Dataset Information

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP.

Methods

In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population.

Results

Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, -1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, -7.6%; 97.5% CI: -15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively.

Conclusions

Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated.

Clinical trials registration

NCT02019420.

SUBMITTER: Wunderink RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8326538 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

Wunderink Richard G RG Roquilly Antoine A Croce Martin M Rodriguez Gonzalez Daniel D Fujimi Satoshi S Butterton Joan R JR Broyde Natasha N Popejoy Myra W MW Kim Jason Y JY De Anda Carisa C

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20210801 3

<h4>Background</h4>Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 day ...[more]

PMID: 33720350

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Background Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are frequently caused by G+ cocci; TZD has potent in vitro activity against these pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The VITAL study compared the efficacy and safety of TZD vs. LZD for the treatment of ventilated patients with G+ HAP/VAP. Methods Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, global, phase 3 study in mechanically ventilated adult patients with presumed G+ HAP/VAP (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02019420). Patients were stratified by region, age, and trauma/nontrauma, then randomized 1:1 to intravenous (IV) TZD 200 mg once daily for 7 days or IV LZD 600 mg every 12 h for 10 d (patients with concurrent G+ bacteremia received 14 d of treatment). The primary efficacy endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) in the intent to treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients; noninferiority [NI] margin, 10%). Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; NI margin, 12.5%). Results In total, 726 patients were randomized (TZD n = 366; LZD n = 360). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the ITT (table). Noninferiority was not demonstrated for TZD vs. LZD for investigator-assessed clinical success at TOC in the ITT. Stratification factors, analysis population, baseline clinical/laboratory signs of HAP/VAP, G+ only vs. mixed G+/gram-negative (G–) HAP/VAP, adjunctive G– therapy, MRSA vs. methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and HAP vs. VAP were evaluated, and no single factor accounted for the observed imbalance in clinical response between treatment arms. Greater than 90% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Anemia, hypokalemia, and diarrhea were the most frequently reported (TEAEs) in both arms. Types and incidence rates of TEAEs overall, and of drug-related TEAEs specifically, were comparable between TZD and LZD. Conclusion TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the treatment of ventilated G+ HAP/VAP. However, TZD was not noninferior to LZD based on the investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC. Both drugs were similarly well tolerated and TEAEs were well balanced between groups, with no new safety signals identified. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

Project description:BackgroundEarly appropriate antibiotic therapy reduces morbidity and mortality of severe pneumonia. However, the emergence of bacterial resistance requires the earliest use of antibiotics with the narrowest possible spectrum. The Unyvero Hospitalized Pneumonia (HPN, Curetis) test is a multiplex PCR (M-PCR) system detecting 21 bacteria and 19 resistance genes on respiratory samples within 5 h. We assessed the performance and the potential impact of the M-PCR on the antibiotic therapy of ICU patients.MethodsIn this prospective study, we performed a M-PCR on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or plugged telescoping catheter (PTC) samples of patients with ventilated HAP or VAP with Gram-negative bacilli or clustered Gram-positive cocci. This study was conducted in 3 ICUs in a French academic hospital: the medical and infectious diseases ICU, the surgical ICU, and the cardio-surgical ICU. A multidisciplinary expert panel simulated the antibiotic changes they would have made if the M-PCR results had been available.ResultsWe analyzed 95 clinical samples of ventilated HAP or VAP (72 BAL and 23 PTC) from 85 patients (62 males, median age 64 years). The median turnaround time of the M-PCR was 4.6 h (IQR 4.4-5). A total of 90/112 bacteria were detected by the M-PCR system with a global sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 73-88%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 99-100). The sensitivity was better for Gram-negative bacteria (90%) than for Gram-positive cocci (62%) (p = 0.005). Moreover, 5/8 extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (CTX-M gene) and 4/4 carbapenemases genes (3 NDM, one oxa-48) were detected. The M-PCR could have led to the earlier initiation of an effective antibiotic in 20/95 patients (21%) and to early de-escalation in 37 patients (39%) but could also have led to one (1%) inadequate antimicrobial therapy. Among 17 empiric antibiotic treatments with carbapenems, 10 could have been de-escalated in the following hours according to the M-PCR results. The M-PCR also led to 2 unexpected diagnosis of severe legionellosis confirmed by culture methods.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the use of a M-PCR system for respiratory samples of patients with VAP and ventilated HAP could improve empirical antimicrobial therapy and reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Project description:ObjectivesMultiple randomized controlled trials exploring the outcomes of patients with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia have noted that hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients who require subsequent ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia suffered higher mortality than either those who did not (nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia) or had ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. We examined the epidemiology and outcomes of all three conditions in a large U.S. database.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingTwo hundred fifty-three acute-care hospitals, United States, contributing data (including microbiology) to Premier database, 2012-2019.PatientsPatients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia identified based on a slightly modified previously published International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition/International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition-Clinical Modification algorithm.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAmong 17,819 patients who met enrollment criteria, 26.5% had nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, 25.6% vHAPB, and 47.9% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia predominated in the Northeastern United States and in large urban teaching hospitals. Patients with nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia were oldest (mean 66.7 ± 15.1 yr) and most likely White (76.9%), whereas those with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were youngest (59.7 ± 16.6 yr) and least likely White (70.3%). Ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia was associated with the highest comorbidity burden (mean Charlson score 4.1 ± 2.8) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia with the lowest (3.2 ± 2.5). Similarly, hospital mortality was highest among patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (29.2%) and lowest in nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (11.7%), with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in-between (21.3%). Among survivors, 24.5% of nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia required a rehospitalization within 30 days of discharge, compared with 22.5% among ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and 18.8% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Unadjusted hospital length of stay after infection onset was longest among ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and shortest among nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients. Median total hospital costs mirrored length of stay: ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia $77,657, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $62,464, and nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $39,911.ConclusionsBoth hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remain associated with significant mortality and cost in the United States. Our analyses confirm that of all three conditions, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia carries the highest risk of death. In contrast, ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remains most costly. Nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia survivors were most likely to require a readmission within 30 days of discharge.

