based on existing variants of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are often impacted by the emergence of new virus variants. We evaluated the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of S-268019-b, a recombinant spike protein subunit vaccine based on the ancestral strain, for preventing symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the Omicron (BA.2)-dominant period in Vietnam. In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised (2:1), observer-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, participants received 2 intramuscular doses (28 days apart) of either 10 µg of S-268019-b (Recombinant S-protein vaccine) or placebo. The primary endpoint was incidence of laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 before crossover, with onset within 14 days following the second dose, in participants who were seronegative and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-negative at baseline. The secondary endpoints included immunogenicity and safety. In total, 8,594 participants were randomised (S-268019-b [n = 5,727]; placebo [n = 2,867]). Vaccine efficacy versus placebo was 39·1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]:26·6-49·5; one-sided P = 0·0723). The incidence rate (95 % CI) of symptomatic COVID-19 was 776·41/1,000 person-years (682·04-880·19) in the S-268019-b group and 1272·87/1,000 person-years (1101·32-1463·57) in the placebo group. The geometric mean titres (95 % CI) of the SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody increased on Day 57 versus baseline with S-268019-b (34·66 [27·04-44·41] versus 2·50 (non-estimable) but not with placebo. There were no safety concerns regarding S-268019-b. S-268019-b did not demonstrate the targeted efficacy threshold against symptomatic COVID-19; however, findings were comparable with other prophylactic vaccines based on ancestor strain during the Omicron-dominant period. S-268019-b demonstrated immunogenicity and was well-tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05212948.

A phase 3 randomized controlled trial of a COVID-19 recombinant vaccine S-268019-b versus ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Japanese adults.

We assessed S-268019-b, a recombinant spike protein vaccine with a squalene-based adjuvant, for superiority in its immunogenicity over ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine among adults in Japan. In this multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, phase 3 study, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-naïve participants (aged ≥ 18 years, without prior infection or vaccination against SARS-CoV-2) were randomized (1:1) to receive either S-268019-b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 as two intramuscular injections given 28 days apart. Participants who provided consent for a booster administration received S-268019-b at Day 211. The primary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (NAb) titer on Day 57; the key secondary endpoint was the seroconversion rate for SARS-CoV-2 NAb titer on Day 57. Other endpoints included anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-protein immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibody titer and safety. The demographic and baseline characteristics were generally comparable between S-268019-b (n = 611) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n = 610) groups. S-268019-b showed superior immunogenicity over ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, based on their geometric mean titers (GMTs) and GMT ratios of SARS-CoV-2 NAb on Day 57 by cytopathic effect assay (GMT [95% confidence interval {CI}] 19.92 [18.68, 21.23] versus 3.63 [3.41, 3.87]; GMT ratio [95% CI] 5.48 [5.01, 6.00], respectively; two-sided p-values < 0.0001). Additionally, NAb measured using a cell viability assay also showed similar results (GMT [95% CI] 183.25 [168.04, 199.84] versus 24.79 [22.77, 27.00]; GMT ratio [95% CI] 7.39 [6.55, 8.35] for S-268019-b versus ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively; p < 0.0001). The GMT of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-protein IgG antibody was 370.05 for S-268019-b versus 77.92 for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 on Day 57 (GMT ratio [95% CI] 4.75 [4.34, 5.20]). Notably, immune responses were durable through the end of the study. S-268019-b elicited T-helper 1 skewed T-cell response, comparable to that of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. After the first dose, the incidence of solicited systemic treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was higher in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, but after the second dose, the incidence was higher in the S-268019-b group. Headache, fatigue, and myalgia were the most commonly reported solicited systemic TRAEs, while pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported solicited local TRAE following both doses in both groups. No serious treatment-related adverse serious TRAEs events were reported in the two groups. S-268019-b was more immunogenic than ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and was well tolerated (jRCT2051210151).

Safety and immunogenicity of a booster dose of S-268019-b: Interim findings of a Phase 3, open-label clinical study in Japan.

