Efficacies of three drug regimens containing omadacycline to treat Mycobacteroides abscessus disease.

Mycobacteroides abscessus (Mab, also known as Mycobacterium abscessus) causes opportunistic pulmonary and soft tissue infections that are difficult to cure with existing treatments. Omadacycline, a new tetracycline antibiotic, exhibits potent in vitro and in vivo activity against Mab. As regimens containing multiple antibiotics are required to produce a durable cure for Mab disease, we assessed efficacies of three three-drug combinations in a pre-clinical mouse model of pulmonary Mab disease to identify companion drugs with which omadacycline exhibits the highest efficacy. Additionally, we assessed the susceptibility of Mab recovered from mouse lungs after four weeks of exposure to the three triple-drug regimens. Among the three-drug regimens, omadacycline + imipenem + amikacin produced the largest reduction in Mab burden, whereas omadacycline + imipenem + linezolid exhibited the most effective early bactericidal activity. Omadacycline + linezolid + clofazimine, a regimen that can be administered orally, lacked early bactericidal activity but produced a gradual reduction in the lung Mab burden over time. The robust efficacy exhibited by these three regimens in the mouse model supports their further evaluation in patients with Mab lung disease. As we were unable to isolate drug-resistant Mab mutants at the completion of four weeks of treatment, these triple-drug combinations show promise of producing durable cure and minimizing selection of resistant mutants.

A Review of Omadacycline for Potential Utility in the Military Health System for the Treatment of Wound Infections.

INTRODUCTION: Combat-related wound infections complicate the recovery of wounded military personnel, contributing to overall morbidity and mortality. Wound infections in combat settings present unique challenges because of the size and depth of the wounds, the need to administer emergency care in the field, and the need for subsequent treatment in military facilities. Given the increase in multidrug-resistant pathogens, a novel, broad-spectrum antibiotic is desired across this continuum of care when the standard of care fails. Omadacycline was FDA-approved in 2018 for treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), as well as community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). It is a broad-spectrum antibiotic with activity against gram-positive, gram-negative, and atypical bacterial pathogens, including multidrug-resistant species. Omadacycline can overcome commonly reported tetracycline resistance mechanisms, ribosomal protection proteins, and efflux pumps, and is available in once-daily intravenous or oral formulations. In this review, we discuss the potential role of omadacycline, which is included in the Department of Defense Formulary, in the context of combat wound infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was undertaken for manuscripts published before July 21, 2023. This included a series of publications found via PubMed and a bibliography made publicly available on the Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. website. Publications presenting primary data published in English on omadacycline in relation to ESKAPEE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Enterobacter species) pathogens and Clostridioides difficile, including in vitro, in vivo, and clinical data were included. RESULTS: Of 260 identified records, 66 were included for evidence review. Omadacycline has in vitro activity against almost all the ESKAPEE pathogens, apart from P. aeruginosa. Importantly, it has activity against the four most prevalent bacterial pathogens that cause wound infections in the military healthcare system: S. aureus, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, and E. coli. In vivo studies in rats have shown that omadacycline is rapidly distributed in most tissues, with the highest tissue-to-blood concentration ratios in bone mineral. The clinical efficacy of omadacycline has been assessed in three separate Phase 3 studies in patients with ABSSSI (OASIS-1 and OASIS-2) and with CABP (OPTIC). Overall, omadacycline has an established safety profile in the treatment of both ABSSSI and CABP. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline has broad-spectrum activity, the option to be orally administered and an established safety profile, making it a potentially attractive replacement for moxifloxacin in the military individual first aid kit, especially when accounting for the increasing resistance to fluoroquinolones. Further studies and clinical evaluation are warranted to support broader use of omadacycline to treat combat wound infections in the military healthcare system.

Efficacy of Omadacycline-Containing Regimen in a Mouse Model of Pulmonary Mycobacteroides abscessus Disease.

Mycobacteroides abscessus is an opportunistic pathogen in people with structural lung conditions such as bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cystic fibrosis. Pulmonary M. abscessus infection causes progressive symptomatic and functional decline as well as diminished lung function and is often incurable with existing antibiotics. We investigated the efficacy of a new tetracycline, omadacycline, in combination with existing antibiotics recommended to treat this indication, in a mouse model of M. abscessus lung disease. Amikacin, azithromycin, bedaquiline, biapenem, cefoxitin, clofazimine, imipenem, linezolid, and rifabutin were selected as companions to omadacycline. M. abscessus burden in the lungs of mice over a 4-week treatment duration was considered the endpoint. Omadacycline in combination with linezolid, imipenem, cefoxitin, biapenem, or rifabutin exhibited early bactericidal activity compared to any single drug. Using three M. abscessus isolates, we also determined the in vitro frequency of spontaneous resistance against omadacycline to be between 1.9 × 10-10 and 6.2 × 10-10 and the frequency of persistence against omadacycline to be between 5.3 × 10-6 and 1.3 × 10-5. Based on these findings, the combination of omadacycline and select drugs that are included in the recent treatment guidelines may exhibit improved potency to treat M. abscessus lung disease. IMPORTANCE M. abscessus disease incidence is increasing in the United States. This disease is difficult to cure with existing antibiotics. In this study, we describe the efficacy of a new tetracycline antibiotic, omadacycline, in combination with an existing antibiotic to treat this disease. A mouse model of M. abscessus lung disease was used to assess the efficacies of these experimental treatment regimens. Omadacycline in combination with select existing antibiotics exhibited bactericidal activity during the early phase of treatment.

Current Challenges in the Management of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are major public health problems that are commonly encountered in the primary care setting. Establishing the severity of disease is an important step in the diagnosis of SSTI and CAP, because this can affect decisions about optimal management, including level of care. Due to antibiotic resistance, allergies, and adverse effect profiles of current therapies, there is a need for new treatment options for both SSTI and CAP. Improved utilization of oral outpatient antibiotic treatments can also minimize the risk of serious adverse effects or nosocomial infections, leading to better patient outcomes. As these infections are mostly treated in outpatient settings, primary care clinicians are best suited to implement changes such as use of oral antibiotics, where appropriate, to reduce hospitalization, with its associated costs and risks to the patient.

Efficacy of Omadacycline Versus Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia by Disease Severity: Results From the OPTIC Study.

BACKGROUND: Severity/mortality risk scores and disease characteristics may assist in deciding whether patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) require outpatient treatment or hospitalization. The phase 3 OPTIC (Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community) study enrolled patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II-IV. Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to moxifloxacin in adults with CABP, at early clinical response (ECR) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE). We assessed efficacy of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in these patients based on disease severity. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) omadacycline (100 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses followed by 100 mg daily [q24h], with optional transition to omadacycline 300 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment) or moxifloxacin IV 400 mg q24h (with optional transition to 400 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment). Total treatment duration was 7-14 days. We compared rates of early clinical success (72-120 hours after first dose) and investigator-assessed clinical success at PTE (5-10 days after last dose) in subgroups based (1) on severity/mortality risk scores (PORT, CURB-65, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, modified ATS, SMART-COP) and (2) on presence of baseline radiographic characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, or bacteremia. RESULTS: Altogether, 774 patients (omadacycline, n = 386; moxifloxacin, n = 388) were randomized. Clinical success rates (ECR/PTE) were similar between treatment groups (across all subgroups). Efficacy across treatment groups was similar in patients with baseline radiographic characteristics or COPD/asthma, but moxifloxacin had higher clinical success rates in patients with bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of omadacycline was similar to that of moxifloxacin, regardless of disease severity/mortality risk and disease characteristics.

Single-Dose Oritavancin Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: SOLO Trial Efficacy by Eron Severity and Management Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Introduction of new antibiotics enabling single-dose administration, such as oritavancin may significantly impact site of care decisions for patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). This analysis compared the efficacy of single-dose oritavancin with multiple-dose vancomycin in patients categorized according to disease severity via modified Eron classification and management setting. METHODS: SOLO I and II were phase 3 studies evaluating single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin for treatment of ABSSSI. Patient characteristics were collected at baseline and retrospectively analyzed. Study protocols were amended, allowing outpatient management at the discretion of investigators. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to a modified Eron severity classification and management setting (outpatient vs. inpatient) and the efficacy compared. RESULTS: Overall, 1910 patients in the SOLO trials were categorized into Class I (520, 26.5%), II (790, 40.3%), and III (600, 30.6%). Of the 767 patients (40%) in the SOLO trials who were managed entirely in the outpatient setting 40.3% were categorized as Class II and 30.6% were Class III. Clinical efficacy was similar between oritavancin and vancomycin treatment groups, regardless of severity classification and across inpatient and outpatient settings. Class III patients had lower response rates (oritavancin 73.3%, vancomycin 76.6%) at early clinical evaluation when compared to patients in Class I (82.6%) or II (86.1%); however, clinical cure rates at the post-therapy evaluation were similar for Class III patients (oritavancin 79.8%, vancomycin 79.9%) when compared to Class I and II patients (79.1-85.7%). CONCLUSION: Single-dose oritavancin therapy results in efficacy comparable to multiple-dose vancomycin in patients categorized according to modified Eron disease severity classification regardless of whether management occurred in the inpatient or outpatient setting. FUNDING: The Medicines Company, Parsippany, NJ, USA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01252719 (SOLO I) and NCT01252732 (SOLO II).