Project description:BackgroundResistant bacterial infections, particularly those caused by gram-negative pathogens, are associated with high mortality and economic burdens. Ceftolozane/tazobactam demonstrated efficacy comparable to meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the ASPECT-NP study. One cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States revealed that ceftolozane/tazobactam was cost effective, but no Japanese studies have been conducted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem for patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia from a health care payer perspective.MethodsA hybrid decision-tree Markov decision-analytic model with a 5-year time horizon were developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years and to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clinical outcomes were based on the ASPECT-NP study, costs were based on the national fee schedule of 2022, and utilities were based on published data. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also conducted to assess the robustness of our modeled estimates.ResultsAccording to our base-case analysis, compared with meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam increased the total costs by 424,731.22 yen (£2,626.96) and increased the quality-adjusted life-years by 0.17, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2,548,738 yen (£15,763.94) per quality-adjusted life-year gained for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained below 5,000,000 yen (£30,925) for most of the parameters, the incremental net monetary benefit may have been less than 0 depending on the treatment efficacy outcome, especially the cure rate and mortality rate for MEPM and mortality rate for CTZ/TAZ. 53.4% of the PSA simulations demonstrated that CTZ/TAZ was more cost-effective than MEPM was.ConclusionAlthough incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below ￥5,000,000 in base-case analysis, whether ceftolozane/tazobactam is a cost-effective alternative to meropenem for ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in Japan remains uncertain. Future research should examine the unobserved heterogeneity across patient subgroups and decision-making settings, to characterise decision uncertainty and its consequences so as to assess whether additional research is required.

Project description:High variability of linezolid blood concentrations with partial subtherapeutic levels was observed in critically ill patients who received a standard intravenous dose of linezolid, contributing to drug resistance and toxicity. Continuous infusions of linezolid have been suggested as an alternative and provide good serum and alveolar levels without fluctuations in trough concentration. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of continuous linezolid infusion versus the standard regimen in critically ill patients. A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 179 patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group received IV linezolid 600 mg twice daily, while the second group received 600 mg IV as a loading dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/day (50 mg/h) for at least 8−10 days. The continuous infusion group showed a higher clinical cure rate than the intermittent infusion group (p = 0.046). Furthermore, efficacy was proven by greater improvement of P/F ratio (p = 0.030) on day 7 of treatment, a lower incidence of developing sepsis after beginning treatment (p = 0.009), and a shorter time to reach clinical cure (p < 0.001). Hematological parameters were also assessed during the treatment to evaluate the safety between the two groups. The incidence of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower in the continuous infusion group than in the intermittent infusion group. In addition, a stepwise logistic regression model revealed that the intermittent infusion of linezolid was significantly associated with thrombocytopenia (OR =4.128; 95% CI = 1.681−10.139; p =0.001). The current study is the first to assess the clinical aspects of continuous infusion of linezolid beyond pharmacokinetic studies. Continuous infusion of linezolid outperforms intermittent delivery in safety and improves clinical effectiveness in critically ill patients with Gram-positive nosocomial pneumonia.

Project description:Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains an important clinical problem globally, being associated with significant morbidity and mortality. As management of VAP requires adequate and timely antibiotic administration, global emergence of antimicrobial resistance poses serious challenges over our ability to maintain this axiom. Development of antimicrobials against MDR Gram-negative pathogens has therefore emerged as a priority and some new antibiotics have been marketed or approach late stage of development. The aim of this review is to analyse new therapeutic options from the point view of potential treatment of VAP. Among recently developed antimicrobials presented herein, it is obvious that we will have promising therapeutic options against VAP caused by Enterobacteriaceae excluding those producing metallo-β-lactamases, against which only cefiderocol and aztreonam/avibactam are expected to be active. Against infections caused by carbapenem non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ceftolozane/tazobactam and to a lesser extend ceftazidime/avibactam may cover a proportion of current medical needs, but there still remain a considerable proportion of strains which harbor other resistance mechanisms. Murepavadin and cefiderocol hold promise against this particularly notorious pathogen. Finally, Acinetobacter baummannii remains a treatment-challenge. Eravacycline, cefiderocol and probably plazomicin seem to be the most promising agents against this difficult-to treat pathogen, but we have still a long road ahead, to see their position in clinical practice and particularly in VAP. In summary, despite persisting and increasing unmet medical needs, several newly approved and forthcoming agents hold promise for the treatment of VAP and hopefully will enrich our antimicrobial arsenal in the next few years. Targeted pharmacokinetic and clinical studies in real-life scenario of VAP are important to position these new agents in clinical practice, whereas vigilant use will ensure their longevity in our armamentarium.

Dataset Information

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trials registration

Publications

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets