Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment Analyses Evaluating Omadacycline Dosing Regimens for the Treatment of Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Arising from Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae.

Omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline with in vitro activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms, including Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, is approved in the United States to treat patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Using nonclinical pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) targets for efficacy and in vitro surveillance data for omadacycline against S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae, and a population pharmacokinetic model, PK-PD target attainment analyses were undertaken using total-drug epithelial lining fluid (ELF) and free-drug plasma exposures to evaluate omadacycline 100 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 12 h or 200 mg i.v. every 24 h (q24h) on day 1, followed by 100 mg i.v. q24h on day 2 and 300 mg orally q24h on days 3 to 5 for patients with CABP. Percent probabilities of PK-PD target attainment on days 1 and 2 by MIC were assessed using the following four approaches for selecting PK-PD targets: (i) median, (ii) second highest, (iii) highest, and (iv) randomly assigned total-drug ELF and free-drug plasma ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve to the MIC (AUC/MIC ratio) targets associated with a 1-log10 CFU reduction from baseline. Percent probabilities of PK-PD target attainment based on total-drug ELF AUC/MIC ratio targets on days 1 and 2 were ≥91.1% for S. pneumoniae for all approaches but the highest target and ≥99.2% for H. influenzae for all approaches at MIC90s (0.12 and 1 µg/mL for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae, respectively). Lower percent probabilities of PK-PD target attainment based on free-drug plasma AUC/MIC ratio targets were observed for randomly assigned and the highest free-drug plasma targets for S. pneumoniae and for all targets for H. influenzae. These data provided support for approved omadacycline dosing regimens to treat patients with CABP and decisions for the interpretive criteria for the in vitro susceptibility testing of omadacycline against these pathogens.

Omadacycline vs moxifloxacin in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a major clinical burden worldwide. In the phase III OPTIC study (NCT02531438) in CABP, omadacycline was found to be non-inferior to moxifloxacin for investigator-assessed clinical response (IACR) at post-treatment evaluation (PTE, 5-10 days after last dose). This article reports the efficacy findings, as specified in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline 100 mg intravenously (every 12 h for two doses, then every 24 h) with optional transition to 300 mg orally after 3 days, or moxifloxacin 400 mg intravenously (every 24 h) with optional transition to 400 mg orally after 3 days. The total treatment duration was 7-14 days. The primary endpoint for EMA efficacy analysis was IACR at PTE in patients with Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV. RESULTS: In total, 660 patients were randomized as PORT risk class III and IV. Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin at PTE. The clinical success rates were 88.4% and 85.2%, respectively [intent-to-treat population; difference 3.3; 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -2.7 to 9.3], and 92.5% and 90.5%, respectively (clinically evaluable population; difference 2.0; 97.5% CI 3.2-7.4). Clinical success rates with omadacycline and moxifloxacin were similar against identified pathogens and across key subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin for IACR at PTE, with high clinical success across pathogen types and patient subgroups.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses for Omadacycline Using Phase 1 and 3 Data.

Omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic with activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms, including tetracycline-resistant pathogens, received FDA approval in October 2018 for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). A previously developed population pharmacokinetic (PK) model based on phase 1 intravenous and oral PK data was refined using data from infected patients. Data from 10 phase 1 studies used to develop the previous model were pooled with data from three additional phase 1 studies, a phase 1b uncomplicated urinary tract infection study, one phase 3 CABP study, and two phase 3 ABSSSI studies. The final population PK model was a three-compartment model with first-order absorption using transit compartments to account for absorption delay following oral dosing and first-order elimination. Epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentrations were modeled as a subcompartment of the first peripheral compartment. A food effect on oral bioavailability was included in the model. Sex was the only significant covariate identified, with 15.6% lower clearance for females than males. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics indicated a precise and unbiased fit to the data. The final model, which was robust in its ability to predict plasma and ELF exposures following omadacycline administration, was also able to predict the central tendency and variability in concentration-time profiles using an external phase 3 ABSSSI data set. A population PK model, which described omadacycline PK in healthy subjects and infected patients, was developed and subsequently used to support pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) and PK-PD target attainment assessments.

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Characterization of Omadacycline against Haemophilus influenzae Using a One-Compartment In Vitro Infection Model.

