Participant- and Disease-Related Factors as Independent Predictors of Treatment Outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 Clinical Trial: A Multivariable Regression Analysis.

Background: In the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine independent predictors of efficacy outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, to assist in treatment decision making. Methods: A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify variables that were independently associated with day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM), favorable clinical response at early follow-up (EFU), and favorable microbiologic response at end of treatment (EOT). The analysis accounted for the number of baseline infecting pathogens and in vitro susceptibility to randomized treatment. Results: Vasopressor use, renal impairment, bacteremia at baseline, and Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores ≥15 were associated with a greater risk of day 28 ACM. A favorable clinical response at EFU was associated with normal renal function, an APACHE II score <15, no vasopressor use, and no bacteremia at baseline. At EOT, a favorable microbiologic response was associated with IMI/REL treatment, normal renal function, no vasopressor use, nonventilated pneumonia at baseline, intensive care unit admission at randomization, monomicrobial infections at baseline, and absence of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex at baseline. These factors remained significant after accounting for polymicrobial infection and in vitro susceptibility to assigned treatment. Conclusions: This analysis, which accounted for baseline pathogen susceptibility, validated well-recognized patient- and disease-related factors as independent predictors of clinical outcomes. These results lend further support to the noninferiority of IMI/REL to piperacillin/tazobactam and suggests that pathogen eradication may be more likely with IMI/REL. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02493764.

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 meropenem.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a combination antibacterial agent comprising an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin and ß-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 .

Ceftolozane/tazobactam for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia due to ESBL-producing Enterobacterales: a subgroup analysis of the ASPECT-NP clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: After the MERINO trial with piperacillin/tazobactam, the efficacy of ß-lactam/tazobactam combinations in serious infections involving extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing pathogens merits special evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To further confirm the efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) involving ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-producing Enterobacterales. METHODS: Retrospective subgroup analysis of the ASPECT-NP trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating HABP/VABP in mechanically ventilated adults (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). ESBLs were identified using whole genome sequencing. Chromosomal AmpC production was quantified employing a high-sensitivity mRNA transcription assay. RESULTS: Overall, 61/726 (8.4%) participants had all baseline lower respiratory tract (LRT) isolates susceptible to both study treatments and ≥1 baseline ESBL-positive/AmpC-overproducing Enterobacterales isolate. In this subgroup (ceftolozane/tazobactam n = 30, meropenem n = 31), baseline characteristics were generally comparable between treatment arms. The most frequent ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-overproducing Enterobacterales isolates (ceftolozane/tazobactam n = 31, meropenem n = 35) overall were Klebsiella pneumoniae (50.0%), Escherichia coli (22.7%), and Proteus mirabilis (7.6%). The most prevalent ESBLs were CTX-M-15 (75.8%), other CTX-M (19.7%), and SHV (4.5%); 10.6% of isolates overproduced chromosomal AmpC. Overall, 28 day all-cause mortality was 6.7% (2/30) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 32.3% (10/31) with meropenem (25.6% difference, 95% CI: 5.54 to 43.84). Clinical cure rate at test-of-cure, 7-14 days after end of therapy, was 73.3% (22/30) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 61.3% (19/31) with meropenem (12.0% difference, 95% CI: -11.21 to +33.51). Per-isolate microbiological response at test-of-cure was 64.5% (20/31) with ceftolozane/tazobactam and 74.3% (26/35) with meropenem (-9.8% difference, 95% CI: -30.80 to +12.00). CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm ceftolozane/tazobactam as an effective treatment option for HABP/VABP involving ceftolozane/tazobactam-susceptible ESBL-positive and/or AmpC-producing Enterobacterales.

Clinical and microbiological outcomes, by causative pathogen, in the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled, Phase 3 trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: In the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated. METHODS: Mechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7-14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population. RESULTS: The mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: -4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: -18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: -4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

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.

