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 |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.

Project description:ObjectivesVentilator-acquired pneumonia (VAP) is the leading cause of serious associated infections in Intensive Care Units (ICU) and is associated with significant morbidity. The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in patients on mechanical ventilation may increase exposure to certain risk factors such as hyperoxemia and the need for multiple transfers. The aim of our study was to assess the relationship between HBOT and VAP.MethodThis retrospective observational study was performed from March 2017 to March 2018 in a 10-bed ICU using HBOT. All patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) for more than 48 hours were eligible. VAP was defined using clinical and radiological criteria. Data collection was carried out via digital medical records. Risk factors for VAP were determined by univariate and multivariate analysis.ResultsForty-two (23%) of the 182 patients enrolled developed at least one episode of VAP. One hundred and twenty-four (68%) patients received HBOT. The incidence rate of VAP was 34 per 1000 ventilator days. The occurrence of VAP was significantly associated with immunosuppression (p<0.029), MV duration (5 [3-7] vs 8 [5-11.5] days, p<0.0001), length of stay (8 [5-13] vs 19.5 [13-32] days, p<0.0001), reintubation (p<0.0001), intra-hospital transport (p = 0.001), use of paralytic agents (p = 0.013), tracheotomy (p = 0.003) and prone position (p = 0.003). The use of HBOT was not associated with the occurrence of VAP. Multivariate analysis identified reintubation (OR: 8.3 [2.6-26.6]; p<0.0001), intra-hospital transport (OR: 3.5 [1.3-9.2]; p = 0.011) and the use of paralytic agents (OR: 3.3 [1.3-8.4]; p = 0.014) as independent risk factors for VAP.ConclusionKnown risk factors for VAP are to be found within our ICU population. HBOT, however, is not an extra risk factor for VAP within this group. Further experimental and clinical investigations are needed to understand the impact of HBOT on the occurrence of VAP and on physiological microbiome.