Vancomycin MIC Does Not Predict 90-Day Mortality, Readmission, or Recurrence in a Prospective Cohort of Adults with Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a tremendous health burden. Previous studies examining the association of vancomycin MIC and outcomes in patients with SAB have been inconclusive. This study evaluated the association between vancomycin MICs and 30- or 90-day mortality in individuals with SAB. This was a prospective cohort study of adults presenting from 2008 to 2013 with a first episode of SAB. Subjects were identified by an infection surveillance system. The main predictor was vancomycin MIC by MicroScan. The primary outcomes were death at 30 and 90 days, and secondary outcomes included recurrence, readmission, or a composite of death, recurrence, and readmission at 30 and 90 days. Covariates included methicillin susceptibility, demographics, illness severity, comorbidities, infectious source, and antibiotic use. Cox proportional-hazards models with propensity score adjustment were used to estimate 30- and 90-day outcomes. Of 429 unique first episodes of SAB, 11 were excluded, leaving 418 individuals for analysis. Eighty-three (19.9%) participants had a vancomycin MIC of 2 µg/ml. In the propensity-adjusted Cox model, a vancomycin MIC of 2 µg/ml compared to <2 µg/ml was not associated with a greater hazard of mortality or composite outcome of mortality, readmission, and recurrence at either 30 days (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.86 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.41, 1.80] [P = 0.70] and 0.94 [95% CI, 0.55, 1.58] [P = 0.80], respectively) or 90 days (HRs of 0.91 [95% CI, 0.49, 1.69] [P = 0.77] and 0.69 [95% CI, 0.46, 1.04] [P = 0.08], respectively) after SAB diagnosis. In a prospective cohort of patients with SAB, vancomycin MIC was not associated with 30- or 90-day mortality or a composite of mortality, disease recurrence, or hospital readmission.

Does doxycycline protect against development of Clostridium difficile infection?

BACKGROUND: Receipt of antibiotics is a major risk factor for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Doxycycline has been associated with a lower risk for CDI than other antibiotics. We investigated whether doxycycline protected against development of CDI in hospitalized patients receiving ceftriaxone, a high-risk antibiotic for CDI. METHODS: We studied adults admitted to an academic county hospital between 1 June 2005 and 31 December 2010 who received ceftriaxone to determine whether the additional receipt of doxycycline decreased the risk of CDI. Patients were followed from first administration of ceftriaxone to occurrence of CDI or administrative closure 30 days later. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred five unique patients comprising 2734 hospitalizations were studied. Overall, 43 patients developed CDI within 30 days of ceftriaxone receipt, an incidence of 5.60 cases per 10 000 patient-days. The incidence of CDI was 1.67 cases per 10 000 patient-days in those receiving doxycycline, compared to 8.11 per 10 000 patient-days in those who did not receive doxycycline. In a multivariable model adjusted for age, gender, race, comorbidities, hospital duration, pneumonia diagnosis, surgical admission, and duration of ceftriaxone and other antibiotics, for each day of doxycycline receipt the rate of CDI was 27% lower than a patient who did not receive doxycycline (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, .56-.96). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients receiving ceftriaxone, doxycycline was associated with lower risk of CDI. Guidelines recommend this combination as a second-line regimen for some patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Further clinical studies would help define whether doxycycline-containing regimens should be a preferred therapy for CAP.

Pharmacological advances in the treatment of invasive candidiasis.

Invasive candidiasis is a common nosocomial infection, especially among the critically ill and immunocompromised patient populations. The recent standardization and increasing availability of antifungal susceptibility testing has the potential to optimize the selection of antifungal therapy. Treatment has been revolutionized in recent years with the marketing of several antifungal agents with excellent activity against Candida spp. These agents include the triazoles, fluconazole and voriconazole, and the echinocandin antifungals. While more expensive by acquisition cost, these newer agents are less toxic than the previously used drugs, and the triazoles offer the additional benefit of oral administration. The availability of new agents, future adoption of diagnostic tests for candidiasis, and susceptibility testing will have a major impact in the management of invasive candidiasis.