Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment Analyses To Support Dose Selection for ME1100, an Arbekacin Inhalation Solution.

ME1100 (arbekacin inhalation solution) is an inhaled aminoglycoside that is being developed to treat patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP and VABP, respectively). Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) target attainment analyses were undertaken to evaluate ME1100 regimens for the treatment of patients with HABP/VABP. The data used included a population pharmacokinetic (PPK) 4-compartment model with 1st-order elimination, nonclinical PK-PD targets from one-compartment in vitro and/or in vivo infection models, and in vitro surveillance data. Using the PPK model, total-drug epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentration-time profiles were generated for simulated patients with varying creatinine clearance (CLcr) (ml/min/1.73 m2) values. Percent probabilities of PK-PD target attainment by MIC were determined based on the ratio of total-drug ELF area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to MIC (AUC/MIC ratio) targets associated with 1- and 2-log10 CFU reductions from baseline for Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus Percent probabilities of PK-PD target attainment based on PK-PD targets for a 1-log10 CFU reduction from baseline at MIC values above the MIC90 value for K. pneumoniae (8 µg/ml), P. aeruginosa (4 µg/ml), and S. aureus (0.5 µg/ml) were ≥99.8% for ME1100 600 mg twice daily (BID) in simulated patients with CLcr values >80 to ≤120 ml/min/1.73 m2 ME1100 600 mg BID, 450 mg BID, and 600 mg once daily in simulated patients with CLcr values >50 to ≤80, >30 to ≤50, and 0 to ≤30 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively, provided arbekacin exposures that best matched those for 600 mg BID in simulated patients with normal renal function. These data provide support for ME1100 as a treatment for patients with HABP/VABP.

Cost Drivers of a Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

Background: Studies indicate that the prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections, including hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP), has been rising. There are many challenges associated with these disease conditions and the ability to develop new treatments. Additionally, HABP/VABP clinical trials are very costly to conduct given their complex protocol designs and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining patients. Methods: With input from clinicians, representatives from industry, and the US Food and Drug Administration, we conducted a study to (1) evaluate the drivers of HABP/VABP phase 3 direct and indirect clinical trial costs; (2) to identify opportunities to lower these costs; and (3) to compare (1) and (2) to endocrine and oncology clinical trials. Benchmark data were gathered from proprietary and commercial databases and used to create a model that calculates the fully loaded (direct and indirect) cost of typical phase 3 HABP/VABP endocrine and oncology clinical trials. Results: Results indicate that the cost per patient for a 200-site, 1000-patient phase 3 HABP/VABP study is $89600 per patient. The cost of screen failures and screen failure rates are the main cost drivers. Conclusions: Results indicate that biopharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies should consider strategies to improve screening and recruitment to decrease HABP/VABP clinical trial costs.

Cost-effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

Aim: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) for treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in an 'early adjustment prescribing scenario'. Methods: An economic model was constructed to compare two strategies: continuation of empiric piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) versus early adjustment to IMI/REL. A decision tree was used to depict the hospitalization period, and a Markov model used to capture long-term outcomes. Results: IMI/REL generated more quality-adjusted life years than PIP/TAZ, at an increased cost per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,529 per QALY is below the typical US willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusion: IMI/REL may represent a cost-effective treatment for payers and a valuable option for clinicians, when considered alongside patient risk factors, local epidemiology, and susceptibility data.

Impact of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam vs. Best Alternative Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Multidrug-Resistant and Extensively Drug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.

INTRODUCTION: Infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR), and difficult-to-treat (DTR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa are increasingly challenging to combat. Ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T) is a novel ß-lactam-ß-lactamase inhibitor combination now commonly used to treat MDR and XDR P. aeruginosa. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) remain the most common source of infection caused by MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa. Comparative effectiveness studies to date have been limited by the type of comparator agents (i.e., aminoglycosides and polymyxins) and the inclusion of multiple infection sources (i.e., urinary tract, abdominal, skin and soft tissue, etc.). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of adults with LRTI caused by MDR or XDR P. aeruginosa admitted from January 2014 to December 2019. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between patients who received C/T (n = 118) versus best alternative therapy (n = 88). The primary outcome was clinical failure, defined as 30-day mortality and/or an adverse drug reaction on antibiotic therapy. RESULTS: Two hundred and six patients met inclusion criteria. The C/T group had a significantly higher proportion of XDR P. aeruginosa and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). After multivariable logistic regression, C/T treatment was independently associated with a 73.3% reduction in clinical failure compared to those who received best alternative therapy (P < 0.001). The number needed to harm with best alternative therapy was 3. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that C/T is a safe and effective therapeutic regimen for patients with MDR and XDR P. aeruginosa LRTI.