scholarly journals Randomized Trial of Ceftazidime-Avibactam vs Meropenem for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (REPROVE): Analyses per US FDA–Specified End Points

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoni Torres ◽  
Doug Rank ◽  
David Melnick ◽  
Ludmyla Rekeda ◽  
Xiang Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
End Points ◽  
Us Fda ◽  
Hospital Acquired

scholarly journals A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Martin Croce ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez Gonzalez ◽  
Satoshi Fujimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Methods In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, –1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, –7.6%; 97.5% CI: –15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. Conclusions Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02019420.

scholarly journals Time Interval to Biochemical Failure as a Surrogate End Point in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Randomized Trial NRG/RTOG 9202

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Dignam ◽  
Daniel A. Hamstra ◽  
Herbert Lepor ◽  
David Grignon ◽  
Harmar Brereton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Short Term ◽  
End Points ◽  
End Point

Background In prostate cancer, end points that reliably portend prognosis and treatment benefit (surrogate end points) can accelerate therapy development. Although surrogate end point candidates have been evaluated in the context of radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation (AD), potential surrogates under long-term (24 month) AD, a proven therapy in high-risk localized disease, have not been investigated. Materials and Methods In the NRG/RTOG 9202 randomized trial (N = 1,520) of short-term AD (4 months) versus long-term AD (LTAD; 28 months), the time interval free of biochemical failure (IBF) was evaluated in relation to clinical end points of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS). Survival modeling and landmark analysis methods were applied to evaluate LTAD benefit on IBF and clinical end points, association between IBF and clinical end points, and the mediating effect of IBF on LTAD clinical end point benefits. Results LTAD was superior to short-term AD for both biochemical failure (BF) and the clinical end points. Men remaining free of BF for 3 years had relative risk reductions of 39% for OS and 73% for PCSS. Accounting for 3-year IBF status reduced the LTAD OS benefit from 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.98) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07). For PCSS, the LTAD benefit was reduced from 30% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.82) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.22). Among men with BF, by 3 years, 50% of subsequent deaths were attributed to prostate cancer, compared with 19% among men free of BF through 3 years. Conclusion The IBF satisfied surrogacy criteria and identified the benefit of LTAD on disease-specific survival and OS. The IBF may serve as a valid end point in clinical trials and may also aid in risk monitoring after initial treatment.

scholarly journals A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Titov ◽  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Daniel Rodríguez Gonzalez ◽  
Aileen David-Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Severe Renal Impairment ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Mitt Population ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Imipenem combined with the β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Methods This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7–14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7–14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. Results Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, −5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, −3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. Conclusions Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02493764.

scholarly journals 1314. Descriptive Epidemiology of 30-day Readmissions among Survivors of Hospitalization with Bacterial Nosocomial Pneumonia in the US, 2012-2019

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S745-S745
Author(s):  
Marya Zilberberg ◽  
Brian Nathanson ◽  
Laura A Puzniak ◽  
Noah Zilberberg ◽  
Andrew F Shorr
Keyword(s):  
Nosocomial Pneumonia ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Cleveland Clinic ◽  
Chronically Ill ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Principal Diagnosis ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
Excess Morbidity ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Nosocomial pneumonia (NP) remains associated with excess morbidity and mortality. The effect of NP on other measures of outcome and quality, such as re-admission at 30 days, remains unclear. Moreover, differing types of NP may have varying impacts on re-admissions. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study within the Premier Research database, a source containing administrative, pharmacy, and microbiology data. The rate of rehospitalization at 30 days following the index discharge served as our primary endpoint. We compared NP patients readmitted with pneumonia (RaP) as the principal diagnosis to those readmitted for other reasons (RaO). We also compared readmission rates as function of the type of NP: ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP), and non-ventilated HABP (nvHABP). Results Among 17,819 patients with NP, 14,123 (79.3%) survived to discharge, of whom 2,151 (15.2%) required an acute readmission within 30 days of index discharge. Of these, 106 (4.9%) were RaP, and the remainder were RaO. At index hospitalization, RaP patients were older (mean age (SD) 67.4 (13.9] vs. 63.0 (15.2) years), more likely medical (44.3% vs. 36.7%), and less chronically ill (median [IQR] Charlson scores (3 [2-5] vs. 4 [2-5]) than persons with RaO. Bacteremia (10.4% vs. 17.5%), need for vasopressors (15.1% vs. 20.0%), dialysis (9.4% vs. 16.5%), and/or sepsis (9.4% vs. 16.5%) or septic shock 14.2% vs. 17.1%) occurred less frequently in the RaP group. With respect to NP type, nvHABP was most common in RaP (47.2%) and VABP in RaO (38.1%). Conclusion One in seven survivors of a hospitalization complicated by NP requires an acute rehospitalization within 30 days. However, few of these readmissions had a principal diagnosis of pneumonia, irrespective of NP type. This suggests that short-term readmission does not capture the quality of care initially delivered to patients for their NP. Of the 5% of NP subjects with RaP, the plurality initially suffered from nvHABP. Disclosures Marya Zilberberg, MD, MPH, Cleveland Clinic (Consultant)J&J (Shareholder)Lungpacer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)scPharma (Consultant)Sedana (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Spero (Grant/Research Support) Brian Nathanson, PhD, Lungpacer (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)Spero (Grant/Research Support) Laura A. Puzniak, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee) Andrew F. Shorr, MD, MPH, MBA, Merck (Consultant)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document