RESUMEN
Cefiderocol is an option for infections caused by multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but its in vitro activity against these isolates and its clinical effectiveness for isolates with MICs of >1 µg/mL is unclear. We investigated the in vitro activity of cefiderocol against P. aeruginosa isolates collected from patients treated with cefiderocol through the compassionate use program and assessed physician-reported clinical response and 28-day all-cause mortality by cefiderocol MIC values. P. aeruginosa isolates underwent susceptibility testing to cefiderocol and comparator agents by using reference broth microdilution. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA; susceptible, ≤1 µg/mL) and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; susceptible, ≤4 µg/mL) cefiderocol breakpoints were applied. Additionally, molecular characterization of ß-lactamase genes was performed. Clinical response and vital status were reported by treating physicians. Forty-six patients with P. aeruginosa infections were evaluated. Twenty-nine (63%) and 42 (91%) isolates were susceptible to cefiderocol using FDA and CLSI breakpoints, respectively. Thirty-seven (80%) and 32 (70%) isolates were not susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam, respectively. The clinical response rate was 69% (20/29) with a cefiderocol MIC of ≤1 µg/mL, 69% (9/13) with a cefiderocol MIC of 2 to 4 µg/mL, and 100% (4/4) with an MIC of ≥8 µg/mL, while day 28 all-cause mortality rates were 23% (6/26; MIC ≤ 1 µg/mL), 33% (4/12; MIC, 2 to 4 µg/mL), and 0% (0/4; MIC ≥8 µg/mL), respectively. Cefiderocol was active in vitro against most P. aeruginosa isolated from patients with limited or no alternative therapies. Patients with cefiderocol MICs of 2 to 4 µg/mL did not have significantly worse outcomes than those with MICs of ≤1 µg/mL.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Infecciones por Pseudomonas , Humanos , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Ensayos de Uso Compasivo , Infecciones por Pseudomonas/tratamiento farmacológico , Cefalosporinas/farmacología , Cefalosporinas/uso terapéutico , Ceftazidima/farmacología , Carbapenémicos/farmacología , Carbapenémicos/uso terapéutico , Pruebas de Sensibilidad Microbiana , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple/genética , CefiderocolRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Cefalosporinas/uso terapéutico , Infecciones por Bacterias Gramnegativas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Asociada a la Atención Médica/tratamiento farmacológico , Meropenem/uso terapéutico , Neumonía Bacteriana/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Meropenem/administración & dosificación , Neumonía Bacteriana/microbiología , CefiderocolRESUMEN
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.