Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ertapenem, a new carbapenem with a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, has been approved for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal Infections (cIAIs), acute pelvic infections (APIs) and complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSIs). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of ertapenem with piperacillin/tazobactam, which has been reported to possess good efficacy for the treatment of these complicated infections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, Cochrane library and Embase that compared the efficacy and safety of ertapenem with piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated infections including cIAIs, APIs, cSSSIs. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical treatment success assessed at the test-of-cure visit. The primary safety outcome was drug related clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred during the treatment and the post-treatment period.</p> <p>Result</p> <p>Six RCTs, involving 3161 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. Ertapenem was associated similar clinical treatment success with piperacillin/tazobactam for complicated infections treatment (clinically evaluable population, 1937 patients, odds ratios: 1.15, 95% confidence intervals: 0.89-1.49; modified intention to treat population, 2855 patients, odds ratios: 1.03, 95% confidence intervals: 0.87-1.22). All of secondary efficacy outcomes analysis obtained similar findings with clinical treatment success. No difference was found about the incidence of drug related adverse events between ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This meta-analysis provides evidence that ertapenem 1 g once a day can be used as effectively and safely as recommended dose of piperacillin/tazobactam, for the treatment of complicated infections, particularly of mild to moderate severity. It is an appealing option for the treatment of these complicated infections.</p

Impact of alternate definitions of fever resolution on the composite endpoint in clinical trials of empirical antifungal therapy for neutropenic patients with persistent fever: analysis of results from the Caspofungin Empirical Therapy Study.

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Sensitivity analyses were incorporated in a Phase III study of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy for febrile neutropenic patients to determine the impact of varying definitions of fever resolution on response rates. METHODS: The primary analysis used a 5-part composite endpoint: resolution of any baseline invasive fungal infection, no breakthrough invasive fungal infection, survival, no premature discontinuation of study drug, and fever resolution for 48 h during the period of neutropenia. Pre-specified analyses used 3 other definitions for fever resolution: afebrile for 24 h during the period of neutropenia, afebrile at 7 days post therapy, and eliminating fever resolution altogether from the composite endpoint. Patients were stratified on entry by use of antifungal prophylaxis and risk of infection. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants or relapsed acute leukemia defined high-risk patients. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 41% of patients in each treatment group met the fever-resolution criteria. Low-risk patients had shorter durations of neutropenia but failed fever-resolution criteria more often than high-risk patients. In each exploratory analysis, response rates increased in both treatment groups compared to the primary analysis, particularly in low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates for the primary composite endpoint for both treatment groups in this study were driven by low rates of fever resolution. Requiring fever resolution during neutropenia in a composite endpoint can mask more clinically relevant outcomes

Association between first-year virological response to raltegravir and long-term outcomes in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection

Background: We explored the relationship between virological response in the first year of treatment and long-term outcomes in the BENCHMRK studies. Methods: Patients failing antiretroviral treatment with 3-class resistant HIV-1 received double-blinded raltegravir (or placebo) with optimized background therapy (OBT) until week 156, followed by open-label raltegravir with OBT up to week 240. In this exploratory analysis of patients randomized to raltegravir, virological response over weeks 16-48 was categorized as continuous suppression (CS; viral RNA [vRNA] always 50 copies/ml at least once), or not suppressed (NS; vRNA ≥400 copies/ml at least once). The association between these first-year vRNA response categories and baseline factors was analysed with univariate and multivariate models. Virological and immunological outcomes for years 2-5 were assessed by first-year vRNA response category (observed failure approach). Results: Baseline vRNA, baseline CD4+ T-cell count and rapid viral decay (vRNA + T-cell count increased through week 240 in the CS and LLV groups. Time to loss of virological response (confirmed vRNA ≥400 copies/ml) through week 240 did not support as strong a difference between the LLV and CS groups (log-rank P=0.11) as previously reported through weeks 156 and 192 (P<0.05). Conclusions: Treatment-experienced patients on a raltegravir-based regimen with early LLV may have long-term virological and immunological benefit when their therapy is maintained

Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia.

