Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Drugs ; 80(3): 285-313, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31970713

RESUMO

Omadacycline is a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic developed as a once-daily, intravenous and oral treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Omadacycline, a derivative of minocycline, has a chemical structure similar to tigecycline with an alkylaminomethyl group replacing the glycylamido group at the C-9 position of the D-ring of the tetracycline core. Similar to other tetracyclines, omadacycline inhibits bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 30S ribosomal subunit. Omadacycline possesses broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic, anaerobic, and atypical bacteria. Omadacycline remains active against bacterial isolates possessing common tetracycline resistance mechanisms such as efflux pumps (e.g., TetK) and ribosomal protection proteins (e.g., TetM) as well as in the presence of resistance mechanisms to other antibiotic classes. The pharmacokinetics of omadacycline are best described by a linear, three-compartment model following a zero-order intravenous infusion or first-order oral administration with transit compartments to account for delayed absorption. Omadacycline has a volume of distribution (Vd) ranging from 190 to 204 L, a terminal elimination half-life (t½) of 13.5-17.1 h, total clearance (CLT) of 8.8-10.6 L/h, and protein binding of 21.3% in healthy subjects. Oral bioavailability of omadacycline is estimated to be 34.5%. A single oral dose of 300 mg (bioequivalent to 100 mg IV) of omadacycline administered to fasted subjects achieved a maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of 0.5-0.6 mg/L and an area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) of 9.6-11.9 mg h/L. The free plasma area under concentration-time curve divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration (i.e., fAUC24h/MIC), has been established as the pharmacodynamic parameter predictive of omadacycline antibacterial efficacy. Several animal models including neutropenic murine lung infection, thigh infection, and intraperitoneal challenge model have documented the in vivo antibacterial efficacy of omadacycline. A phase II clinical trial on complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and three phase III clinical trials on ABSSSI and CABP demonstrated the safety and efficacy of omadacycline. The phase III trials, OASIS-1 (ABSSSI), OASIS-2 (ABSSSI), and OPTIC (CABP), established non-inferiority of omadacycline to linezolid (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) and moxifloxacin (OPTIC), respectively. Omadacycline is currently approved by the FDA for use in treatment of ABSSSI and CABP. Phase II clinical trials involving patients with acute cystitis and acute pyelonephritis are in progress. Mild, transient gastrointestinal events are the predominant adverse effects associated with use of omadacycline. Based on clinical trial data to date, the adverse effect profile of omadacycline is similar to studied comparators, linezolid and moxifloxacin. Unlike tigecycline and eravacycline, omadacycline has an oral formulation that allows for step-down therapy from the intravenous formulation, potentially facilitating earlier hospital discharge, outpatient therapy, and cost savings. Omadacycline has a potential role as part of an antimicrobial stewardship program in the treatment of patients with infections caused by antibiotic-resistant and multidrug-resistant Gram-positive [including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)] and Gram-negative pathogens.

2.
N Z Med J ; 132(1488): 28-37, 2019 01 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31851659

RESUMO

AIM: Incomplete and incorrect documentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can restrict prescribing choices resulting in suboptimal pharmaceutical care. This study aimed to examine the quality of information held within electronic systems in a hospital setting, to determine the preciseness of ADR documentation, and identify discrepancies where multiple electronic systems are utilised. METHOD: Over a four-week period, consecutive patients admitted to the general medical ward at the study hospital had their electronic profiles reviewed. Patient demographic information (de-identified), ADR history and discrepancies between information sources (as recorded in all electronic systems utilised at initial prescribing) were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Over the four-week period, 332 patient profiles were reviewed, and over 1,200 alerts were identified and analysed (including duplicates of ADR reactions). Of these patients, 151 (45.5%) had at least one documented allergy or intolerance which generated 585 reactions, relating to 526 unique events. A further 151 (45.5%) were classified as having no known (drug) allergies or intolerances; however, 20 (15%) of these patients did have at least one allergy documented in at least one other electronic system. The remaining 30 (9%) patients were classified as having an unknown allergy status and of those nine had allergies documented in at least one other electronic system. Further, most systems contained information duplication, which had not been addressed during the admission process. CONCLUSION: ADR information was both imprecise and inaccurate, as multiple discrepancies between ADR information recorded in different electronic patient management systems were found to exist. Information sharing between systems needs to be prioritised in order to allow full, accurate and complete ADR information to be collected, stored and utilised; both to reduce current inadequacies and to allow optimal pharmaceutical care.


