A Randomized Trial of the Amikacin Fosfomycin Inhalation System for the Adjunctive Therapy of Gram-Negative Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: IASIS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical failures in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by gram-negative bacteria are common and associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. METHODS: We assessed the safety and efficacy of the amikacin fosfomycin inhalation system (AFIS) for the treatment of gram-negative bacterial VAP in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, phase 2 study between May 2013 and March 2016. We compared standard of care in each arm plus 300 mg amikacin/120 mg fosfomycin or placebo (saline), delivered by aerosol twice daily for 10 days (or to extubation if < 10 days) via the investigational eFlow Inline System (PARI GmbH). The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) during the randomized course of AFIS/placebo, using the subset of patients with microbiologically proven baseline infections with gram-negative bacteria. RESULTS: There were 143 patients randomized: 71 to the AFIS group, and 72 to the placebo group. Comparison of CPIS change from baseline between treatment groups was not different (P = .70). The secondary hierarchical end point of no mortality and clinical cure at day 14 or earlier was also not significant (P = .68) nor was the hierarchical end point of no mortality and ventilator-free days (P = .06). The number of deaths in the AFIS group was 17 (24%) and 12 (17%) in the placebo group (P = .32). The AFIS group had significantly fewer positive tracheal cultures on days 3 and 7 than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of adjunctive aerosol therapy compared with standard of care IV antibiotics in patients with gram-negative VAP, the AFIS was ineffective in improving clinical outcomes despite reducing bacterial burden. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01969799; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in extremely obese patients with suspected or confirmed Staphylococcus aureus infections.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To estimate vancomycin pharmacokinetic parameters and dosing requirements in a cohort of extremely obese patients. DESIGN: Prospective pharmacokinetic study. SETTING: Acute care community teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-one extremely obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 40 kg/m(2) ) men and women who were receiving vancomycin for at least 3 days for suspected or confirmed Staphylococcus aureus infections. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Population pharmacokinetic parameters were used to determine vancomycin doses that target trough concentrations of 10-20 µg/ml. Three serum vancomycin concentrations (peak, trough, and midpoint) were measured at steady state for each patient. A 24-hour urine collection was performed to determine creatinine clearance (Clcr ). A one-compartment intravenous infusion model was fit to the serum vancomycin concentrations by using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Covariates that affect the volume of distribution and clearance of vancomycin were explored. Patients had a median weight of 147.9 kg, BMI of 49.5 kg/m(2) , and a Cockcroft-Gault Clcr of 124.8 ml/minute/1.73 m(2) . Patients received a median vancomycin dose of 4000 mg/day that provided a median 24-hour area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 582.9 (interquartile range 513.8-726.2) mg·hour/L. The population mean volume of distribution was 0.51 L/kg, and clearance was 6.54 L/hour. Simulations indicated that 4000-5000 mg/day of vancomycin provided ≥ 93% probability 24-hour AUC/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio of ≥ 400 for an MIC of 1 µg/ml. CONCLUSION: Total body weight and Clcr influenced volume of distribution and vancomycin clearance, respectively. Vancomycin can be initiated in extremely obese patients at dosages determined based on renal function and pharmacokinetic parameter estimates from this study. Vancomycin serum concentrations should be monitored to ascertain attainment within the therapeutic range.

The significance of the F variant of alpha-1-antitrypsin and unique case report of a PiFF homozygote.

BACKGROUND: Inheritance of the F variant of alpha-1-antitrypsin is associated with normal circulating protein levels, but it is believed to be dysfunctional in its ability to inhibit neutrophil elastase and therefore has been implicated as a susceptibility factor for the development of emphysema. In this study, its functional characteristics were determined following the identification of a unique patient with the PiFF phenotype, and the implications as a susceptibility factor for emphysema are considered both in homozygotes and heterozygotes. METHODS: Second order association rate constants were measured for M, Z, S and F variants of alpha-1-antitrypsin with neutrophil elastase and proteinase 3. Clinical characteristics of the PiFF homozygote and six PiFZ heterozygote subjects were studied. RESULTS: The F variant had a reduced association rate constant with neutrophil elastase (5.60 ± 0.83 × 106 M-1 s-1) compared to the normal M variant (1.45 ± 0.02 × 107 M-1 s-1), indicating an increased time to inhibition that was comparable to that of the Z variant (7.34 ± 0.03 × 106 M-1 s-1). The association rate constant for the F variant and proteinase 3 (1.06 ± 0.22 × 106 M-1 s-1) was reduced compared to that with neutrophil elastase, but was similar to that of other alpha-1-antitrypsin variants. Of the six PiFZ heterozygotes, five had airflow obstruction and radiological evidence of emphysema. The PiFF homozygote had airflow obstruction but no emphysema. None of the patients had clinical evidence of liver disease. CONCLUSIONS: The F variant may increase susceptibility to elastase-induced lung damage but not emphysema, whereas co-inheritance with the Z deficiency allele may predispose to emphysema despite reasonable plasma concentrations of alpha-1-antitrypsin.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist medications are the most commonly used sedatives for intensive care unit (ICU) patients, yet preliminary evidence indicates that the alpha(2) agonist dexmedetomidine may have distinct advantages. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial conducted in 68 centers in 5 countries between March 2005 and August 2007 among 375 medical/surgical ICU patients with expected mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours. Sedation level and delirium were assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Dexmedetomidine (0.2-1.4 microg/kg per hour [n = 244]) or midazolam (0.02-0.1 mg/kg per hour [n = 122]) titrated to achieve light sedation (RASS scores between -2 and +1) from enrollment until extubation or 30 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of time within target RASS range. Secondary end points included prevalence and duration of delirium, use of fentanyl and open-label midazolam, and nursing assessments. Additional outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse events. RESULTS: There was no difference in percentage of time within the target RASS range (77.3% for dexmedetomidine group vs 75.1% for midazolam group; difference, 2.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3.2% to 7.5%]; P = .18). The prevalence of delirium during treatment was 54% (n = 132/244) in dexmedetomidine-treated patients vs 76.6% (n = 93/122) in midazolam-treated patients (difference, 22.6% [95% CI, 14% to 33%]; P < .001). Median time to extubation was 1.9 days shorter in dexmedetomidine-treated patients (3.7 days [95% CI, 3.1 to 4.0] vs 5.6 days [95% CI, 4.6 to 5.9]; P = .01), and ICU length of stay was similar (5.9 days [95% CI, 5.7 to 7.0] vs 7.6 days [95% CI, 6.7 to 8.6]; P = .24). Dexmedetomidine-treated patients were more likely to develop bradycardia (42.2% [103/244] vs 18.9% [23/122]; P < .001), with a nonsignificant increase in the proportion requiring treatment (4.9% [12/244] vs 0.8% [1/122]; P = .07), but had a lower likelihood of tachycardia (25.4% [62/244] vs 44.3% [54/122]; P < .001) or hypertension requiring treatment (18.9% [46/244] vs 29.5% [36/122]; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in time at targeted sedation level in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. At comparable sedation levels, dexmedetomidine-treated patients spent less time on the ventilator, experienced less delirium, and developed less tachycardia and hypertension. The most notable adverse effect of dexmedetomidine was bradycardia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00216190 Published online February 2, 2009 (doi:10.1001/jama.2009.56).