» Articles » PMID: 36457059

Outcomes in Participants with Failure of Initial Antibacterial Therapy for Hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia Prior to Enrollment in the Randomized, Controlled Phase 3 ASPECT-NP Trial of Ceftolozane/tazobactam Versus...

Overview
Journal Crit Care
Specialty Critical Care
Date 2022 Dec 2
PMID 36457059
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a combination antibacterial agent comprising an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin and β-lactamase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in adults. Participants in the ASPECT-NP trial received ceftolozane/tazobactam (3 g [2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam] every 8 h) or meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Participants failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) rates with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem treatment. Here, we report a post hoc analysis examining this result.

Methods: The phase 3, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter, noninferiority trial compared ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of adults with ventilated HABP/VABP; eligibility included those failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry. The primary and key secondary endpoints were 28-day ACM and clinical response at test of cure (TOC), respectively. Participants who were failing prior therapy were a prospectively defined subgroup; however, subgroup analyses were not designed for noninferiority testing. The 95% CIs for treatment differences were calculated as unstratified Newcombe CIs. Post hoc analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the impact of baseline characteristics and treatment on clinical outcomes in the subgroup who were failing prior antibacterial therapy.

Results: In the ASPECT-NP trial, 12.8% of participants (93/726; ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 53; meropenem, n = 40) were failing prior antibacterial therapy at study entry. In this subgroup, 28-day ACM was higher in participants who received meropenem versus ceftolozane/tazobactam (18/40 [45.0%] vs 12/53 [22.6%]; percentage difference [95% CI]: 22.4% [3.1 to 40.1]). Rates of clinical response at TOC were 26/53 [49.1%] for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 15/40 [37.5%] for meropenem (percentage difference [95% CI]: 11.6% [- 8.6 to 30.2]). Multivariable regression analysis determined concomitant vasopressor use and treatment with meropenem were significant factors associated with risk of 28-day ACM. Adjusting for vasopressor use, the risk of dying after treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam was approximately one-fourth the risk of dying after treatment with meropenem.

Conclusions: This post hoc analysis further supports the previously demonstrated lower ACM rate for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem among participants who were failing prior therapy, despite the lack of significant differences in clinical cure rates.

Clinicaltrials: gov registration NCT02070757 . Registered February 25, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757 .

Citing Articles

The synergistic effect between phages and Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in endotracheal tube biofilm.

Oliveira V, Soler-Comas A, Rocha A, Silva-Lovato C, Watanabe E, Torres A Emerg Microbes Infect. 2024; 13(1):2420737.

PMID: 39530158 PMC: 11571741. DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2024.2420737.


Novel Antibiotics for Gram-Negative Nosocomial Pneumonia.

Almyroudi M, Chang A, Andrianopoulos I, Papathanakos G, Mehta R, Paramythiotou E Antibiotics (Basel). 2024; 13(7).

PMID: 39061311 PMC: 11273951. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13070629.


Perspectives on the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam: a review of clinical trial data and real-world evidence.

Martin-Loeches I, Bruno C, DeRyke C Future Microbiol. 2024; 19(6):465-480.

PMID: 38252038 PMC: 11216532. DOI: 10.2217/fmb-2023-0197.


Global evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam against ESBLs-producing and : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Khorasani M, Rostami S, Bakhshi A, Sheikhi R Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2023; 10:20499361231212074.

PMID: 38029068 PMC: 10656798. DOI: 10.1177/20499361231212074.


Resistance in : A Narrative Review of Antibiogram Interpretation and Emerging Treatments.

Giovagnorio F, De Vito A, Madeddu G, Parisi S, Geremia N Antibiotics (Basel). 2023; 12(11).

PMID: 37998823 PMC: 10669487. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12111621.

References
1.
McCann E, Srinivasan A, DeRyke C, Ye G, DePestel D, Murray J . Carbapenem-Nonsusceptible Gram-Negative Pathogens in ICU and Non-ICU Settings in US Hospitals in 2017: A Multicenter Study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018; 5(10):ofy241. PMC: 6194421. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofy241. View

2.
Bonine N, Berger A, Altincatal A, Wang R, Bhagnani T, Gillard P . Impact of Delayed Appropriate Antibiotic Therapy on Patient Outcomes by Antibiotic Resistance Status From Serious Gram-negative Bacterial Infections. Am J Med Sci. 2019; 357(2):103-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2018.11.009. View

3.
Karlowsky J, Kazmierczak K, Young K, Motyl M, Sahm D . In vitro activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against phenotypically defined extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-positive isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from hospitalized patients (SMART 2016). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020; 96(4):114925. DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2019.114925. View

4.
Ryan K, Karve S, Peeters P, Baelen E, Potter D, Rojas-Farreras S . The impact of initial antibiotic treatment failure: Real-world insights in healthcare-associated or nosocomial pneumonia. J Infect. 2018; 77(1):9-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.04.002. View

5.
Bassetti M, Poulakou G, Ruppe E, Bouza E, Van Hal S, Brink A . Antimicrobial resistance in the next 30 years, humankind, bugs and drugs: a visionary approach. Intensive Care Med. 2017; 43(10):1464-1475. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-017-4878-x. View