Five Year Survival Update From KEYNOTE-010: Pembrolizumab Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated, Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Positive Advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: In the KEYNOTE-010 study, pembrolizumab improved overall survival (OS) versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and ≥1%. We report 5-year efficacy and safety follow-up for the KEYNOTE-010 study. METHODS: Patients were randomized to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg once every 3 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (2 y). Patients who completed pembrolizumab treatment and subsequently had recurrence could receive second-course pembrolizumab for up to 17 cycles (1 y). Pembrolizumab doses were pooled in this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1034 patients were randomized (pembrolizumab, n = 691; docetaxel, n = 343). Median study follow-up was 67.4 months (range: 60.0‒77.9). The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for OS was 0.55 (0.44‒0.69) for patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and 0.70 (0.61‒0.80) with PD-L1 TPS ≥1%. The 5-year OS rates for pembrolizumab versus docetaxel were 25.0% versus 8.2% in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and 15.6% versus 6.5% with PD-L1 TPS ≥1%. Among 79 patients who completed 35 cycles/2 years of pembrolizumab, the OS rate 3 years after completion (∼5 y from randomization) was 83.0%. A total of 21 patients received second-course pembrolizumab; 11 (52.4%) had an objective response after starting the second course and 15 (71.4%) were alive at data cutoff. Exploratory biomarker analysis revealed that higher tissue tumor mutational burden (≥175 mutations per exome) was associated with improved outcomes with pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab continued to provide long-term benefit than docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and ≥1%. Our findings confirm pembrolizumab as a standard-of-care treatment in the second-line or later setting.

Corrigendum to: Renal Impairment, C. difficile Recurrence, and the Differential Effect of Bezlotoxumab: A Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Data From 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa248.].

Renal Impairment, C. difficile Recurrence, and the Differential Effect of Bezlotoxumab: A Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Data From 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Renal impairment is not a consistently cited risk factor for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). We examined the association between renal impairment and rCDI and the effect of bezlotoxumab, an anti-toxin B monoclonal antibody, in reducing rCDI in participants with renal impairment. METHODS: We pooled data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trials conducted in participants receiving bezlotoxumab or placebo infusion during oral antibacterial drug treatment for CDI. We assessed the association between renal impairment and rCDI in placebo-treated participants and evaluated the effect of bezlotoxumab vs placebo in reducing rCDI among participants with renal impairment, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <90 mL/min. RESULTS: The proportion of placebo-treated participants experiencing rCDI within 12 weeks was higher in those with renal impairment (n = 919) vs those without renal impairment (n = 612; 36.6% and 27.7%, respectively; difference, 8.9%; 95% CI, 1.3% to 16.3%). Renal impairment was significantly associated with a higher rate of recurrence in placebo-treated participants lacking commonly recognized risk factors for rCDI (renal impairment as only risk factor, 28.8%; vs normal renal function and no risk factors, 12.5%; difference, 16.3%; 95% CI, 3.4% to 28.8%). Among all participants with renal impairment, the rate of rCDI was 19.5% among bezlotoxumab-treated vs 36.6% among placebo-treated participants (difference, -17.1%; 95% CI, -23.4% to -10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis adds to the literature suggesting an association of renal impairment as an independent risk factor for rCDI and provides preliminary evidence that patients with renal impairment who suffer with CDI may benefit from adjunctive treatment with bezlotoxumab.

Long-Term Outcomes and Retreatment Among Patients With Previously Treated, Programmed Death-Ligand 1‒Positive, Advanced Non‒Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the KEYNOTE-010 Study.