Omadacycline is a novel aminomethylcycline with activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms, including Haemophilus influenzae, which is one of the leading causes of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The evaluation of antimicrobial agents against H. influenzae using standard murine infection models is challenging due to the low pathogenicity of this species in mice. Therefore, 24-h dose-ranging studies using a one-compartment in vitro infection model were undertaken with the goal of characterizing the magnitude of the ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to the MIC (AUC/MIC ratio) associated with efficacy for a panel of five H. influenzae isolates. These five isolates, for which MIC values were 1 or 2 mg/liter, were exposed to omadacycline total-drug epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentration-time profiles based on those observed in healthy volunteers following intravenous omadacycline administration. Relationships between change in log10 CFU/ml from baseline at 24 h and the total-drug ELF AUC/MIC ratios for each isolate and for the isolates pooled were evaluated using Hill-type models and nonlinear least-squares regression. As evidenced by the high coefficients of determination (r2) of 0.88 to 0.98, total-drug ELF AUC/MIC ratio described the data well for each isolate and the isolates pooled. The median total-drug ELF AUC/MIC ratios associated with net bacterial stasis and 1- and 2-log10 CFU/ml reductions from baseline at 24 h were 6.91, 8.91, and 11.1, respectively. These data were useful to support the omadacycline dosing regimens selected for the treatment of patients with CABP, as well as susceptibility breakpoints for H. influenzae.

Once-daily oral omadacycline versus twice-daily oral linezolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (OASIS-2): a phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Pathogen resistance and safety concerns limit oral antibiotic options for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, versus twice-daily oral linezolid for treatment of ABSSSI. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study, eligible adults with ABSSSI at 33 sites in the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive omadacycline (450 mg orally every 24 h over the first 48 h then 300 mg orally every 24 h) or linezolid (600 mg orally every 12 h) for 7-14 days. Randomisation was done via an interactive response system using a computer-generated schedule, and stratified by type of infection (wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) and receipt (yes or no) of allowed previous antibacterial treatment. Investigators, funders, and patients were masked to treatment assignments. Primary endpoints were early clinical response, 48-72 h after first dose, in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (randomised patients without solely Gram-negative ABSSSI pathogens at baseline), and investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, 7-14 days after the last dose, in the mITT population and clinically evaluable population (ie, mITT patients who had a qualifying infection as per study-entry criteria, received study drug, did not receive a confounding antibiotic, and had an assessment of outcome during the protocol-defined window). The safety population included randomised patients who received any amount of study drug. We set a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877927, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 11, 2016, and June 6, 2017, 861 participants were assessed for eligibility. 735 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 368 received omadacycline and 367 received linezolid. Omadacycline (315 [88%] of 360) was non-inferior to linezolid (297 [83%] of 360) for early clinical response (percentage-point difference 5·0, 95% CI -0·2 to 10·3) in the mITT population. For investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, omadacycline was non-inferior to linezolid in the mITT (303 [84%] of 360 vs 291 [81%] of 360; percentage-point difference 3·3, 95% CI -2·2 to 9·0) and clinically evaluable (278 [98%] of 284 vs 279 [96%] of 292; 2·3, -0·5 to 5·8) populations. Mild to moderate nausea and vomiting were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in omadacycline (111 [30%] of 368 and 62 [17%] of 368, respectively) and linezolid (28 [8%] of 367 and 11 [3%] of 367, respectively) groups. INTERPRETATION: Once-daily oral omadacycline was non-inferior to twice-daily oral linezolid in adults with ABSSSI, and was safe and well tolerated. Oral-only omadacycline represents a new treatment option for ABSSSI, with potential for reduction in hospital admissions and cost savings. FUNDING: Paratek Pharmaceuticals.

Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

BACKGROUND: Within the last decade, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a frequent cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options are being investigated for these infections. METHODS: We report an integrated analysis of 2 randomized, controlled studies involving omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline, and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study 1 (OASIS-1) initiated patients on intravenous omadacycline or linezolid, with the option to transition to an oral formulation after day 3. OASIS-2 was an oral-only study of omadacycline versus linezolid. RESULTS: In total, 691 patients received omadacycline and 689 patients received linezolid. Infection types included wound infection in 46.8% of patients, cellulitis/erysipelas in 30.5%, and major abscess in 22.7%. Pathogens were identified in 73.2% of patients. S. aureus was detected in 74.7% and MRSA in 32.4% of patients in whom a pathogen was identified. Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid using the Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint of early clinical response (86.2% vs 83.9%; difference 2.3, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 6.2) and using the European Medicines Agency primary endpoint of investigator-assessed clinical response at the posttreatment evaluation. Clinical responses were similar across different infection types and infections caused by different pathogens. Treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly described as mild or moderate, were reported by 51.1% of patients receiving omadacycline and 41.2% of those receiving linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was effective and safe in ABSSSI. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02378480 and NCT02877927.