Assuntos
Sistemas de Notificação de Reações Adversas a Medicamentos/normas , Documentação/normas , Troca de Informação em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nova Zelândia , Centros de Atenção Terciária , Adulto Jovem
3.
Drugs ; 79(3): 271-289, 2019 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30712199

RESUMO

Cefiderocol is an injectable siderophore cephalosporin discovered and being developed by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. As with other ß-lactam antibiotics, the principal antibacterial/bactericidal activity of cefiderocol occurs by inhibition of Gram-negative bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to penicillin binding proteins; however, it is unique in that it enters the bacterial periplasmic space as a result of its siderophore-like property and has enhanced stability to ß-lactamases. The chemical structure of cefiderocol is similar to both ceftazidime and cefepime, which are third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, respectively, but with high stability to a variety of ß-lactamases, including AmpC and extended-spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBLs). Cefiderocol has a pyrrolidinium group in the side chain at position 3 like cefepime and a carboxypropanoxyimino group in the side chain at position 7 of the cephem nucleus like ceftazidime. The major difference in the chemical structures of cefiderocol, ceftazidime and cefepime is the presence of a catechol group on the side chain at position 3. Together with the high stability to ß-lactamases, including ESBLs, AmpC and carbapenemases, the microbiological activity of cefiderocol against aerobic Gram-negative bacilli is equal to or superior to that of ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem, and it is active against a variety of Ambler class A, B, C and D ß-lactamases. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem versus Acinetobacter baumannii, including meropenem non-susceptible and multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates. Cefiderocol's activity against meropenem-non-susceptible and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriales is comparable or superior to ceftazidime-avibactam. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem against all resistance phenotypes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The current dosing regimen being used in phase III studies is 2 g administered intravenously every 8 h (q8 h) using a 3-h infusion. The pharmacokinetics of cefiderocol are best described by a three-compartment linear model. The mean plasma half-life (t½) was ~ 2.3 h, protein binding is 58%, and total drug clearance ranged from 4.6-6.0 L/h for both single- and multi-dose infusions and was primarily renally excreted unchanged (61-71%). Cefiderocol is primarily renally excreted unchanged and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. Dosage adjustment is thus required for both augmented renal clearance and in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. In vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic studies have reported that as with other cephalosporins the pharmacodynamic index that best predicts clinical outcome is the percentage of time that free drug concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT > MIC). In vivo efficacy of cefiderocol has been studied in a variety of humanized drug exposure murine and rat models of infection utilizing a variety of MDR and extremely drug resistant strains. Cefiderocol has performed similarly to or has been superior to comparator agents, including ceftazidime and cefepime. A phase II prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of cefiderocol 2000 mg q8 h versus imipenem/cilastatin 1000 mg q8 h, both administered intravenously for 7-14 days over 1 h, in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI, including pyelonephritis) or acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis in hospitalized adults. A total of 452 patients were initially enrolled in the study, with 303 in the cefiderocol arm and 149 in the imipenem/cilastatin arm. The primary outcome measure was a composite of clinical cure and microbiological eradication at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit, that is, 7 days after the end of treatment in the microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population. Secondary outcome measures included microbiological response per pathogen and per patient at early assessment (EA), end of treatment (EOT), TOC, and follow-up (FUP); clinical response per pathogen and per patient at EA, EOT, TOC, and FUP; plasma, urine and concentrations of cefiderocol; and the number of participants with adverse events. The composite of clinical and microbiological response rates was 72.6% (183/252) for cefiderocol and 54.6% (65/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Clinical response rates per patient at the TOC visit were 89.7% (226/252) for cefiderocol and 87.4% (104/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Microbiological eradication rates were 73.0% (184/252) for cefiderocol and 56.3% (67/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Additionally, two phase III clinical trials are currently being conducted by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. The two trials are evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of serious infections in adult patients caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens and evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia or healthcare-associated pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens. Cefiderocol appears to be well tolerated (minor reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal and phlebitis related), with a side effect profile that is comparable to other cephalosporin antimicrobials. Cefiderocol appears to be well positioned to help address the increasing number of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant and MDR Gram-negative bacilli, including ESBL- and carbapenemase-producing strains (including metallo-ß-lactamase producers). A distinguishing feature of cefiderocol is its activity against resistant P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. maltophilia and Burkholderia cepacia.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Cefalosporinas/farmacologia , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana Múltipla , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/tratamento farmacológico , Sideróforos/química , Animais , Compostos Azabicíclicos/farmacologia , Carbapenêmicos/farmacologia , Ceftazidima/farmacologia , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Combinação de Medicamentos , Bactérias Gram-Negativas/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Meropeném/farmacologia , Estrutura Molecular , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Inibidores de beta-Lactamases/farmacologia
4.
J Proteome Res ; 17(8): 2657-2667, 2018 08 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29972300

