Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Alternative therapies for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis are needed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 124 patients with S. aureus bacteremia with or without endocarditis to receive 6 mg of daptomycin intravenously per kilogram of body weight daily and 122 to receive initial low-dose gentamicin plus either an antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success 42 days after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Forty-two days after the end of therapy in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a successful outcome was documented for 53 of 120 patients who received daptomycin as compared with 48 of 115 patients who received standard therapy (44.2 percent vs. 41.7 percent; absolute difference, 2.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.2 to 15.1 percent). Our results met prespecified criteria for the noninferiority of daptomycin. The success rates were similar in subgroups of patients with complicated bacteremia, right-sided endocarditis, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Daptomycin therapy was associated with a higher rate of microbiologic failure than was standard therapy (19 vs. 11 patients, P=0.17). In 6 of the 19 patients with microbiologic failure in the daptomycin group, isolates with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin emerged; similarly, a reduced susceptibility to vancomycin was noted in isolates from patients treated with vancomycin. As compared with daptomycin therapy, standard therapy was associated with a nonsignificantly higher rate of adverse events that led to treatment failure due to the discontinuation of therapy (17 vs. 8, P=0.06). Clinically significant renal dysfunction occurred in 11.0 percent of patients who received daptomycin and in 26.3 percent of patients who received standard therapy (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin (6 mg per kilogram daily) is not inferior to standard therapy for S. aureus bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00093067 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of TAK-242 for the treatment of severe sepsis

Objective: To evaluate whether TAK-242, a small-molecule inhibitor of Toll-like receptor-4-mediated signaling, suppresses cytokine levels and improves 28-day all-cause mortality rates in patients with severe sepsis. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: A total of 93 intensive care units worldwide. Patients: A total of 274 patients with severe sepsis and shock or respiratory failure. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive a 30-min loading dose followed by 96-hr infusions of placebo, TAK-242 1.2 mg/kg/day, or TAK-242 2.4 mg/kg/day. Measurements and Main Results: The primary pharmacodynamic end point was change in serum interleukin-6 levels relative to baseline, with 28-day all-cause mortality rate the primary clinical end point. The trial was terminated because of a lack of effect of TAK-242 in suppressing serum interleukin-6 levels. A total of 274 subjects were randomly assigned and treated. Clinical parameters at baseline were balanced across the three groups. TAK-242 did not suppress interleukin-6 as measured by 0- to 96.5-hr area under the interleukin-6 concentration curve at either dose. Specifically, the area under the effect curve increased by 9% and 26.9% in the TAK-242 1.2 and 2.4 mg/kg/day groups, respectively, which was not statistically different from placebo (p = .63 and .15, respectively). The 28-day mortality rate was 24% in the placebo, 22% in the low-dose, and 17% in the high-dose group (p = .26 for placebo vs. high dose). A nonsignificant reduction in mortality rate was observed in a subset of patients with both shock and respiratory failure (placebo [n = 51], 33%, vs. high dose [n = 52], 19%, p = .10). Transient, dose-related increases in methemoglobin levels were observed with TAK-242 treatment in 30.1% of the patients. Conclusions: TAK-242 failed to suppress cytokine levels in patients with sepsis and shock or respiratory failure. Treatment with TAK-242 resulted in mild increases in serum methemoglobin levels but was otherwise well tolerated. Although observed mortality rates in patients with both shock and respiratory failure were lower with the 2.4 mg/kg/day dose, differences were not significant