Microbiology and Preclinical Review of Omadacycline.

Omadacycline is a novel aminomethylcycline antimicrobial and semisynthetic derivative of tetracycline. In vitro, omadacycline displays potent activity against gram-positive and many gram-negative bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, ß-hemolytic streptococci, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, and Enterobacteriaceae. Omadacycline is also active against atypical and anaerobic pathogens, including Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma spp., Ureaplasma spp., Bacteroides spp., and Clostridioides difficile. This review outlines the microbiology and preclinical studies of omadacycline, including its mechanism of action; spectrum of activity; protein binding; activity in the presence of surfactant, serum, normal, and pH-adjusted urine, or bacterial biofilms; postantibiotic effect; pharmacodynamic properties; and in vitro and in vivo efficacy. The results of in vitro and in vivo animal studies support the observations made in phase III clinical trials and the clinical development of omadacycline.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Clinical Outcomes of Omadacycline in Women with Cystitis: Results from a Phase 1b Study.

Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, is approved as once-daily intravenous (i.v.) and oral (p.o.) monotherapy for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and it is under development for treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI). This is a phase 1b, randomized, open-label study of omadacycline in women with cystitis (defined as UTI symptoms and a positive urine leukocyte esterase test). Patients received omadacycline for 5 days (group 1: 200 mg intravenously on day 1, then 300 mg orally every 24 h [q24h]; group 2: 300 mg orally every 12 h [q12h] on day 1, then 300 mg orally q24h; group 3: 450 mg orally q12h on day 1, then 450 mg orally q24h). Blood and urine samples were collected over 5 days. Investigator-assessed clinical response was determined at end of treatment (EOT; day 6) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE; 5 to 9 days after last dosing). A total of 31 women were treated. At steady state (day 5), the range of mean omadacycline urine concentrations over 24 h across the groups was 17.94 to 48.12 µg/ml. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (including nausea [60% to 73%] and vomiting [20% to 40%]) and were generally mild and transient. Investigator-determined clinical success was observed in 94% and 84% of patients at EOT and PTE, respectively, with similar results across groups. A favorable microbiological response at PTE was observed in 78% of patients who had a baseline pathogen. Omadacycline is partially excreted in urine and appears to be safe and well tolerated. These preliminary results indicate that omadacycline warrants further evaluation in larger controlled UTI studies.

Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin-Structure Infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections are associated with substantial morbidity and health care costs. Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic that can be administered once daily either orally or intravenously, is active against pathogens that commonly cause such infections, including antibiotic-resistant strains. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive omadacycline (100 mg given intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg given intravenously every 24 hours) or linezolid (600 mg given intravenously every 12 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or oral linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was an early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours, defined as survival with a reduction in lesion size of at least 20% without rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was an investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation 7 to 14 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as survival with resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms of infection to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. For both end points, the noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. RESULTS: In the modified intention-to-treat population, omadacycline (316 patients) was noninferior to linezolid (311 patients) with respect to early clinical response (rate of response, 84.8% and 85.5%, respectively; difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3 to 4.9). Omadacycline also was noninferior to linezolid with respect to investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation in the modified intention-to-treat population (rate of response, 86.1% and 83.6%, respectively; difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.2 to 8.2) and in the clinical per-protocol population (96.3% and 93.5%, respectively; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 6.9). In both groups, the efficacy of the trial drug was similar for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Adverse events were reported in 48.3% of the patients in the omadacycline group and in 45.7% of those in the linezolid group; the most frequent adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal (in 18.0% and 15.8% of the patients in the respective groups). CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and had a similar safety profile. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OASIS-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02378480 .).