Despite the initial success of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines in prevention of symptomatic and severe diseases, booster vaccination has become increasingly important with the advent of variants with immune-escaping capacity. Herein, we report the safety and immunogenicity of S-268019-b, comprising SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and a squalene-based adjuvant, as a booster dose. We performed an interim analysis of an open-label, Phase 3 study data until Day 29 following S-268019-b booster in Japanese adults (aged 20-64 years) who had completed primary vaccination with mRNA-1273 and in Japanese elderly (aged ≥ 65 years) who had completed primary vaccination with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. Reactogenicity was mild in most participants; no serious treatment-related adverse events were noted. S-268019-b enhanced SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, immunoglobulin G antibodies, and predominant T-helper 1-mediated immune reaction in all cohorts, regardless of age, in Japanese participants with prior vaccination with mRNA vaccines.

Results from a preclinical study in rodents and a Phase 1/2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of COVID-19 vaccine S-268019-a in Japanese adults.

BACKGROUND: In early 2020, developing vaccines was an urgent need for preventing COVID-19 from a contingency perspective. METHODS: S-268019-a is a recombinant protein-based vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), comprising a modified recombinant spike protein antigen adjuvanted with agatolimod sodium, a Toll-like receptor-9 agonist. In the preclinical phase, it was administered intramuscularly twice at a 2-week interval in 7-week-old mice. Immunogenicity was assessed, and the mice were challenged intranasally with mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 at 2 and 8 weeks, respectively, after the second immunization. After confirming the preclinical effect, a Phase 1/2, randomized, parallel-group clinical study was conducted in healthy adults (aged 20-64 years). All participants received 2 intramuscular injections at various combinations of the antigen and the adjuvant (S-910823/agatolimod sodium, in µg: 12.5/250, 25/250, 50/250, 25/500, 50/500, 100/500, 10/500, 100/100, 200/1000) or placebo (saline) in an equivalent volume at a 3-week interval and were followed up until Day 50 in this interim analysis. RESULTS: In the preclinical studies, S-268019-a was safe and elicited robust immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralizing antibody responses in mice. When challenged with SARS-CoV-2, all S-268019-a-treated mice survived and maintained weight until 10 days, whereas all placebo- or adjuvant-treated (without antigen) mice died within 6 days. In the Phase 1/2 trial, although S-268019-a was well tolerated in adult participants, was safe up to Day 50, and elicited robust anti-spike protein IgG antibodies, it did not elicit sufficient neutralizing antibody levels. CONCLUSIONS: The S-268019-a vaccine was not sufficiently immunogenic in Japanese adults despite robust immunogenicity and efficacy in mice. Our results exemplify the innate challenges in translating preclinical data in animals to clinical trials, and highlight the need for continued research to overcome such barriers. (jRCT2051200092).

Immunogenicity and safety of booster dose of S-268019-b or BNT162b2 in Japanese participants: An interim report of phase 2/3, randomized, observer-blinded, noninferiority study.

In this randomized, observer-blinded, phase 2/3 study, S-268019-b (n = 101), a recombinant spike protein vaccine, was analyzed for noninferiority versus BNT162b2 (n = 103), when given as a booster ≥6 months after 2-dose BNT162b2 regimen in Japanese adults without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interim results showed noninferiority of S-268019-b versus BNT162b2 in co-primary endpoints for neutralizing antibodies on day 29: geometric mean titer (GMT) (124.97 versus 109.70; adjusted-GMT ratio [95% CI], 1.14 [0.94-1.39]; noninferiority P-value, <0.0001) and seroresponse rate (both 100%; noninferiority P-value, 0.0004). Both vaccines elicited anti-spike-protein immunoglobulin G antibodies, and produced T-cell response (n = 29/group) and neutralizing antibodies against Delta and Omicron pseudovirus and live virus variants (n = 24/group) in subgroups. Most participants reported low-grade reactogenicity on days 1-2, the most frequent being fatigue, fever, myalgia, and injection-site pain. No serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, S-268019-b was safe and showed robust immunogenicity as a booster, supporting its use as COVID-19 booster vaccine.

Phase 1/2 clinical trial of COVID-19 vaccine in Japanese participants: A report of interim findings.

We initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the S-268019-b recombinant protein vaccine, scheduled as 2 intramuscular injections given 21 days apart, in 60 randomized healthy Japanese adults. We evaluated 2 regimens of the S-910823 antigen (5 µg [n = 24] and 10 µg [n = 24]) with an oil-in-water emulsion formulation and compared against placebo (n = 12). Reactogenicity was mild in most participants. No serious adverse events were noted. For both regimens, vaccination resulted in robust IgG and neutralizing antibody production at days 36 and 50 and predominant T-helper 1-mediated immune reaction, as evident through antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4+ T-cell responses with IFN-γ, IL-2, and IL-4 production on spike protein peptides stimulation. Based on the interim analysis, the S-268019-b vaccine is safe, produces neutralizing antibodies titer comparable with that in convalescent serum from COVID-19-recovered patients. However, further evaluation of the vaccine in a large clinical trial is warranted.

Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: New antibiotics are needed for the treatment of patients with life-threatening carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections. We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus best available therapy in adults with serious carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 study in 95 hospitals in 16 countries in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with nosocomial pneumonia, bloodstream infections or sepsis, or complicated urinary tract infections (UTI), and evidence of a carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogen. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1 by interactive web or voice response system) to receive either a 3-h intravenous infusion of cefiderocol 2 g every 8 h or best available therapy (pre-specified by the investigator before randomisation and comprised of a maximum of three drugs) for 7-14 days. For patients with pneumonia or bloodstream infection or sepsis, cefiderocol treatment could be combined with one adjunctive antibiotic (excluding polymyxins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems). The primary endpoint for patients with nosocomial pneumonia or bloodstream infection or sepsis was clinical cure at test of cure (7 days [plus or minus 2] after the end of treatment) in the carbapenem-resistant microbiological intention-to-treat population (ITT; ie, patients with a confirmed carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogen receiving at least one dose of study drug). For patients with complicated UTI, the primary endpoint was microbiological eradication at test of cure in the carbapenem-resistant microbiological ITT population. Safety was evaluated in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Mortality was reported through to the end of study visit (28 days [plus or minus 3] after the end of treatment). Summary statistics, including within-arm 95% CIs calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method, were collected for the primary and safety endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02714595) and EudraCT (2015-004703-23). FINDINGS: Between Sept 7, 2016, and April 22, 2019, we randomly assigned 152 patients to treatment, 101 to cefiderocol, 51 to best available therapy. 150 patients received treatment: 101 cefiderocol (85 [85%] received monotherapy) and 49 best available therapy (30 [61%] received combination therapy). In 118 patients in the carbapenem-resistant microbiological ITT population, the most frequent carbapenem-resistant pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii (in 54 patients [46%]), Klebsiella pneumoniae (in 39 patients [33%]), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (in 22 patients [19%]). In the same population, for patients with nosocomial pneumonia, clinical cure was achieved by 20 (50%, 95% CI 33·8-66·2) of 40 patients in the cefiderocol group and ten (53%, 28·9-75·6) of 19 patients in the best available therapy group; for patients with bloodstream infection or sepsis, clinical cure was achieved by ten (43%, 23·2-65·5) of 23 patients in the cefiderocol group and six (43%, 17·7-71·1) of 14 patients in the best available therapy group. For patients with complicated UTIs, microbiological eradication was achieved by nine (53%, 27·8-77·0) of 17 patients in the cefiderocol group and one (20%, 0·5-71·6) of five patients in the best available therapy group. In the safety population, treatment-emergent adverse events were noted for 91% (92 patients of 101) of the cefiderocol group and 96% (47 patients of 49) of the best available therapy group. 34 (34%) of 101 patients receiving cefiderocol and nine (18%) of 49 patients receiving best available therapy died by the end of the study; one of these deaths (in the best available therapy group) was considered to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Cefiderocol had similar clinical and microbiological efficacy to best available therapy in this heterogeneous patient population with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Numerically more deaths occurred in the cefiderocol group, primarily in the patient subset with Acinetobacter spp infections. Collectively, the findings from this study support cefiderocol as an option for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant infections in patients with limited treatment options. FUNDING: Shionogi.

Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens poses an increasing challenge. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for adults with nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 76 centres in 17 countries in Asia, Europe, and the USA (APEKS-NP). We enrolled adults aged 18 years and older with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, or health-care-associated Gram-negative pneumonia, and randomly assigned them (1:1 by interactive response technology) to 3-h intravenous infusions of either cefiderocol 2 g or meropenem 2 g every 8 h for 7-14 days. All patients also received open-label intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) for at least 5 days. An unmasked pharmacist prepared the assigned treatments; investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Only the unmasked pharmacist was aware of the study drug assignment for the infusion bags, which were administered in generic infusion bags labelled with patient and study site identification numbers. Participants were stratified at randomisation by infection type and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (≤15 and ≥16). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients receiving at least one dose of study drug, excluding patients with Gram-positive monomicrobial infections). The analysis was done for all patients with known vital status. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference between cefiderocol and meropenem groups was less than 12·5%. Safety was investigated to the end of the study in the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03032380, and EudraCT, 2016-003020-23. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2017, and April 14, 2019, we randomly assigned 148 participants to cefiderocol and 152 to meropenem. Of 292 patients in the modified ITT population, 251 (86%) had a qualifying baseline Gram-negative pathogen, including Klebsiella pneumoniae (92 [32%]), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (48 [16%]), Acinetobacter baumannii (47 [16%]), and Escherichia coli (41 [14%]). 142 (49%) patients had an APACHE II score of 16 or more, 175 (60%) were mechanically ventilated, and 199 (68%) were in intensive care units at the time of randomisation. All-cause mortality at day 14 was 12·4% with cefiderocol (18 patients of 145) and 11·6% with meropenem (17 patients of 146; adjusted treatment difference 0·8%, 95% CI -6·6 to 8·2; p=0·002 for non-inferiority hypothesis). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 130 (88%) of 148 participants in the cefiderocol group and 129 (86%) of 150 in the meropenem group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was urinary tract infection in the cefiderocol group (23 patients [16%] of 148) and hypokalaemia in the meropenem group (23 patients [15%] of 150). Two participants (1%) of 148 in the cefiderocol group and two (1%) of 150 in the meropenem group discontinued the study because of drug-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Cefiderocol was non-inferior to high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem in terms of all-cause mortality on day 14 in patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia, with similar tolerability. The results suggest that cefiderocol is a potential option for the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including those caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. FUNDING: Shionogi.

Designing A Pathogen-Focused Study To Address The High Unmet Medical Need Represented By Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens - The International, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CREDIBLE-CR Study.

Carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative infections, including those caused by Enterobacteriaceae and the non-fermenters, represent the greatest unmet need for new effective treatments. The clinical development of new antibiotics for the treatment of CR infections is challenging and should focus on the individual pathogens irrespective of the infection site. However, the drug approval pathway is generally infection-site specific and rarely includes such drug-resistant pathogens. To overcome this limitation, a streamlined clinical development program may include a pathogen-focused clinical study, such as the CREDIBLE-CR study, to meet the expectations of some health authorities (ie, the European Medicines Agency [EMA]) and the medical community. Cefiderocol is a novel siderophore cephalosporin designed to target CR pathogens, including CR strains of Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and also Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, which is intrinsically CR. The CREDIBLE-CR study was planned to evaluate cefiderocol in patients with CR Gram-negative infections regardless of species or infection-site source. Rapid diagnostic testing and/or selective media were provided to facilitate detection of CR pathogens to rapidly enroll patients with nosocomial pneumonia, bloodstream infection/sepsis, or complicated urinary tract infection. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive cefiderocol or best available therapy. There were no pre-specified statistical hypotheses for this study, as the sample size was driven by enrollment feasibility and not based on statistical power calculations. The objective of the CREDIBLE-CR study was to provide descriptive evidence of the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol for the target population of patients with CR infections, including the non-fermenters. The CREDIBLE-CR study is currently the largest pathogen-focused, randomized, open-label, prospective, Phase 3 clinical study to investigate a new antibiotic in patients with CR Gram-negative infections. Here we describe the design of this pathogen-focused study and steps taken to aid patient enrollment into the study within an evolving regulatory environment. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION: NCT02714595. EUDRA-CT REGISTRATION: 2015-004703-23.

Pathogen-focused Clinical Development to Address Unmet Medical Need: Cefiderocol Targeting Carbapenem Resistance.

Historically, the regulatory requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for developing new antibiotics have not addressed pathogen-focused indications for drug approval. The design of the necessary randomized controlled trials traditionally involves the enrollment of patients with site-specific infections caused by susceptible as well as resistant pathogens. Cefiderocol has undergone a streamlined clinical development program to address serious carbapenem-resistant infections. The regulatory approach, and the pivotal clinical trials, differed between the FDA and EMA. In the United States, the APEKS-cUTI (Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Stenotrophomonas-complicated urinary tract infection) study was conducted to provide the basis for FDA approval of a site-specific cUTI indication. The EMA, however, preferred the CREDIBLE-CR (A MultiCenter, RandomizED, Open-label ClInical Study of S-649266 or Best AvailabLE Therapy for the Treatment of Severe Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-negative Pathogens) study, in which patients with nosocomial pneumonia, bloodstream infections, or cUTIs were enrolled if they had a carbapenem-resistant pathogen. The resulting European label will be pathogen focused rather than infection site specific (ie, treatment of gram-negative infection in patients with limited treatment options). The implications and limitations of these different regulatory processes are discussed.

