Caspofungin use in daily clinical practice for treatment of invasive aspergillosis: results of a prospective observational registry.

BACKGROUND: A prospective observational registry assessed real world experience with caspofungin monotherapy or combination therapy for the initial or salvage treatment of proven or probable invasive aspergillosis (IA). METHODS: Data were collected from April 2006 to September 2007 for patients treated with caspofungin for a single episode of IA. Clinical effectiveness was categorized as favorable (complete or partial) or unfavorable (stable disease or failure) at the end of caspofungin therapy (EOCT). RESULTS: Consecutive patients (n = 103) with proven or probable IA (per EORTC/MSG criteria) were identified from 11 countries. Malignancy (76.7%), neutropenia (64.1%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT, 22.3%), solid organ transplantation (8.7%), autologous HSCT (4.9%), and HIV/AIDS (2.9%) were the most common underlying conditions. Most patients (84.5%) had pulmonary IA. Aspergillus fumigatus was the most frequently isolated species. The majority of patients received caspofungin monotherapy (82.5%) primarily as salvage therapy (82.4%). The main reason for switching to salvage therapy was clinical failure of the first-line therapy (69%). A favorable response at EOCT was seen in 56.4% (57/101) of patients overall, including 56.5% (48/85) and 56.3% (9/16) of patients receiving caspofungin monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. Favorable response rates in clinically relevant subgroups were: malignancy, 51.9% (41/79); allogeneic HSCT, 56.5% (13/23); and neutropenia at time of hospitalization, 53.0% (35/66). There was a 72.3% (73/101) survival at 7 days after EOCT. Serious adverse events related to caspofungin were reported in 4 cases (3.9%); 3 patients (2.9%) discontinued treatment due to an adverse event related to caspofungin. CONCLUSIONS: Caspofungin was both effective and well tolerated among high-risk patient groups such as those with neutropenia and active malignancies.

Bowel colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci after antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections: observations from 2 randomized comparative clinical trials of ertapenem therapy.

The impact of different antimicrobial regimens for intra-abdominal infections on the frequency of bowel colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) was examined in 2 randomized open-label trials of intra-abdominal infection comparing piperacillin-tazobactam or ceftriaxone/metronidazole with ertapenem. In these short-term studies, overall rates of bowel colonization with VRE were generally comparable after treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftriaxone/metronidazole, or ertapenem.

Efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections requiring surgical intervention.

Complicated intra-abdominal infections usually mandate prompt surgical intervention supplemented by appropriate antimicrobial therapy. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that ertapenem was not inferior to piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of community-acquired intra-abdominal infections. A randomized open-label active-comparator clinical trial was conducted at 48 medical centers on four continents from December 2001 to February 2003. Adult patients with intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery were randomized to receive either ertapenem 1 g daily or piperacillin/tazobactam 13.5 g daily in 3-4 divided doses. The primary analysis of efficacy was the clinical response rate in clinically and microbiologically evaluable patients at the test-of-cure assessment 2 weeks after completion of therapy. All treated patients were included in the safety analysis. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment duration in both treatment groups were generally similar. The most commonly isolated pathogens at baseline were E coli (greater than 50% of cases in each group) and B fragilis ( approximately 9%). Favorable clinical response rates were 107/119 (90%) for ertapenem recipients and 107/114 (94%) for piperacillin/tazobactam recipients. The frequencies of drug-related adverse events, most commonly diarrhea and elevated serum alanine aminotransferase levels, were similar in both treatment groups. Six of 180 ertapenem recipients (3%) and two of 190 piperacillin/tazobactam recipients (1%) had serious drug-related adverse experiences. In this study, ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam were comparably safe and effective treatments for adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections.

Ertapenem versus ceftriaxone and metronidazole as treatment for complicated intra-abdominal infections.