Omadacycline for Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Omadacycline, a new once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic agent that can be administered intravenously or orally, reaches high concentrations in pulmonary tissues and is active against common pathogens that cause community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (Pneumonia Severity Index risk class II, III, or IV) to receive omadacycline (100 mg intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg intravenously every 24 hours), or moxifloxacin (400 mg intravenously every 24 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours), respectively, was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was early clinical response, defined as survival with improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, sputum production, pleuritic chest pain, and dyspnea) and no worsening of symptoms at 72 to 120 hours, without receipt of rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was investigator-assessed clinical response at a post-treatment evaluation 5 to 10 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. A noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points was used. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 386 patients in the omadacycline group and 388 patients in the moxifloxacin group. Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for early clinical response (81.1% and 82.7%, respectively; difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 3.8), and the rates of investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation were 87.6% and 85.1%, respectively (difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 7.4). Adverse events that emerged after treatment initiation were reported in 41.1% of the patients in the omadacycline group and 48.5% of the patients in the moxifloxacin group; the most frequent events were gastrointestinal (10.2% and 18.0%, respectively), and the largest difference was for diarrhea (1.0% and 8.0%). Twelve deaths (8 in the omadacycline group and 4 in the moxifloxacin group) occurred during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OPTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02531438 .).

In Vitro and In Vivo Activity of Omadacycline against Two Biothreat Pathogens, Bacillus anthracis and Yersinia pestis.

The in vitro activity and in vivo efficacy of omadacycline (OMC) were evaluated against the causative pathogens of anthrax and plague, Bacillus anthracis and Yersinia pestis, respectively. MICs of OMC were determined by broth microdilution according to CLSI guidelines for 30 isolates each of Y. pestis and B. anthracis The in vivo efficacy of omadacycline was studied at a range of dosages in both a postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) murine model of anthrax and plague as well as in a delayed treatment model of inhalational anthrax. Omadacycline was active in vitro against Y. pestis (MIC90 of 1 µg/ml) and B. anthracis (MIC90 of 0.06 µg/ml). Omadacycline was less active in vitro than ciprofloxacin (CIP) against Y. pestis (CIP MIC90 of 0.03 µg/ml) but was more potent in vitro against B. anthracis (CIP MIC90 of 0.12 µg/ml). In the mouse model of infection, the survival curves for all treatment cohorts differed significantly from the vehicle control (P = 0.004). The median survival for the vehicle-treated controls was 6 days postchallenge, while all antibiotic-treated mice survived the entire study. Omadacycline treatment with 5, 10, or 20 mg/kg of body weight twice daily for 14 days had significant efficacy over the vehicle control in the treatment of aerosolized B. anthracis Additionally, for postexposure prophylaxis treatment of mice infected with Y. pestis, the survival curves for omadacycline (40 mg/kg twice daily), ciprofloxacin, and doxycycline cohorts differed significantly from the vehicle control (P < 0.0001). Omadacycline is potent and demonstrates efficacy against both B. anthracis and Y. pestis The well-characterized oral and intravenous pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability warrant further assessment of the potential utility of omadacycline in combating these serious biothreat organisms.

In vitro pharmacodynamic evaluation of ceftolozane/tazobactam against ß-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in a hollow-fibre infection model.

The proliferation of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens has been exacerbated by a lack of novel agents in current development by pharmaceutical companies. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections. In the present study, the activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against four isogenic Escherichia coli strains was investigated in a hollow-fibre infection model simulating various clinical dosing regimens. The four investigational E. coli strains included #2805 (no ß-lactamase), #2890 (AmpC ß-lactamase), #2842 (CMY-10 ß-lactamase) and #2807 (CTX-M-15 ß-lactamase). Each strain was exposed to regimens simulating 1 g ceftolozane, 2 g ceftolozane, 1 g ceftolozane/0.5 g tazobactam, and 2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam utilising a starting inoculum of ca. 106 CFU/mL. Whereas 1 g of ceftolozane eradicated strains #2805 and #2842 without subsequent regrowth, 1 g ceftolozane/0.5 g tazobactam was required to eradicate strain #2890. For strain #2890, ceftolozane monotherapy led to bacterial growth on plates impregnated with 20 mg/L ceftolozane by 24 h, whilst combination treatment with tazobactam completely suppressed the development of ceftolozane resistance. In contrast, none of the regimens, including 2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam, were able to entirely suppress bacterial growth in strain #2807, with bacterial counts exceeding 108 CFU/mL by 48 h and ceftolozane-resistant populations being amplified after 24 h. Thus, the combination of ceftolozane and tazobactam achieved bactericidal activity followed by sustained killing over 10 days for three of four isogenic E. coli strains. Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a promising new agent to counter multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria.

Efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam against urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections caused by ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: a pooled analysis of Phase 3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The increase in infections caused by drug-resistant ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-ENT) is a global concern. The characteristics and outcomes of patients infected with ESBL-ENT were examined in a pooled analysis of Phase 3 clinical trials of ceftolozane/tazobactam in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (ASPECT-cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (ASPECT-cIAI). METHODS: Trials were randomized and double blind. The ASPECT-cUTI regimen was 7 days of either intravenous ceftolozane/tazobactam (1.5 g) every 8 h or levofloxacin (750 mg) once daily. The ASPECT-cIAI regimen was 4-14 days of either intravenous ceftolozane/tazobactam (1.5 g) plus metronidazole (500 mg) or meropenem (1 g) every 8 h. Baseline cultures were obtained in both indications. Enterobacteriaceae were selected for ESBL characterization based on predefined criteria and were verified genotypically. Outcomes were assessed at the test-of-cure visit 5-9 days post-therapy in ASPECT-cUTI and 24-32 days post-randomization in ASPECT-cIAI among microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients. RESULTS: Of 2076 patients randomized, 1346 were included in the pooled ME population and 150 of 1346 (11.1%) had ESBL-ENT at baseline. At US FDA/EUCAST breakpoints of ≤2/≤1 mg/L, 81.8%/72.3% of ESBL-ENT (ESBL-Escherichia coli, 95%/88.1%; ESBL-Klebsiella pneumoniae, 56.7%/36.7%) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 25.3%/24.1% susceptible to levofloxacin and 98.3%/98.3% susceptible to meropenem at CLSI/EUCAST breakpoints. Clinical cure rates for ME patients with ESBL-ENT were 97.4% (76/78) for ceftolozane/tazobactam [ESBL-E. coli, 98.0% (49 of 50); ESBL-K. pneumoniae, 94.4% (17 of 18)], 82.6% (38 of 46) for levofloxacin and 88.5% (23 of 26) for meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trial data demonstrated high clinical cure rates with ceftolozane/tazobactam treatment of cIAI and cUTI caused by ESBL-ENT.

Outcomes of high-dose levofloxacin therapy remain bound to the levofloxacin minimum inhibitory concentration in complicated urinary tract infections.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolones are a guideline-recommended therapy for complicated urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis. Elevated drug concentrations of fluoroquinolones in the urine and therapy with high-dose levofloxacin are believed to overcome resistance and effectively treat infections caused by resistant bacteria. The ASPECT-cUTI phase 3 clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01345929 and NCT01345955 , both registered April 28, 2011) provided an opportunity to test this hypothesis by examining the clinical and microbiological outcomes of high-dose levofloxacin treatment by levofloxacin minimum inhibitory concentration. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to ceftolozane/tazobactam (1.5 g intravenous every 8 h) or levofloxacin (750 mg intravenous once daily) for 7 days of therapy. The ASPECT-cUTI study provided data on 370 patients with at least one isolate of Enterobacteriaceae at baseline who were treated with levofloxacin. Outcomes were assessed at the test-of-cure (5-9 days after treatment) and late follow-up (21-42 days after treatment) visits in the microbiologically evaluable population (N = 327). RESULTS: Test-of-cure clinical cure rates above 90% were observed at minimum inhibitory concentrations ≤4 µg/mL. Microbiological eradication rates were consistently >90% at levofloxacin minimum inhibitory concentrations ≤0.06 µg/mL. Lack of eradication of causative pathogens at the test-of-cure visit increased the likelihood of relapse by the late follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study do not support levofloxacin therapy for complicated urinary tract infections caused by organisms with levofloxacin minimum inhibitory concentrations ≥4 µg/mL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01345929 and NCT01345955.

The Novel Aminomethylcycline Omadacycline Has High Specificity for the Primary Tetracycline-Binding Site on the Bacterial Ribosome.

Omadacycline is an aminomethylcycline antibiotic with potent activity against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including strains carrying the major efflux and ribosome protection resistance determinants. This makes it a promising candidate for therapy of severe infectious diseases. Omadacycline inhibits bacterial protein biosynthesis and competes with tetracycline for binding to the ribosome. Its interactions with the 70S ribosome were, therefore, analyzed in great detail and compared with tigecycline and tetracycline. All three antibiotics are inhibited by mutations in the 16S rRNA that mediate resistance to tetracycline in Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, Helicobacter pylori, Mycoplasma hominis, and Propionibacterium acnes. Chemical probing with dimethyl sulfate and Fenton cleavage with iron(II)-complexes of the tetracycline derivatives revealed that each antibiotic interacts in an idiosyncratic manner with the ribosome. X-ray crystallography had previously revealed one primary binding site for tetracycline on the ribosome and up to five secondary sites. All tetracyclines analyzed here interact with the primary site and tetracycline also with two secondary sites. In addition, each derivative displays a unique set of non-specific interactions with the 16S rRNA.