Item does not contain fulltex

Baseline HIV-1 resistance, virological outcomes, and emergent resistance in the SECOND-LINE trial: An exploratory analysis

Background: WHO-recommended second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) of a pharmacologically enhanced (boosted) protease inhibitor plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTIs) might be compromised by resistance. Results of the 96 week SECOND-LINE randomised trial showed that NtRTI-sparing ART with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and raltegravir (raltegravir-group) provided non-inferior efficacy to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and two or three NtRTIs (NtRTI-group) in participants with virological failure composed of a first-line regimen of a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor plus two NtRTIs. We report the relation of baseline virological resistance with virological failure and emergent resistance on study. Methods: As part of the randomised open-label SECOND-LINE trial, second-line ART NtRTI selection was made by either genotype (local laboratory) or algorithm. Genotypic resistance for the entire cohort at baseline was assessed on stored samples at a central laboratory. Virological failure was defined as plasma viral load greater than 200 copies per mL. Baseline viral isolates were assigned genotypic sensitivity scores (GSSs) by use of the Stanford HIV Database version 6.3.1: a global GSS (gGSS), defined as the combined GSS for lamivudine or emtricitabine, abacavir, zidovudine, stavudine, didanosine, and tenofovir and a specific GSS (sGSS) defined as the GSS for the ART regimen initiated by a specific participant. Emergent resistance was reported on samples with a viral load greater than 500 copies per mL. We used multivariate logistic regression with backward elimination to assess predictors of virological failure and emergent resistance. Findings: From April 19, 2010, to July 22, 2013, 271 patients were included in the NtRTI group and and 270 in the raltegravir group. In the NtRTI group 215 had available baseline sequence data, and 240 had viral load measurements at 96 weeks; in the raltegravir group 236 had baseline sequence data and 255 had viral load measurements at 96 weeks. Median (IQR) gGSS was 3·0 (1·3-4·3) in the NtRTI group and 3·0 (1·0-4·3) in the raltegravir group. The median sGSS in the NtRTI group was 1·0 (0·5-1·8). Multivariate analysis showed significant associations between virological failure and less than complete adherence at week 4 (odds ratio [OR] 2·18, 95%CI 1·07-4·47; p=0·03) and week 48 (2·49, 1·09-5·69; p=0·03), baseline plasma viral load greater than 100 000 copies per mL (3·43, 1·70-6·94; p=0·0006), baseline gGSS >4·25 (4·73, 1·94-11·6; p=0·0007), and being Hispanic (3·13, 1·21-8·13; p=0·02) or African (3·49, 1·68-7·28; p=0·0008) rather than Asian. We observed emergent major mutations in one (1%) of 129 participants for protease (both groups), eight (13%) of 64 for reverse transcriptase (NtRTI group) and 16 (20%) of 79 for integrase. Emergent resistance was associated with the raltegravir group (OR 2·47, 95% CI 1·02-5·99; p=0·05), baseline log10 viral load (1·83, 1·12-2·97; p=0·02), and absence of the Lys65Arg (K65R) or Lys70Glu (K70E) mutation at baseline (3·18, 1·12-9·02; p=0·03). Interpretation: Poor adherence was a major determinant of virological failure in people on second-line ART. In settings with limited resources, investment in optimisation of adherence rather than implementation of drug resistance testing might be advisable. Funding: University of New South Wales Australia, Merck, AbbVie, and the Foundation for AIDS Research

Subgroup and resistance analyses of raltegravir for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of raltegravir and the development of viral resistance in two identical trials involving patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with triple-class drug resistance and in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. METHODS: We conducted subgroup analyses of the data from week 48 in both studies according to baseline prognostic factors. Genotyping of the integrase gene was performed in raltegravir recipients who had virologic failure. RESULTS: Virologic responses to raltegravir were consistently superior to responses to placebo, regardless of the baseline values of HIV-1 RNA level; CD4 cell count; genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score; use or nonuse of darunavir, enfuvirtide, or both in optimized background therapy; or demographic characteristics. Among patients in the two studies combined who were using both enfuvirtide and darunavir for the first time, HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 89% of raltegravir recipients and 68% of placebo recipients. HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 69% and 80% of the raltegravir recipients and in 47% and 57% of the placebo recipients using either darunavir or enfuvirtide for the first time, respectively. At 48 weeks, 105 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (23%) had virologic failure. Genotyping was performed in 94 raltegravir recipients with virologic failure. Integrase mutations known to be associated with phenotypic resistance to raltegravir arose during treatment in 64 patients (68%). Forty-eight of these 64 patients (75%) had two or more resistance-associated mutations. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with an optimized background regimen in both studies, a consistently favorable treatment effect of raltegravir over placebo was shown in clinically relevant subgroups of patients, including those with baseline characteristics that typically predict a poor response to antiretroviral therapy: a high HIV-1 RNA level, low CD4 cell count, and low genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.