PURPOSE: In the KEYNOTE-010 study, pembrolizumab improved overall survival (OS) versus docetaxel in previously treated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)‒expressing advanced non‒small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% and ≥ 1%. We report KEYNOTE-010 long-term outcomes, including after 35 cycles/2 years or second-course pembrolizumab. METHODS: Of 1,033 patients randomly assigned (intention to treat), 690 received up to 35 cycles/2 years of pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (n = 344) or 10 mg/kg (n = 346) every 3 weeks, and 343 received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Eligible patients with disease progression after 35 cycles/2 years of pembrolizumab could receive second-course treatment (up to 17 cycles). Pembrolizumab doses were pooled because no between-dose difference was observed at primary analysis. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab continued to improve OS over docetaxel in the PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% and ≥ 1% groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.66; P < .00001; and HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P < .00001, respectively) after a 42.6-month (range, 35.2-53.2 months) median follow-up. Estimated 36-month OS rates were 34.5% versus 12.7% and 22.9% versus 11.0%, respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% versus 37% of patients, respectively. Seventy-nine of 690 patients completed 35 cycles/2 years of pembrolizumab; 12-month OS and progression-free survival rates after completing treatment were 98.7% (95% CI, 91.1% to 99.8%) and 72.5% (95% CI, 59.9% to 81.8%), respectively. Seventy-five patients (95%) had objective response (RECIST v1.1, blinded independent central review) and 48 (64%) had ongoing response. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17.7% of patients. Fourteen patients received second-course pembrolizumab: 5 completed 17 cycles, 6 (43%) had partial response, and 5 (36%) had stable disease. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab provided long-term OS benefit over docetaxel, with manageable safety, durable responses among patients receiving 2 years of treatment, and disease control with second-course treatment, further supporting pembrolizumab for previously treated, PD-L1‒expressing advanced NSCLC.

Outcomes by line of therapy and programmed death ligand 1 expression in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab or ipilimumab in KEYNOTE-006: A randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarkers of patients likely to benefit from anti-programmed death 1 inhibitor therapy have clinical relevance. We examined whether line of therapy or tumour programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression affects the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab, compared with ipilimumab, in advanced melanoma. METHODS: Of 834 patients enrolled in the randomised, open-label phase III KEYNOTE-006 study, 833 were included in this analysis. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 or 3 weeks (for 24 months) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (for four doses) until disease progression/intolerable toxicity. This analysis evaluated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Data cut-off: 03 November 2016. RESULTS: Of the patients, 60.3% were male, 65.9% were treatment naive and 80.6% had PD-L1-positive tumours (median follow-up was 33.9 months). Twenty-four-month survival rates were higher with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in treatment-naive (PFS 31.0% versus 14.6%; OS 58.0% versus 44.7%) and previously treated patients (PFS 25.7% versus 11.3%; OS 49.2% versus 37.9%). Twenty-four-month survival rates were higher with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours (PFS 33.2% versus 13.1%; OS 58.4% versus 45.0%) and similar in PD-L1-negative tumours (PFS 14.9% versus NR [no data at 24 months for a PFS estimate]; OS 43.6% versus 31.8%). Safety of pembrolizumab by subgroup was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support pembrolizumab monotherapy as standard of care in patients with advanced melanoma, regardless of first- or second-line therapy or PD-L1 status. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01866319.

Comparative costs of ertapenem and cefotetan as prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The costs of treating surgical site infections can be considerable. There is a cost associated with the prophylactic use of antibiotics; however, the use of prophylactic agents may reduce infection rates and lengths of stay, thus offsetting the overall treatment cost and potentially generating cost savings to hospitals. This project was intended to determine the potential cost impact of using ertapenem 1 g vs. cefotetan 2 g as prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: Cost analysis using efficacy data from the PREVENT clinical trial and drug acquisition and total hospital costs in 2005 dollars from Premier's Perspective Comparative Database in patients > or = 18 year of age, evaluable at four weeks after elective surgery of the colon or rectum and prophylactic treatment with ertapenem (n = 338) or cefotetan (n = 334). The primary outcome measures were the rate of prophylactic drug failure and the difference between the ertapenem and cefotetan groups in costs related to and total hospital stay. Prophylactic failure was defined as a surgical site infection, unexplained antibiotic use, or anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Prophylactic failure occurred in 28.1% of the patients receiving ertapenem and 42.8% of those receiving cefotetan (p < 0.05). The most common prophylactic failure was surgical site infection: 18.3% for ertapenem, 31.1% for cefotetan, difference (95% confidence interval) -13.0% (-19.5, -6.5%) (p < 0.05). The mean +/- standard deviation length of stay for all patients, including prophylactic successes and failures, was 7.6 +/- 6.6 days for ertapenem and 8.7 +/- 9.5 days for cefotetan. The mean per-patient cost of prophylactic drugs and hospital room and board was $15,245 with ertapenem and $17,428 cefotetan, a net difference of -$2,181. CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem used in prophylaxis for elective colorectal operations results in a lower rate of surgical site infection and a shorter average length of stay than cefotetan. The calculated net difference in prophylactic antibiotic drug and hospital costs represents a saving of $2,181 per patient with ertapenem relative to cefotetan.

