Currently browsing category

Clin Ther

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Tedizolid after Single and Multiple Intravenous/Oral Sequential Administrations in Healthy Chinese Subjects.

Related Articles

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Tedizolid after Single and Multiple Intravenous/Oral Sequential Administrations in Healthy Chinese Subjects.

Clin Ther. 2016 Jul 22;

Authors: Chen R, Shen K, Chang X, Tanaka T, Li L, Hu P

Abstract
PURPOSE: Tedizolid phosphate is a new antibacterial agent under investigation for the treatment of Gram-positive infections in China. This study was conducted to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, oral bioavailability, and safety of once daily tedizolid phosphate 200 mg in Chinese subjects to support its further clinical development in China.
METHODS: This Phase I single-center study, conducted in 16 healthy Chinese male subjects, consisted of a single-dose administration, 1:1 randomized, two-way, intravenous (IV)/oral (PO) crossover of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg (Part 1) and, after a 7-day washout, a nonrandomized, multiple-dose, 7-day tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily administration (IV for 3 days, PO for 4 days; Part 2). Blood samples were collected for up to 72 hours after single dosing and for up to 2 hours on Day 3 and 72 hours on Day 7 of multiple dosing to determine PK parameters. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the entire study.
FINDINGS: The Cmax and AUC of tedizolid (the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate) were 3.02 µg/mL and 30.50 µg • h/mL after single IV dosing of tedizolid phosphate, and 2.25 µg/mL and 26.10 µg • h/mL after single PO dosing, respectively, and the mean half-life was 10.1 hours for both administration routes. The oral bioavailability of tedizolid was 85.5%. PK parameters of tedizolid were similar after single and multiple dosing of tedizolid phosphate, indicating no time dependency. Only minor accumulation of tedizolid was observed after multiple dosing (expressed as accumulation ratios RAAUC: 1.18 for PO dosing, and RACmax: 1.16 and 1.05 for IV and PO dosing, respectively). Steady state of tedizolid was reached after about 3 days, and trough concentrations remained constant when switching from IV to PO dosing. Tedizolid phosphate was well tolerated with 6 subjects (37.5%) in Part 1 and 5 subjects (31.3%) in Part 2 experiencing an AE; all AEs but one were related to the study drug assessed by the investigator. All AEs were of mild intensity and had recovered or resolved by the end of the study. No serious AEs were observed, and no subjects prematurely discontinued the study due to an AE.
IMPLICATIONS: The results of this Phase I study conducted in Chinese male subjects indicate that no dosage adjustment of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg would be required when switching administration routes in this population. Tedizolid phosphate was well tolerated in healthy Chinese subjects. China Food and Drug Administration clinical trial permission numbers 2014L00360 and 2014L00361.

PMID: 27461846 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Ceftazidime-Avibactam: A Novel Cephalosporin/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination for the Treatment of Resistant Gram-Negative Organisms.

Related Articles

Ceftazidime-Avibactam: A Novel Cephalosporin/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination for the Treatment of Resistant Gram-Negative Organisms.

Clin Ther. 2016 Feb 29;

Authors: Sharma R, Eun Park T, Moy S

Abstract
PURPOSE: Multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections have emerged as a major threat in hospitalized patients. Treatment options are often inadequate and, as a result, these infections are associated with high mortality. A cephalosporin and a novel synthetic non-β-lactam, β-lactamase inhibitor, ceftazidime-avibactam, is approved for the treatment of serious infections caused by resistant gram-negative bacteria. This article reviews the spectrum of activity, clinical pharmacology, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy and tolerability, and dosing and administration of ceftazidime-avibactam.
METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to September 2015 were conducted by using the search terms ceftazidime, avibactam, and ceftazidime-avibactam. Abstracts from Infectious Disease Week (2014-2015), the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (2014-2015), and the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases were also searched.
FINDINGS: Ceftazidime, a third-generation cephalosporin, when combined with avibactam has a significant improvement in its activity against β-lactamase-producing gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum β-lactamases, AmpC β-lactamases, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Data from 2 Phase II and 1 Phase III clinical trial are available. In the Phase II trial of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections, ceftazidime-avibactam produced clinical cure rates comparable to meropenem (91.2% vs 93.4%). Similarly, patients receiving ceftazidime-avibactam in a Phase II study of complicated urinary tract infections had clinical and microbiologic response rates similar to those receiving imipenem-cilastatin (70.4% and 71.4% microbiologic success rates, respectively). A Phase III trial compared ceftazidime-avibactam to best available therapy for the treatment of ceftazidime-resistant organisms. Clinical response and microbiological response for ceftazidime-avibactam versus best available therapy was comparable (90.9% and 91.2% clinical response, respectively); (81.8% and 63.5% microbiological response, respectively).
IMPLICATIONS: Currently, ceftazidime-avibactam is approved for the indications of complicated intra-abdominal infections (with metronidazole) and complicated urinary tract infections. Clinical trials published to date on this antimicrobial agent have shown its excellent safety and tolerability. This new combination agent has a role, but its use should be limited to patients without other treatment options in the empiric and documented treatment of multidrug-resistant gram-negative organisms. Further investigation is needed in patients with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae and multidrug-resistant P aeruginosa who have bacteremia or nosocomial or ventilator-associated pneumonia. It is imperative that ceftazidime-avibactam be used in a responsible manner so that its effectiveness can be retained.

