-
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Oct 2019: The epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) is increasingly worldwide. Production of carbapenemases is the most common and efficient mechanism of... (Review)
Review
: The epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) is increasingly worldwide. Production of carbapenemases is the most common and efficient mechanism of carbapenem resistance, and could theoretically be overcome by optimizing the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) behavior of meropenem. : This article overviews the available literature concerning the potential role that meropenem may still have in the treatment carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. Clinical studies published in English language until June 2019 were searched on PubMed database. : High-dose continuous infusion meropenem-based combination regimens could still represent a valuable option for treating CRE infections in specific circumstances. Knowledge of the local prevalent mechanisms of carbapenem resistance, of patient clinical severity, of the site of infection, of an accurate minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value, coupled with the possibility of carrying-out a real-time therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based PK/PD optimization of drug exposure must all be considered as fundamental for properly pursuing this goal.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Monitoring; Enterobacteriaceae Infections; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 31559876
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2019.1673731 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Mar 2018Nosocomial pneumonia is commonly associated with antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (REPROVE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pneumonia is commonly associated with antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia, compared with meropenem in a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (REPROVE).
METHODS
Adults with nosocomial pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia), enrolled at 136 centres in 23 countries, were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2000 mg ceftazidime and 500 mg avibactam (by 2 h intravenous infusion every 8 h) or 1000 mg meropenem (by 30-min intravenous infusion every 8 h) for 7-14 days; regimens were adjusted for renal function. Computer-generated randomisation codes were stratified by infection type and geographical region with a block size of four. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (21-25 days after randomisation). Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -12·5% in the coprimary clinically modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01808092) and EudraCT (2012-004006-96).
FINDINGS
Between April 13, 2013, and Dec 11, 2015, 879 patients were randomly assigned. 808 patients were included in the safety population, 726 were included in the clinically modified intention-to-treat population, and 527 were included in the clinically evaluable population. Predominant Gram-negative baseline pathogens in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat population (n=355) were Klebsiella pneumoniae (37%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (30%); 28% were ceftazidime-non-susceptible. In the clinically modified intention-to-treat population, 245 (68·8%) of 356 patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group were clinically cured, compared with 270 (73·0%) of 370 patients in the meropenem group (difference -4·2% [95% CI -10·8 to 2·5]). In the clinically evaluable population, 199 (77·4%) of 257 participants were clinically cured in the ceftazidime-avibactam group, compared with 211 (78·1%) of 270 in the meropenem group (difference -0·7% [95% CI -7·9 to 6·4]). Adverse events occurred in 302 (75%) of 405 patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group versus 299 (74%) of 403 in the meropenem group (safety population), and were mostly mild or moderate in intensity and unrelated to study treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (19%) patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group and 54 (13%) patients in the meropenem group. Four serious adverse events (all in the ceftazidime-avibactam group) were judged to be treatment related.
INTERPRETATION
Ceftazidime-avibactam was non-inferior to meropenem in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. These results support a role for ceftazidime-avibactam as a potential alternative to carbapenems in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia) caused by Gram-negative pathogens.
FUNDING
AstraZeneca.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Ceftazidime; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated
PubMed: 29254862
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30747-8 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Dec 2019Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial drug ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia.
METHODS
We conducted a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were undergoing mechanical ventilation, and had nosocomial pneumonia (either ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation (block size four), stratified by type of nosocomial pneumonia and age (<65 years vs ≥65 years), to receive either 3 g ceftolozane-tazobactam or 1 g meropenem intravenously every 8 h for 8-14 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality (at a 10% non-inferiority margin). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after the end of therapy; 12·5% non-inferiority margin). Both endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Investigators, study staff, patients, and patients' representatives were masked to treatment assignment. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received study treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02070757.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 16, 2015, and April 27, 2018, 726 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 362 to the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 364 to the meropenem group. Overall, 519 (71%) patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia, 239 (33%) had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of at least 20, and 668 (92%) were in the intensive care unit. At 28 days, 87 (24·0%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 92 (25·3%) in the meropenem group had died (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -5·1 to 7·4]). At the test-of-cure visit 197 (54%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 194 (53%) in the meropenem group were clinically cured (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -6·2 to 8·3]). Ceftolozane-tazobactam was thus non-inferior to meropenem in terms of both 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure at test of cure. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 38 (11%) of 361 patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 27 (8%) of 359 in the meropenem group. Eight (2%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and two (1%) in the meropenem group had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths.