Effect of body mass index and ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis on surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) after elective colorectal surgery is dependent on many factors, including the body mass index (BMI) of the patient. In this study, the association of BMI and type of antibiotic prophylaxis with SSI was evaluated in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHOD: A post-hoc analysis was performed using data obtained from a multicenter randomized, double-blind study of 1,002 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery who received prophylactic administration of ertapenem (1 g) or cefotetan (2 g). Among 650 evaluable patients, the effect of BMI and type of antibiotic prophylaxis on SSI rates was assessed four weeks after surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation was standardized, and no patient received oral antibiotics; intravenous antibiotics were not repeated during or after surgery. RESULTS: The majority of patients had a BMI between 18.5 and 39.9 kg/m2. Regardless of the type of prophylaxis, SSI rates were significantly higher in patients with a BMI > or = 30 kg/m2 than in those with a BMI < 30 kg/m2. However, failure, defined as SSI, was significantly less common after ertapenem than after cefotetan prophylaxis at both BMI < 30 kg/m2 (12.7% vs. 26.4%, respectively; difference -13.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] -21.0, -6.5) and BMI > or = 30 kg/m2 (26.7% vs. 41.9%, respectively; difference -15.3; 95% CI -28.2, -2.0). The most prevalent type of SSI was superficial incisional infection, which was more common with both treatments in patients with a BMI > or = 30 kg/m2; however, the incidence of superficial SSI was lower after ertapenem than cefotetan prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, the incidence of SSI, specifically superficial incisional SSI, was higher in patients with a BMI > or = 30 kg/m2, regardless of the prophylactic antibiotic given. Ertapenem prophylaxis was more effective than cefotetan in the prevention of SSI at any BMI.

Randomized, multicenter, double-blind study of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intravenous ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized adults.

BACKGROUND: Complicated intra-abdominal infections are a common problem in surgical practice. This study compared the effectiveness of ertapenem (1 g qd) and piperacillin/tazobactam (3.375 g q6h) in the treatment of these infections. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized study conducted in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Of the 535 patients screened, 500 were stratified on the basis of disease severity (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score < or =10 or >10), then randomized (1:1) to 4-14 days of treatment with one of the regimens and six weeks of followup. Nearly all patients (N = 494) were treated. The primary endpoint was the proportion of microbiologically evaluable patients with a favorable clinical response (cure) at two weeks. Non-inferiority of ertapenem was based on a difference in response rate of <15 percentage points compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (lower bound of the 95% CI > -15). RESULTS: Of the 494 treated patients, 231 were microbiologically evaluable, with 123 and 108 patients in the ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups, respectively. Statistically similar cure rates were observed in the ertapenem (82.1%) and piperacillin/tazobactam (81.7%) groups (difference 0.3 [95% CI: -9.6, 10.5]). The pathogens isolated most frequently were Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis, and Bacteroides thetaiotamicron, typical isolates associated with intra-abdominal infections. There were no statistical differences between the groups in serious drug-related clinical adverse events, drug-related clinical adverse experiences leading to study discontinuation, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem was non-inferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in the cure of intra-abdominal infections caused by susceptible pathogens. Both study drugs generally were well tolerated.

Polyethylene glycol versus sodium phosphate mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The type of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) used before elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a prospective randomized controlled antibiotic prophylaxis trial (ertapenem vs. cefotetan) evaluated the effect of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate (SP) MBPs on the rates of postoperative surgical site infections (SSI). RESULTS: Good to excellent MBPs were observed in 281 of 303 (93%) evaluable patients for the PEG and 336 of 367 (92%) for the SP types. A higher rate of SSI was observed in the PEG (34%) than SP (24%) group (difference, 10%; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-17.2). The MBP type was a significant risk factor for SSI, with SP favored over PEG (odds ratio, .6; 95% confidence interval, .43-.85) in univariate analysis; multivariate analysis favored SP, but was not significant (odds ratio, .69; 95% confidence interval, .46-1.02). SSI was lowest with SP and ertapenem (19%) and highest with PEG and cefotetan (44%). CONCLUSIONS: SP, coupled with ertapenem antibiotic prophylaxis, may improve outcomes and reduce SSIs in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery when compared with PEG coupled with cefotetan antibiotic prophylaxis.

Ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ertapenem, a long-acting carbapenem, may be an alternative to the recommended prophylactic antibiotic cefotetan. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem, as compared with cefotetan, in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A successful outcome was defined as the absence of surgical-site infection, anastomotic leakage, or antibiotic use 4 weeks postoperatively. All adverse events were collected until 14 days after the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of the 1002 patients randomly assigned to study groups, 901 (451 in the ertapenem group and 450 in the cefotetan group) qualified for the modified intention-to-treat analysis, and 672 (338 in the ertapenem group and 334 in the cefotetan group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. After adjustment for strata, in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of overall prophylactic failure was 40.2% in the ertapenem group and 50.9% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -10.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -17.1 to -4.2); in the per-protocol analysis, the failure rate was 28.0% in the ertapenem group and 42.8% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -14.8%; 95% CI, -21.9 to -7.5). Both analyses fulfilled statistical criteria for the superiority of ertapenem. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the most common reason for failure of prophylaxis in both groups was surgical-site infection: 17.1% in the ertapenem group and 26.2% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -9.1; 95% CI, -14.4 to -3.7). In the treated population, the overall incidence of Clostridium difficile infection was 1.7% in the ertapenem group and 0.6% in the cefotetan group (P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem is more effective than cefotetan in the prevention of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery but may be associated with an increase in C. difficile infection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00090272 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Concomitant administration of a bivalent Haemophilus influenzae type b-hepatitis B vaccine, measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and varicella vaccine: safety, tolerability and immunogenicity.

BACKGROUND: The study was done to verify that concomitant administration of a bivalent Haemophilus influenzae type b-hepatitis B vaccine (Comvax), measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (M-M-RII) and varicella vaccine (Varivax) would be well-tolerated and suitably immunogenic with respect to all vaccine antigens. METHODS: We randomized 822 healthy 12- to 15-month-old children (1:1) to receive concomitant injections of Comvax, M-M-RII and Varivax (concomitant group) or Comvax followed 6 weeks later by injections of M-M-RII and Varivax (nonconcomitant group). Blood samples taken before and 6 weeks after vaccination were tested for antibodies to all vaccine antigens. RESULTS: Vaccinations were generally well-tolerated. Children in the concomitant and nonconcomitant treatment groups were similar with respect to the safety endpoint of primary interest (16.1 and 19.5%, respectively, had a fever > or =103 degree F rectally at any time within 14 days after either of two clinic visits). Fifteen serious adverse events were reported (eight in the concomitant group and seven in the nonconcomitant group); all resolved. Elements of two serious adverse events (fever, fever and measles-like rash; both in concomitant group children) were considered possibly related to vaccination. One child was withdrawn from the study because of a nonserious adverse event subsequently judged to be unrelated to vaccination. Similar proportions of vaccinees in the concomitant and nonconcomitant groups developed satisfactory antibody responses to the H. influenzae polysaccharide, polyribosylribitol phosphate (97.8 to 98.7%), hepatitis B surface antigen (99.2 to 100%), measles virus (99.4 to 99.6%), mumps virus (98.4 to 99.2%), rubella virus (100%) and varicella virus (93.2 to 94.6%). CONCLUSION: Concomitant administration of Comvax, M-M-RII and VARIVAX at the 12- or 15-month clinic visit is one satisfactory way of delivering some of the multiple vaccines indicated during the second year of life.

Open-label study of a twice-daily indinavir 800-mg/ritonavir 200-mg regimen in HIV-infected adults failing a protease inhibitor regimen.