BACKGROUND: Prompt surgical intervention supplemented by appropriate antimicrobial therapy is usually required for successful treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. The objective of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of ertapenem relative to ceftriaxone/metronidazole as treatment for complicated intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: Adult patients with intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery were eligible for this open-label randomized trial comparing ertapenem 1 g daily with ceftriaxone 2 g daily plus metronidazole 30 mg/kg/day. The primary efficacy outcome was the clinical response rate in clinically and microbiologically evaluable participants at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit 2 weeks after discontinuation of therapy. All treated patients were included in the safety analysis. RESULTS: Participant demographics, disease characteristics, and duration of therapy in both treatment groups were generally similar. Escherichia coli was the most commonly isolated baseline pathogen, recovered in 52% of cases in each treatment group. Favorable clinical responses were achieved at TOC in 143 (96.6%) of 148 ertapenem recipients and in 146 (96.7%) of 151 ceftriaxone/metronidazole recipients. The frequencies of drug-related adverse events, most commonly nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and elevated platelet count, were generally comparable in both treatment arms. Four ertapenem recipients (1.8%) and one ceftriaxone/metronidazole recipient (0.4%) experienced serious drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, ertapenem and ceftriaxone/metronidazole were comparably effective treatments for adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections.

Efficacy of indinavir-ritonavir-based regimens in HIV-1-infected patients with prior protease inhibitor failures.

OBJECTIVE: To assess responses to indinavir (IDV)-ritonavir (RTV)-based regimens among HIV-1 infected patients with prior failure of protease inhibitors, and to assess the effects of adherence to therapy and pre-existing genotypic and phenotypic resistance on this response. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients initiating salvage regimens with IDV-RTV (800 mg and 200 mg twice daily, respectively) plus one or more reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI) were identified retrospectively. Genotypic and phenotypic susceptibilities to multiple antiretroviral agents were determined on viral samples collected at initiation of the salvage regimens, and adherence to therapy was determined through patient self-reporting. Response to therapy (viral RNA

Treatment with indinavir, efavirenz, and adefovir after failure of nelfinavir therapy.

A prospective, open-label study was conducted to assess the response to indinavir, efavirenz, and adefovir in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients experiencing viral rebound while receiving therapy with nelfinavir-containing regimens, to determine whether the protease genotype influenced the outcome of the salvage regimen. Genotyping from 29 nelfinavir failures revealed D30N in 17 (59%) and L90M in 11 (38%) cases. Suppression to <400 viral RNA copies/mL was achieved at week 48 in 56% of patients with the D30N virus versus 18% of patients with the L90M virus.

Crossover comparison of efficacy and preference for rizatriptan 10 mg versus ergotamine/caffeine in migraine.

Rizatriptan is a selective 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonist with rapid oral absorption and early onset of action in the acute treatment of migraine. This randomized double- blind crossover outpatient study assessed the preference for 1 rizatriptan 10 mg tablet to 2 ergotamine 1 mg/caffeine 100 mg tablets in 439 patients treating a single migraine attack with each therapy. Of patients expressing a preference (89.1%), more than twice as many preferred rizatriptan to ergotamine/caffeine (69.9 vs. 30.1%, p < or = 0.001). Faster relief of headache was the most important reason for preference, cited by 67.3% of patients preferring rizatriptan and 54.2% of patients who preferred ergotamine/caffeine. The co-primary endpoint of being pain free at 2 h was also in favor of rizatriptan. Forty-nine percent of patients were pain free 2 h after rizatriptan, compared with 24.3% treated with ergotamine/caffeine (p < or = 0.001), rizatriptan being superior within 1 h of treatment. Headache relief at 2 h was 75.9% for rizatriptan and 47.3% for ergotamine/caffeine (p < or = 0.001), with rizatriptan being superior to ergotamine/caffeine within 30 min of dosing. Almost 36% of patients taking rizatriptan were pain free at 2 h and had no recurrence or need for additional medication within 24 h, compared to 20% of patients on ergotamine/caffeine (p < or = 0.001). Rizatriptan was also superior to ergotamine/caffeine in the proportions of patients with no nausea, vomiting, phonophobia or photophobia and for patients with normal function 2 h after drug intake (p < or = 0.001). More patients were (completely, very or somewhat) satisfied 2 h after treatment with rizatriptan (69.8%) than at 2 h after treatment with ergotamine/caffeine (38.6%, p < or = 0.001). Recurrence rates were 31.4% with rizatriptan and 15.3% with ergotamine/caffeine. Both active treatments were well tolerated. The most common adverse events (incidence > or = 5% in one group) after rizatriptan and ergotamine/caffeine, respectively, were dizziness (6.7 and 5.3%), nausea (4.2 and 8.5%) and somnolence (5.5 and 2.3%).