Meropenem-RPX7009 Concentrations in Plasma, Epithelial Lining Fluid, and Alveolar Macrophages of Healthy Adult Subjects.

The steady-state concentrations of meropenem and the β-lactamase inhibitor RPX7009 in plasma, epithelial lining fluid (ELF), and alveolar macrophage (AM) concentrations were obtained in 25 healthy, nonsmoking adult subjects. Subjects received a fixed combination of meropenem (2 g) and RPX7009 (2 g) administered every 8 h, as a 3-h intravenous infusion, for a total of three doses. A bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage were performed once in each subject at 1.5, 3.25, 4, 6, or 8 h after the start of the last infusion. Meropenem and RPX7009 achieved a similar time course and magnitude of concentrations in plasma and ELF. The mean pharmacokinetic parameters ± the standard deviations of meropenem and RPX7009 determined from serial plasma concentrations were as follows: Cmax = 58.2 ± 10.8 and 59.0 ± 8.4 μg/ml, Vss = 16.3 ± 2.6 and 17.6 ± 2.6 liters; CL = 11.1 ± 2.1 and 10.1 ± 1.9 liters/h, and t1/2 = 1.03 ± 0.15 and 1.27 ± 0.21 h, respectively. The intrapulmonary penetrations of meropenem and RPX7009 were ca. 63 and 53%, respectively, based on the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 8 h (AUC0-8) values of ELF and total plasma concentrations. When unbound plasma concentrations were considered, ELF penetrations were 65 and 79% for meropenem and RPX7009, respectively. Meropenem concentrations in AMs were below the quantitative limit of detection, whereas median concentrations of RPX7009 in AMs ranged from 2.35 to 6.94 μg/ml. The results from the present study lend support to exploring a fixed combination of meropenem (2 g) and RPX7009 (2 g) for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections caused by meropenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens susceptible to the combination of meropenem-RPX7009

Lipoglycopeptide Antibacterial Agents in Gram-Positive Infections: A Comparative Review.

Oritavancin, telavancin, and dalbavancin are recently marketed lipoglycopeptides that exhibit remarkable differences to conventional molecules. While dalbavancin inhibits the late stages of peptidoglycan synthesis by mainly impairing transglycosylase activity, oritavancin and telavancin anchor in the bacterial membrane by the lipophilic side chain linked to their disaccharidic moiety, disrupting membrane integrity and causing bacteriolysis. Oritavancin keeps activity against vancomycin-resistant enterocococci, being a stronger inhibitor of transpeptidase than of transglycosylase activity. These molecules have potent activity against Gram-positive organisms, most notably staphylococci (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and to some extent vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus), streptococci (including multidrug-resistant pneumococci), and Clostridia. All agents are indicated for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, and telavancin, for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. While telavancin is administered daily at 10 mg/kg, the remarkably long half-lives of oritavancin and dalbavancin allow for infrequent dosing (single dose of 1200 mg for oritavancin and 1000 mg at day 1 followed by 500 mg at day 8 for dalbavancin), which could be exploited in the future for outpatient therapy. Among possible safety issues evidenced during clinical development were an increased risk of developing osteomyelitis with oritavancin; taste disturbance, nephrotoxicity, and risk of corrected QT interval prolongation (especially in the presence of at-risk co-medications) with telavancin; and elevation of hepatic enzymes with dalbavancin. Interference with coagulation tests has been reported with oritavancin and telavancin. These drugs proved non-inferior to conventional treatments in clinical trials but their advantages may be better evidenced upon future evaluation in more severe infections