Omadacycline: development of a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic for treating drug-resistant bacterial infections.

Omadacycline is a first-in-class aminomethylcycline antibiotic that circumvents common tetracycline resistance mechanisms. In vitro omadacycline has potent activity against Gram-positive aerobic bacteria including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, penicillin-resistant and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. It is also active against common Gram-negative aerobes, some anaerobes and atypical bacteria including Legionella spp. and Chlamydia spp. Ongoing Phase III clinical trials with omadacycline are investigating once daily doses of 100 mg intravenously followed by once-daily doses of 300 mg orally for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. This paper provides an overview of the microbiology, nonclinical evaluations, clinical pharmacology and initial clinical experience with omadacycline.

Discovery, pharmacology, and clinical profile of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic.

Omadacycline is novel, aminomethyl tetracycline antibiotic being developed for oral and intravenous (IV) administration for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial infections. Omadacycline is characterized by an aminomethyl substituent at the C9 position of the core 6-member ring. Modifications at this position result in an improved spectrum of antimicrobial activity by overcoming resistance known to affect older generation tetracyclines via ribosomal protection proteins and efflux pump mechanisms. In vitro, omadacycline has activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobes, anaerobes, and atypical pathogens including Legionella and Chlamydia spp. Omadacycline offers once daily oral and IV dosing and a clinical tolerability and safety profile that compares favorably with contemporary antibiotics used across serious community-acquired infections where resistance has rendered many less effective. In studies in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections, including those with MRSA infections, omadacycline exhibited an efficacy and tolerability profile that was comparable to linezolid. Ongoing and planned clinical studies are evaluating omadacycline as monotherapy for treating serious community-acquired bacterial infections including Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections (ABSSSI) and Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP). This review provides an overview of the discovery, microbiology, nonclinical data, and available clinical safety and efficacy data for omadacycline, with reference to other contemporary tetracycline-derived antibiotics.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections Involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Study.

Ceftolozane-tazobactam is active against Gram-negative pathogens, including multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa In a subgroup analysis of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) involving P. aeruginosa from a phase 3 program, ceftolozane-tazobactam demonstrated potent in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa Clinical cure in the microbiologically evaluable population was 100% (26/26) for ceftolozane-tazobactam plus metronidazole and 93.1% (27/29) for meropenem. These findings support the use of ceftolozane-tazobactam in the management of cIAI when P. aeruginosa is suspected or confirmed. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01445665 and NCT01445678.).

Efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) caused by levofloxacin-resistant pathogens: results from the ASPECT-cUTI trial.

OBJECTIVES: Empirical fluoroquinolone therapy is widely used in treating complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), even in areas of high fluoroquinolone resistance. While it is believed that high antibiotic concentrations in urine might be sufficient to overcome and effectively treat infections caused by resistant bacteria, clinical trial data validating this assumption are limited. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus levofloxacin in the subgroup of patients with cUTIs caused by levofloxacin-resistant pathogens in a randomized, controlled trial (NCT01345929/NCT01345955). METHODS: Hospitalized adults with cUTI/pyelonephritis were randomized to 7 days of 1.5 g of ceftolozane/tazobactam every 8 h or 750 mg of levofloxacin once daily, before availability of culture and susceptibility data. A composite of microbiological eradication and clinical cure 5 to 9 days post-therapy was assessed in the microbiological modified ITT (mMITT; n = 800) and microbiologically evaluable (ME; n = 694) populations. RESULTS: In the mMITT population, there were 212 patients (26.5%) with at least one baseline uropathogen that was resistant to levofloxacin. The majority of uropathogens in this subgroup were Enterobacteriaceae (n = 186) that were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam [MIC ≤2 mg/L, 88.7% (165/186)]. Among patients with levofloxacin-resistant pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam demonstrated significantly higher composite cure rates than levofloxacin in both the mMITT [60.0% (60/100) versus 39.3% (44/112); 95% CI for the treatment difference, 7.2%-33.2%] and ME [64.0% (57/89) versus 43.4% (43/99); 95% CI for the treatment difference, 6.3%-33.7%] populations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High urinary levels of levofloxacin did not reliably cure cUTIs. Seven day treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam was more effective than high-dose levofloxacin treatment in patients with cUTI caused by levofloxacin-resistant bacteria, and it may be an alternative treatment in settings of increased fluoroquinolone resistance.