There is no standard treatment of HIV-infected patients who fail protease inhibitor (PI)-containing antiretroviral therapy. This open-label, noncomparative 24-week study with a 24-week extension evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of twice-daily indinavir/ritonavir 800/200 mg plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in this population. Presented here are the results of the 24-week study. Patients were HIV-infected adults who had prior viral RNA (vRNA) suppression (<400 copies/mL), subsequent failure (> or =400 and < or =100,000 copies/mL) on antiretroviral therapy, and at least one new NRTI available for treatment. The proportions of patients achieving plasma vRNA <400 and <50 copies/mL were analyzed with data as observed (DAO) and intention-to-treat (ITT) models using generalized estimating equations (GEE) or counting noncompleters as failures (NC = F). Mean changes from baseline in vRNA and CD4 cell count were evaluated using DAO and an ITT mixed-model approach. Sixty-three patients (87% male) with a mean age of 42 years and mean baseline vRNA and CD4 cell counts of 3.8 log(10) copies/mL and 360 cells/mm(3), respectively, were enrolled. The proportion (95% confidence interval) of patients achieving vRNA <400 and <50 copies/mL at week 24 were 76% (61%, 87%) and 50% (35%, 65%) for DAO, 64% (50%, 75%) and 43% (30%, 56%) for GEE, and 56% (43%, 68%) and 37% (25%, 50%) for NC = F, respectively. At Week 24, baseline vRNA decreased by >1.0 log(10) copies/mL and CD4 cell counts increased by approximately 90 cells/mm(3). Three patients (5%) experienced serious drug-related adverse events. Seven patients (11%) discontinued treatment due to clinical or laboratory adverse events. In this study, the enhanced, twice-daily regimen of indinavir/ritonavir 800/200 mg plus 2 NRTIs provided suppression of HIV in many patients who had failed a PI-containing regimen and was generally well tolerated.

Open-label study of a twice-daily indinavir 800-mg/ritonavir 100-mg regimen in protease inhibitor-naive HIV-infected adults.

Low-dose ritonavir can boost plasma levels of indinavir, thereby enhancing its antiretroviral activity despite less frequent dosing. In this open-label, noncomparative, 24-week trial with a 24-week extension phase, HIV-infected protease inhibitor (PI)- and lamivudine-naive adults received indinavir/ritonavir 800 mg/100 mg plus stavudine and lamivudine every 12 hours. The proportions of patients achieving plasma HIV RNA (vRNA) <400 and <50 copies/mL were analyzed with data as observed (DAO) and intention-to-treat models using generalized estimating equations (GEE) or counting noncompleters as failures (NC = F). Eighty-nine patients (80% men) with a median age of 36 years and mean baseline vRNA levels and CD4 counts of 5.01 log(10) copies/mL and 269 cells/mm(3) were enrolled. The proportions (95% confidence interval [CI]) of patients achieving vRNA <400 copies/mL were 93% (84%, 98%), 78% (67%, 86%), and 68% (57%, 78%) at week 24 for DAO, GEE, and NC = F analyses, respectively; the corresponding results at week 48 were 95% (84%, 99%), 65% (53%, 76%), and 45% (35%, 57%). Most patients with vRNA <400 had <50 copies/mL. At week 48, baseline vRNA decreased by >2 log(10) copies/mL and CD4 counts increased by approximately 200 cells/mm(3). Five patients (6%) experienced serious drug-related adverse experiences. Twenty patients (23%) discontinued therapy due to adverse experiences. In this study, twice-daily indinavir 800 mg/ritonavir 100 mg with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors provided potent viral suppression and immunologic reconstitution in many PI-naive patients.

Kinetics of maternal hepatitis a antibody decay in infants: implications for vaccine use.

We conducted a seroepidemiologic study to evaluate the kinetics of maternal hepatitis A antibody decay in infants. Serum samples obtained from 200 infants at 2 and 4 months of age were tested for hepatitis A antibody. Seventy-six infants (38%) were hepatitis A antibody-positive with a geometric mean antibody titer of 2634 mIU/ml. Samples collected at 4, 6 and/or 12 months of age showed seropositivity rates of 100, 95 and 39%, respectively. These data indicate that maternal antibody levels remained high through the first 6 months of life but decayed significantly by 12 months of age.