PMID: 26948862 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Economic Impact of Oritavancin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in the Emergency Department or Observation Setting: Cost Savings Associated with Avoidable Hospitalizations.

Related Articles

Economic Impact of Oritavancin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in the Emergency Department or Observation Setting: Cost Savings Associated with Avoidable Hospitalizations.

Clin Ther. 2015 Dec 18;

Authors: Lodise TP, Fan W, Sulham KA

Abstract
PURPOSE: Data indicate that acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) patients without major comorbidities can be managed effectively in the outpatient setting. Because most patients with ABSSSIs present to the emergency department, it is essential that clinicians identify candidates for outpatient treatment given the substantially higher costs associated with inpatient care. We examined the potential cost avoidance associated with shifting care from inpatient treatment with vancomycin to outpatient treatment with oritavancin for ABSSSI patients without major complications or comorbidities.
METHODS: A decision analytic, cost-minimization model was developed to compare costs of inpatient vancomycin versus outpatient oritavancin treatment of ABSSSI patients with few or no comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≤1) and no life-threatening conditions presenting to emergency department. Hospital discharge data from the Premier Research Database was used to determine the costs associated with inpatient vancomycin treatment.
FINDINGS: Mean costs for inpatient treatment with vancomycin ranged from $5973 to $9885, depending on Charlson Comorbidity Index score and presence of systemic symptoms. Switching an individual patient from inpatient vancomycin treatment to outpatient oritavancin treatment was estimated to save $1752.46 to $6475.87 per patient, depending on Charlson Comorbidity Index score, presence of systemic symptoms, and use of observation status. Assuming some patients may be admitted to the hospital after treatment with oritavancin, it is estimated that up to 38.12% of patients could be admitted while maintaining budget neutrality.
IMPLICATIONS: This cost-minimization model indicates that use of oritavancin in the emergency department or observation setting is associated with substantial cost savings compared with inpatient treatment with vancomycin.

PMID: 26708118 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Comparative Effectiveness of Vancomycin Versus Daptomycin for MRSA Bacteremia With Vancomycin MIC >1 mg/L: A Multicenter Evaluation.

Related Articles

Comparative Effectiveness of Vancomycin Versus Daptomycin for MRSA Bacteremia With Vancomycin MIC >1 mg/L: A Multicenter Evaluation.

Clin Ther. 2015 Nov 13;

Authors: Moise PA, Culshaw DL, Wong-Beringer A, Bensman J, Lamp KC, Smith WJ, Bauer K, Goff DA, Adamson R, Leuthner K, Virata MD, McKinnell JA, Chaudhry SB, Eskandarian R, Lodise T, Reyes K, Zervos MJ

Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical studies comparing vancomycin with alternative therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia are limited. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of early daptomycin versus vancomycin treatment for MRSA bacteremia with high vancomycin MICs in a geographically diverse multicenter evaluation.
METHODS: This nationwide, retrospective, multicenter (N = 11), matched, cohort study compared outcomes of early daptomycin with vancomycin for MRSA bloodstream infection (BSI) with vancomycin MICs 1.5 to 2 µg/mL. Matching variables, based on propensity regression analysis, included age, intensive care unit (ICU), and type of BSI. Outcomes were as follows: (1) composite failure (60-day all-cause mortality, 7-day clinical or microbiologic failure, 30-day BSI relapse, or end-of-treatment failure (EOT; discontinue/change daptomycin or vancomycin because of treatment failure or adverse event]); (2) nephrotoxicity; and (2) day 4 BSI clearance.
FINDINGS: A total of 170 patients were included. The median (interquartile range) age was 60 years (50-74); the median (range) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 15 (10-18); 31% were in an ICU; and 92% had an infectious disease consultation. BSI types included endocarditis/endovascular (39%), extravascular (55%), and central catheter (6%). The median daptomycin dose was 6 mg/kg, and the vancomycin trough level was 17 mg/L. Overall composite failure was 35% (59 of 170): 15% due to 60-day all-cause mortality, 14% for lack of clinical or microbiologic response by 7 days, and 17% due to failure at end of therapy (discontinue/change because of treatment failure or adverse event). Predictors of composite failure according to multivariate analysis were age >60 years (odds ratio, 3.7; P < 0.01) and ICU stay (odds ratio, 2.64; P = 0.03). Notable differences between treatment groups were seen with: (1) end of therapy failure rates (11% vs 24% for daptomycin vs vancomycin; P = 0.025); (2) acute kidney injury rates (9% vs 23% for daptomycin vs vancomycin; P = 0.043); and (3) day 4 bacteremia clearance rates for immunocompromised patients (n = 26) (94% vs 56% for daptomycin vs vancomycin; P = 0.035).
IMPLICATIONS: Results from this multicenter study provide, for the first time, a geographically diverse evaluation of daptomycin versus vancomycin for patients with vancomycin-susceptible MRSA bacteremia with vancomycin MIC values >1 µg/mL. Although the overall composite failure rates did not differ between the vancomycin and daptomycin groups when intensively matched according to risks for failure, the rates of acute kidney injury were significantly lower in the daptomycin group. These findings suggest that daptomycin is a useful therapy for clinicians treating patients who have MRSA bacteremia. Prospective, randomized trials should be conducted to better assess the potential significance of elevated vancomycin MIC.