Recombinant human platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase for treatment of severe sepsis: Results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Objective: Platelet-activating factor (PAF) and structurally-related oxidized phospholipids are proinflammatory mediators in systemic inflammatory states such as severe sepsis. The enzyme platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase (PAF-AH) rapidly degrades PAF and oxidized phospholipids into inactive metabolites. Reduced PAF-AH activity has been observed in patients with severe sepsis and may contribute to their systemic inflammatory response and organ dysfunction. A previous clinical trial with recombinant human PAF-AH (rPAF-AH, Pafase) suggested that this treatment may decrease 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis. The current study was undertaken to confirm this result. Design: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international trial. Setting: One hundred forty-six intensive care units from nine countries. Patients: Approximately 2,522 patients were planned to be enrolled less than or equal to 12 hrs after the onset of severe sepsis. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either rPAF-AH 1.0 mg/kg or placebo administered intravenously once daily for five consecutive days. Measurements and Main Results: The study was terminated based on the recommendation of an independent data and safety monitoring committee after the second of three planned interim analyses, and the enrollment of 1,425 patients. rPAF-AH treatment was well tolerated among the 1,261 patients included in the interim analysis (643 rPAF-AH and 618 placebo), but did not decrease 28-day all-cause mortality compared with placebo (25% for rPAF-AH vs. 24% for placebo; relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.25; p = .80). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in any of the secondary efficacy end points. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar among rPAF-AH and placebo-treated patients, and no rPAF-AH-treated patients developed antibodies to PAF-AH. Conclusions: rPAF-AH was well tolerated and not antigenic, but did not decrease 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis

Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial

Background: Invasive candidosis is increasingly prevalent in seriously ill patients. Our aim was to compare micafungin with liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of adult patients with candidaemia or invasive candidosis. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, multinational non-inferiority study to compare micafungin (100 mg/day) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg per day) as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as both a clinical and a mycological response at the end of treatment. Primary analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106288. Findings: 264 individuals were randomly assigned to treatment with micafungin; 267 were randomly assigned to receive liposomal amphotericin B. 202 individuals in the micafungin group and 190 in the liposomal amphotericin B group were included in the per-protocol analyses. Treatment success was observed for 181 (89·6%) patients treated with micafungin and 170 (89·5%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions, after stratification by neutropenic status at baseline, was 0·7% (95% CI -5·3 to 6·7). Efficacy was independent of the Candida spp and primary site of infection, as well as neutropenic status, APACHE II score, and whether a catheter was removed or replaced during the study. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events-including those that were serious or led to treatment discontinuation-with micafungin than there were with liposomal amphotericin B. Interpretation: Micafungin was as effective as-and caused fewer adverse events than-liposomal amphotericin B as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Efficacy and Safety of Tifacogin (Recombinant Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor) in Severe Sepsis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Context: The expression and release of tissue factor is a major trigger for the activation of coagulation in patients with sepsis. Tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) forms a complex with tissue factor and blood protease factors leading to inhibition of thrombin generation and fibrin formation. Objectives: To determine if administration of tifacogin (recombinant TFPI) provides mortality benefit in patients with severe sepsis and elevated international normalized ratio (INR) and to assess tifacogin safety in severe sepsis, including patients with low INR. Design and Setting: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial conducted from March 21, 2000, through September 27, 2001, in 245 hospitals in 17 countries in North America, Europe, and Israel. Patients: The primary efficacy population consisted of 1754 patients (≥18 years) with severe sepsis and a high INR (≥1.2) randomly assigned to intravenous infusion of either tifacogin (0.025 mg/kg per hour for 96 hours, n=880) or placebo (arginine citrate buffer, n=874), and 201 patients with a low INR (<1.2) randomly assigned to receive the same dose of either tifacogin or placebo. Main Outcome Measure: All-cause 28-day mortality. Results: Overall mortality at 28 days in the tifacogin-treated group (n=880) vs the placebo group (n=874) for high INR was 34.2% vs 33.9%, respectively (P=.88, Pearson χ2 test; P=.75, logistic regression model). None of the protocol-specified secondary end points differed between the tifacogin vs placebo groups. An analysis on the first 722 patients demonstrated a mortality rate of 38.9% for placebo vs 29.1% for tifacogin (P=.006, Pearson χ2 test). Tifacogin significantly attenuated prothrombin fragment 1.2 and thrombin:antithrombin complex levels (P<.001, 2-sample t test) in patients with high and low INR. Overall mortality was lower in the tifacogin response in patients with low INR (12%; n=83) vs placebo (22.9%; n=118) (P=.051, Pearson χ2 test; P=.03, logistic regression model). There was an increase in serious adverse events with bleeding in the tifacogin group in both cohorts (6.5% tifacogin and 4.8% placebo for high INR; 6.0% tifacogin and 3.3% placebo for low INR). Conclusions: Treatment with tifacogin had no effect on all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis and high INR. Tifacogin administration was associated with an increase in risk of bleeding, irrespective of baseline INR