Compassionate Use of Cefiderocol as Adjunctive Treatment of Native Aortic Valve Endocarditis Due to Extremely Drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Serious infections such as endocarditis due to extremely drug-resistance gram-negative bacteria are an increasing challenge. Here, we present successful adjunctive use of cefiderocol for a patient with persistently bacteremic healthcare-associated native aortic valve endocarditis due to an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-positive Pseudomonas aeruginosa susceptible in vitro only to colistin, following failure of conventional therapeutic options.

Cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by Gram-negative uropathogens: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria represent the highest priority for addressing global antibiotic resistance. Cefiderocol (S-649266), a new siderophore cephalosporin, has broad activity against Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, including carbapenem-resistant strains. We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in patients at risk of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. METHODS: We did a phase 2, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group non-inferiority trial at 67 hospitals in 15 countries. Adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis or those with acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis were randomly assigned (2:1) by an interactive web or voice response system to receive 1 h intravenous infusions of cefiderocol (2 g) or imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) three times daily, every 8 h for 7-14 days. Patients were excluded if they had a baseline urine culture with more than two uropathogens, a fungal urinary tract infection, or pathogens known to be carbapenem resistant. The primary endpoint was the composite of clinical and microbiological outcomes at test of cure (ie, 7 days after treatment cessation), which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% and 20% margins) of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug and had a qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug, according to the treatment they received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02321800. FINDINGS: Between Feb 5, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016, 452 patients were randomly assigned to cefiderocol (n=303) or imipenem-cilastatin (n=149), of whom 448 patients (n=300 in the cefiderocol group; n=148 in the imipenem-cilastatin group) received treatment. 371 patients (n=252 patients in the cefiderocol group; n=119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group) had qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 CFU/mL) and were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At test of cure, the primary efficacy endpoint was achieved by 183 (73%) of 252 patients in the cefiderocol group and 65 (55%) of 119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with an adjusted treatment difference of 18·58% (95% CI 8·23-28·92; p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of cefiderocol. Cefiderocol was well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 122 (41%) of 300 patients in the cefiderocol group and 76 (51%) of 148 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with gastrointestinal disorders (ie, diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) the most common adverse events for both treatment groups (35 [12%] patients in the cefiderocol group and 27 [18%] patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group). INTERPRETATION: Intravenous infusion of cefiderocol (2 g) three times daily was non-inferior compared with imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in people with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. The results of this study will provide the basis for submission of a New Drug Application to the US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials of hospital-acquired pneumonia and carbapenem-resistant infections are ongoing. FUNDING: Shionogi & Co Ltd, Shionogi Inc.

Prevalence of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in the United States Predominated by Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative pathogens are recognized as a major health concern. This study examined the prevalence of infections due to 4 CR Gram-negative species (Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli) in the United States and assessed their impact on hospital stays and mortality. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed infection due to any of the 4 Gram-negative pathogens were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Proportions of CR were calculated by pathogen and infection site (blood, respiratory, urinary, or other) for the United States as whole and by census regions. Crude and adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital mortality were produced using logistic regression. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2013, 13 262 (4.5%) of 292 742 infections due to these 4 Gram-negative pathogens were CR. Of these CR infections, 82.3% were caused by A. baumannii (22%) or P. aeruginosa (60.3%), while 17.7% were caused by K. pneumoniae or E. coli. CR patients had longer hospital stays than carbapenem-susceptible (CS) patients in all pathogen-infection site cohorts, except in the A. baumannii-respiratory cohort. The crude all cause in-hospital mortality was greater for most pathogen-infection site cohorts of the CR group compared with the CS group, especially for A. baumannii infection in the blood (crude odds ratio [OR], 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69-5.70). This difference for the A. baumannii-blood cohort remained after adjusting for the relevant covariates (adjusted OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.43-4.22). CONCLUSION: The majority of CR infections and disease burden in the United States was caused by nonfermenters A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa. Patients with CR infections had longer hospital stays and higher crude in-hospital mortality.