INTERPRETATION
High-dose ceftolozane-tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population.
FUNDING
Merck & Co.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Cross Infection; Female; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Tazobactam; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31563344
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30403-7 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2021Nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens poses an increasing challenge. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens poses an increasing challenge. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for adults with nosocomial pneumonia.
METHODS
We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 76 centres in 17 countries in Asia, Europe, and the USA (APEKS-NP). We enrolled adults aged 18 years and older with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, or health-care-associated Gram-negative pneumonia, and randomly assigned them (1:1 by interactive response technology) to 3-h intravenous infusions of either cefiderocol 2 g or meropenem 2 g every 8 h for 7-14 days. All patients also received open-label intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) for at least 5 days. An unmasked pharmacist prepared the assigned treatments; investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Only the unmasked pharmacist was aware of the study drug assignment for the infusion bags, which were administered in generic infusion bags labelled with patient and study site identification numbers. Participants were stratified at randomisation by infection type and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (≤15 and ≥16). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients receiving at least one dose of study drug, excluding patients with Gram-positive monomicrobial infections). The analysis was done for all patients with known vital status. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference between cefiderocol and meropenem groups was less than 12·5%. Safety was investigated to the end of the study in the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03032380, and EudraCT, 2016-003020-23.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 23, 2017, and April 14, 2019, we randomly assigned 148 participants to cefiderocol and 152 to meropenem. Of 292 patients in the modified ITT population, 251 (86%) had a qualifying baseline Gram-negative pathogen, including Klebsiella pneumoniae (92 [32%]), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (48 [16%]), Acinetobacter baumannii (47 [16%]), and Escherichia coli (41 [14%]). 142 (49%) patients had an APACHE II score of 16 or more, 175 (60%) were mechanically ventilated, and 199 (68%) were in intensive care units at the time of randomisation. All-cause mortality at day 14 was 12·4% with cefiderocol (18 patients of 145) and 11·6% with meropenem (17 patients of 146; adjusted treatment difference 0·8%, 95% CI -6·6 to 8·2; p=0·002 for non-inferiority hypothesis). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 130 (88%) of 148 participants in the cefiderocol group and 129 (86%) of 150 in the meropenem group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was urinary tract infection in the cefiderocol group (23 patients [16%] of 148) and hypokalaemia in the meropenem group (23 patients [15%] of 150). Two participants (1%) of 148 in the cefiderocol group and two (1%) of 150 in the meropenem group discontinued the study because of drug-related adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Cefiderocol was non-inferior to high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem in terms of all-cause mortality on day 14 in patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia, with similar tolerability. The results suggest that cefiderocol is a potential option for the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including those caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria.
FUNDING
Shionogi.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Cefiderocol
PubMed: 33058798
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30731-3 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Jun 2021Meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is widely prescribed for the treatment of life-threatening infections. The main parameter associated with its therapeutic success is...
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is widely prescribed for the treatment of life-threatening infections. The main parameter associated with its therapeutic success is the percentage of time that the levels remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration. Inadequate levels of meropenem can lead to therapeutic failure and increase the possibility of microbial resistance. The employment of strategies involving dose regimens and drug pharmacodynamics has become increasingly important to optimize therapies. In the present study, we conducted a review with the purpose of assembling information about the clinical use of meropenem and therapeutic drug monitoring.