PMID: 26585355 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Posaconazole Versus Fluconazole or Itraconazole as a Primary Antifungal Prophylaxis in High-Risk Hematologic Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Related Articles

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Posaconazole Versus Fluconazole or Itraconazole as a Primary Antifungal Prophylaxis in High-Risk Hematologic Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Clin Ther. 2015 Jul 15;

Authors: Cho SY, Lee DG, Choi JK, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Park SH, Choi SM, Choi JH, Yoo JH, Kim YJ, Kim HJ, Min WS, Back H, Kang S, Lee EK

Abstract
PURPOSE: Posaconazole is effective for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome during remission induction chemotherapy. However, a cost-benefit analysis of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole has not been conducted in Korea.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data for all consecutive patients who received primary antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction chemotherapy in our acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome cohort from December 2010 to November 2013. Patient characteristics and factors known as a risk of IFI were matched with propensity score analysis. We evaluated the medical cost according to the prophylactic antifungal agents (posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole), the development of breakthrough IFIs, and survival status after propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio.
FINDINGS: Of the 419 baseline patients, 100 patients in each group were analyzed after matching. A significant decrease was found in the development of breakthrough proven or probable IFIs (3.0% vs 14.0%; P = 0.009) and the rate of empirical antifungal therapy (EAFT) (12.0% vs 46.0%; P < 0.001) in the posaconazole group. Total in-hospital medical costs per patient were not statistically different between posaconazole and fluconazole/itraconazole prophylaxis. However, the daily medical cost was lower for posaconazole prophylaxis, resulting in a total daily cost savings of $72 (₩79,458) per patient (P = 0.002). In the cases of breakthrough proven/probable IFIs, EAFT, and in-hospital deaths, the total medical costs per patient were significantly higher than in nonproven/probable IFIs, non-EAFT, and in-hospital survivors, as much as $7,916 (₩8,700,758), $4605 (₩5,062,529), and $11,134 (₩12,238,422), respectively. Costs for the antifungal agent used in targeted or empirical therapy were lower in the posaconazole group, resulting in a savings of $697 (₩766,347) per patient (P < 0.001).
IMPLICATIONS: Posaconazole appears to be cost beneficial for primary antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk patients with hematologic malignancy, at a single center, in Korea. Cost-benefit is closely related with clinical outcomes, including breakthrough IFI development, EAFT, and survival status.

PMID: 26188835 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Susceptibility Profile of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam and Other Parenteral Antimicrobials Against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa From US Hospitals.

Related Articles

Susceptibility Profile of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam and Other Parenteral Antimicrobials Against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa From US Hospitals.

Clin Ther. 2015 Jun 15;

Authors: Sutherland CA, Nicolau DP

Abstract
PURPOSE: Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are frequently isolated pathogens in the hospital setting, and antimicrobial resistance among these organisms is on the rise. In an attempt to meet the challenge of gram-negative resistance, new therapies, including ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T), were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and others are in late-stage development. The purpose of this study is to describe the in vitro potency of C/T and other parenteral antimicrobials against a geographically diverse population of E coli, K pneumoniae, and P aeruginosa collected in US hospitals.
METHODS: In 2013 to 2014, 44 hospitals provided nonduplicate, nonurine isolates of E coli (n = 1306), K pneumoniae (n = 1205), and P aeruginosa (n = 1257) from adult inpatients. MICs for C/T and 11 other antimicrobials were determined with broth microdilution methods.
FINDINGS: The carbapenems, C/T, and colistin displayed the highest percentage of susceptibility and lowest MIC90 against the Enterobacteriaceae, followed by piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP), cefepime, tobramycin, aztreonam, ceftriaxone, and ciprofloxacin. C/T displayed the greatest potency (MIC90 = 2 mg/L) and 97% susceptibility of all compounds against P aeruginosa. In addition, C/T was highly active against P aeruginosa that were nonsusceptible to the carbapenems or TZP or were multidrug resistant and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.
IMPLICATIONS: This national survey reported high levels of nonsusceptibility to antimicrobials among both Enterobacteriaceae and P aeruginosa. In contrast, many of these resistant pathogens were susceptible to C/T. These data highlight the enhanced potency of C/T and its potential utility for commonly encountered gram-negative nosocomial pathogens.

PMID: 26088525 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]