RESUMO

Mixed lineage leukemia results from chromosomal rearrangements of the gene mixed lineage leukemia (MLL). MLL-AF9 is one such rearrangement that recruits the lysine methyltransferase, human disruptor of telomere silencing 1-like (DOT1L) and lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1), resulting in elevated expression of the Homeobox protein A9 (HOXA9), and leukemia. Inhibitors of LSD1 or DOT1L reduce HOXA9 expression, kill MLL-rearranged cells, and may treat leukemia. To quantify their effects on histone modifying enzyme activity and expression in MLL-rearranged leukemia, we tested inhibitors of DOT1L (EPZ-5676), LSD1 (GSK2879552), and HDAC (mocetinostat), in the MLL-AF9 cell line MOLM-13. All inhibitors reduced MOLM-13 viability but only mocetinostat induced apoptosis. EPZ-5676 increased total histone lysine dimethylation, which was attributed to a reduction in LSD1 expression, and was indistinguishable from direct LSD1 inhibition by GSK2879552. All compounds directly inhibit, or reduce the expression of, HOXA9, DOT1L and LSD1 by qPCR, increase total histone lysine methylation and acetylation by LC-MS/MS, and specifically reduce H3K79Me2 and increase H3K14Ac. Each inhibitor altered the expression of many histone modifying enzymes which may precipitate additional changes in expression. To the extent that this decreases HOXA9 expression it benefits mixed lineage leukemia treatment, all other expression changes are off-target effects.


Assuntos
Inibidores Enzimáticos/farmacologia , Proteínas de Homeodomínio/metabolismo , Proteína de Leucina Linfoide-Mieloide/genética , Proteínas de Fusão Oncogênica/genética , Regulação Leucêmica da Expressão Gênica/efeitos dos fármacos , Rearranjo Gênico , Código das Histonas/efeitos dos fármacos , Inibidores de Histona Desacetilases , Histona Desmetilases/antagonistas & inibidores , Histona-Lisina N-Metiltransferase , Proteínas de Homeodomínio/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Leucemia Aguda Bifenotípica , Metiltransferases/antagonistas & inibidores
6.
Drugs ; 78(1): 65-98, 2018 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29230684