METHODS
A literature review emphasizing the application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of meropenem in clinical practice has been done. To identify articles related to the topic, we performed a standardized search from January 21, 2020 to December 21, 2020, using specific descriptors in PubMed, Lilacs and Embase.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In total, 35 studies were included in the review. The daily dose of meropenem commonly ranged from 3 to 6 g/day. Critically ill patients and those with impaired renal function appear to be the most suitable patients for the application of meropenem TDM, in order to guide therapy. We observed that most of the studies recommend TDM and that, in nine locations, the TDM of meropenem and of other beta-lactams is a routine practice. TDM data can help to maximize the clinical outcomes of the treatment with meropenem. It can also improve the patient care by providing suitable levels of meropenem, guiding the most appropriate dose regimens, which is the main parameter associated with therapeutic success.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
The findings from this review suggest that the therapeutic monitoring of meropenem can be beneficial, since it adjusts the treatment and aids clinical outcomes. It does so by indicating the appropriate dosage and preventing failure, toxicity and possible antimicrobial resistance. The multidisciplinary effort, basic knowledge and communication among the medical team are also essential.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Humans; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 33533509
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13369 -
PloS One 2018Meropenem exhibits time-dependent antimicrobial activity and prolonged infusion (PI) (extended infusion or continuous infusion, EI or CI) of meropenem can better achieve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Meropenem exhibits time-dependent antimicrobial activity and prolonged infusion (PI) (extended infusion or continuous infusion, EI or CI) of meropenem can better achieve pharmacodynamics target when comparing with intermittent bolus (IB). However, the clinical outcomes between two groups remain inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate current published literatures by meta-analysis to ascertain whether PI of meropenem can improve clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Medline, Cochrane database and EMBASE were searched. Randomized control trails (RCT) and observational studies which compared the clinical outcomes of PI and IB groups were included and evaluated for quality. The data of studies were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and 4 observation studies with relatively high quality were included in this analysis. Compared to IB group, PI group had a higher clinical success rate (odd ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.31-3.38) and a lower mortality (risk ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.88). The sensitivity analysis showed the results were stable.
CONCLUSION
PI of meropenem was associated with a higher clinical improvement rate and a lower mortality. It is recommended for patients with severe infection or infected by less sensitive microbial.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Infections; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30059536
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201667 -
Drugs Aug 2018The global threat of the spread of carbapenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae has led to the search for new antibacterials. Intravenous meropenem/vaborbactam... (Review)
Review
The global threat of the spread of carbapenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae has led to the search for new antibacterials. Intravenous meropenem/vaborbactam (Vabomere™) is the first carbapenem/β-lactamase inhibitor combination approved in the USA for use in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including pyelonephritis. Vaborbactam is a potent inhibitor of class A serine carbapenemases, which, when combined with the antibacterial meropenem, restores the activity of meropenem against β-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae, particularly Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Meropenem/vaborbactam demonstrated excellent in vitro activity against Gram-negative clinical isolates, including KPC- and extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae. In the phase 3, noninferiority TANGO I trial in patients with cUTIs, intravenous meropenem/vaborbactam was noninferior to intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam for overall success (composite of clinical cure and microbial eradication; FDA primary endpoint) and microbial eradication (EMA primary endpoint). In subsequent superiority testing, meropenem/vaborbactam was superior to piperacillin/tazobactam for overall success. Meropenem/vaborbactam was generally well tolerated, with a tolerability profile generally similar to that of piperacillin/tazobactam. TANGO I did not assess the efficacy of meropenem/vaborbactam for the treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and meropenem/vaborbactam is currently not indicated for these patients. Available evidence indicates that meropenem/vaborbactam is a useful treatment option for patients with cUTIs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Boronic Acids; Drug Approval; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Enterobacteriaceae; Humans; Meropenem; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Treatment Outcome; United States; Urinary Tract Infections; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors
PubMed: 30128699
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-018-0966-7 -
Drug Discovery Today Feb 2021An increase in the number of multidrug-resistant microbial strains is the biggest threat to global health and is projected to cause >10 million deaths by 2055. The... (Review)
Review
An increase in the number of multidrug-resistant microbial strains is the biggest threat to global health and is projected to cause >10 million deaths by 2055. The carbapenem family of antibacterial drugs are an important class of last-resort treatment of infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria and are only available as an injectable formulation. Given their instability within the gut and poor permeability across the gut wall, oral carbapenem formulations show poor bioavailability. Meropenem (MER), a carbapenem antibiotic, has broad-spectrum antibacterial activity, but suffers from the above-mentioned issues. In this review, we discuss strategies for improving the oral bioavailability of MER, such as inhibiting tubular secretion, prodrug formulations, and use of nanomedicine. We also highlight challenges and emerging approaches for the development of oral MER.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Biological Availability; Drug Development; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Global Health; Humans; Meropenem
PubMed: 33197621
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.11.004 -
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Jul 2020infections due to carbapenem-resistant (CRE) constitute a worldwide threat and are associated with significant mortality, especially in fragile patients, and costs.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
infections due to carbapenem-resistant (CRE) constitute a worldwide threat and are associated with significant mortality, especially in fragile patients, and costs. Meropenem-vaborbactam (M/V) is a combination of a group 2 carbapenem with a novel cyclic boronic acid-based β-lactamase inhibitor which has shown good efficacy against KPC carbapenemase-producing , which are amongst the most prevalent types of CRE.
AREAS COVERED
This article reviews the microbiological and pharmacological profile and current clinical experience and safety of M/V in the treatment of infections caused by CRE.
EXPERT OPINION
M/V is a promising drug for the treatment of infections due to KPC-producing CRE (KPC-CRE). It exhibited an almost complete coverage of KPC-CRE isolates from large surveillance studies and a low propensity for resistance selection, retaining activity also against strains producing KPC mutants resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam. Both meropenem and vaborbactam have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, with similar kinetic properties, a good intrapulmonary penetration, and are efficiently cleared during continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). According to available data, M/V monotherapy is associated with higher clinical cure rates and lower rates of adverse events, especially in terms of nephrotoxicity, if compared to 'older' combination therapies.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Boronic Acids; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Drug Combinations; Enterobacteriaceae Infections; Hemofiltration; Heterocyclic Compounds, 1-Ring; Humans; Meropenem; Tissue Distribution; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors
PubMed: 32297801
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1756775 -
Pharmacotherapy Apr 2018Vaborbactam (VAB; formerly RPX7009) is a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor based on a cyclic boronic acid pharmacophore with potent inhibitory activity against Ambler class... (Review)
Review
Vaborbactam (VAB; formerly RPX7009) is a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor based on a cyclic boronic acid pharmacophore with potent inhibitory activity against Ambler class A and C beta-lactamases. It has been co-formulated with meropenem to restore its activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPC). VAB does not inhibit class B or D carbapenemases, nor does it improve the activity of meropenem against multidrug-resistant nonfermenting gram-negative bacilli, notably Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The purpose of this article is to review existing data pertaining to the biochemistry, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, in vitro activity, and current progress in clinical trials of meropenem and VAB (MV). Phase 1 studies have demonstrated single and multiple doses of VAB up to 2000 mg, alone or in combination with meropenem 2000 mg administered as a prolonged infusion over 3 hours, are well tolerated with an adverse effect profile similar to that of meropenem monotherapy. The available data suggest preexisting resistance among KPC-producing isolates is rare. Strains with elevated MICs have been characterized by multiple resistance determinants including porin defects, increased drug efflux, and increased blaKPC expression. It remains uncertain whether multifactorial resistance will emerge during MV treatment and with more widespread use. Early data are positive for complicated urinary tract infections and MV compared with best available therapy in patients with serious carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaciae (CRE) infections. As clinicians contemplate how to incorporate MV into CRE treatment strategies, it will be important to track and understand resistance, discern the role, if any, of combination therapy in enhancing efficacy and/or preserving activity, and define the specific therapeutic niche of MV among the expanding anti-CRE armamentarium.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Bacterial Proteins; Boronic Acids; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Klebsiella Infections; Meropenem; Metabolic Clearance Rate; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Porins; Urinary Tract Infections; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 29427523
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2092