RESUMO

Relebactam (formerly known as MK-7655) is a non-ß-lactam, bicyclic diazabicyclooctane, ß-lactamase inhibitor that is structurally related to avibactam, differing by the addition of a piperidine ring to the 2-position carbonyl group. Vaborbactam (formerly known as RPX7009) is a non-ß-lactam, cyclic, boronic acid-based, ß-lactamase inhibitor. The structure of vaborbactam is unlike any other currently marketed ß-lactamase inhibitor. Both inhibitors display activity against Ambler class A [including extended-spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBLs), Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs)] and class C ß-lactamases (AmpC). Little is known about the potential for relebactam or vaborbactam to select for resistance; however, inactivation of the porin protein OmpK36 in K. pneumoniae has been reported to confer resistance to both imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam. The addition of relebactam significantly improves the activity of imipenem against most species of Enterobacteriaceae [by lowering the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) by 2- to 128-fold] depending on the presence or absence of ß-lactamase enzymes. Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the addition of relebactam also improves the activity of imipenem (MIC reduced eightfold). Based on the data available, the addition of relebactam does not improve the activity of imipenem against Acinetobacter baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and most anaerobes. Similar to imipenem-relebactam, the addition of vaborbactam significantly (2- to > 1024-fold MIC reduction) improves the activity of meropenem against most species of Enterobacteriaceae depending on the presence or absence of ß-lactamase enzymes. Limited data suggest that the addition of vaborbactam does not improve the activity of meropenem against A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, or S. maltophilia. The pharmacokinetics of both relebactam and vaborbactam are described by a two-compartment, linear model and do not appear to be altered by the co-administration of imipenem and meropenem, respectively. Relebactam's approximate volume of distribution (V d) and elimination half-life (t ½) of ~ 18 L and 1.2-2.1 h, respectively, are similar to imipenem. Likewise, vaborbactam's V d and t½ of ~ 18 L and 1.3-2.0 h, respectively, are comparable to meropenem. Like imipenem and meropenem, relebactam and vaborbactam are both primarily renally excreted, and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. In vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic studies have reported bactericidal activity for imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam against various Gram-negative ß-lactamase-producing bacilli that are not inhibited by their respective carbapenems alone. These data also suggest that pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters correlating with efficacy include time above the MIC for the carbapenems and overall exposure for their companion ß-lactamase inhibitors. Phase II clinical trials to date have reported that imipenem-relebactam is as effective as imipenem alone for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis. Imipenem-relebactam is currently in two phase III clinical trials for the treatment of imipenem-resistant bacterial infections, as well as hospital-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). A phase III clinical trial has reported superiority of meropenem-vaborbactam over piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis. Meropenem-vaborbactam has recently demonstrated higher clinical cure rates versus best available therapy for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), as well as for HABP and VABP. The safety and tolerability of imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase II and III clinical trials. Both combinations appear to be well tolerated in healthy subjects and hospitalized patients, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events reported to date. In conclusion, relebactam and vaborbactam serve to broaden the spectrum of imipenem and meropenem, respectively, against ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli. The exact roles for imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam will be defined by efficacy and safety data from further clinical trials. Potential roles in therapy for these agents include the treatment of suspected or documented infections caused by resistant Gram-negative bacilli-producing ESBL, KPC, and/or AmpC ß-lactamases. The usage of these agents in patients with CRE infections will likely become the standard of care. Finally, increased activity of imipenem-relebactam against P. aeruginosa may be of clinical benefit to patients with suspected or documented P. aeruginosa infections.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Compostos Azabicíclicos/farmacologia , Ácidos Borônicos/farmacologia , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 1 Anel/farmacologia , Imipenem/farmacologia , Infecções Intra-Abdominais/tratamento farmacológico , Tienamicinas/farmacologia , Inibidores de beta-Lactamases/farmacologia , Animais , Antibacterianos/química , Compostos Azabicíclicos/química , Ácidos Borônicos/química , Combinação de Medicamentos , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana/efeitos dos fármacos , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 1 Anel/química , Humanos , Imipenem/química , Meropeném , Estrutura Molecular , Relação Estrutura-Atividade , Tienamicinas/química , Inibidores de beta-Lactamases/química
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA