Wunderink Richard G, Matsunaga Yuko, Ariyasu Mari, Clevenbergh Philippe, Echols Roger, Kaye Keith S, Kollef Marin, Menon Anju, Pogue Jason M, Shorr Andrew F, Timsit Jean-Francois, Zeitlinger Markus, Nagata Tsutae D
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Shionogi, Florham Park, NJ, USA.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;21(2):213-225. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30731-3. Epub 2020 Oct 12.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shionogi.
耐多药革兰阴性病原体引起的医院获得性肺炎带来的挑战日益增加。我们比较了头孢地尔与高剂量、延长输注时间的美罗培南治疗成人医院获得性肺炎的疗效和安全性。
我们在亚洲、欧洲和美国17个国家的76个中心进行了一项随机、双盲、平行组、3期非劣效性试验(APEKS-NP)。我们纳入了18岁及以上患有医院获得性、呼吸机相关性或医疗保健相关性革兰阴性肺炎的成人,并通过交互式应答技术将他们以1:1的比例随机分配,接受每8小时一次、持续3小时静脉输注2g头孢地尔或2g美罗培南,疗程为7 - 14天。所有患者还接受开放标签的静脉注射利奈唑胺(每12小时600mg)至少5天。一名未设盲的药剂师准备指定的治疗药物;研究者和患者对治疗分配情况设盲。只有未设盲的药剂师知道输液袋中的研究药物分配情况,输液袋使用标有患者和研究地点识别号的普通输液袋给药。参与者在随机分组时按感染类型和急性生理与慢性健康状况评分II(APACHE II)评分(≤15和≥16)进行分层。主要终点是改良意向性治疗(ITT)人群中第14天的全因死亡率(即所有接受至少一剂研究药物的患者,不包括革兰阳性单微生物感染患者)。对所有已知生命状态的患者进行分析。如果头孢地尔组和美罗培南组治疗差异的95%CI上限小于12.5%,则得出非劣效性结论。在安全性人群(包括所有接受至少一剂研究药物的患者)中对安全性进行研究直至研究结束。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,注册号为NCT03032380,在欧洲药品管理局临床试验数据库(EudraCT)注册,注册号为2016 - 003020 - 23。
在2017年10月23日至2019年4月14日期间,我们将148名参与者随机分配至头孢地尔组,152名至美罗培南组。在改良ITT人群的292例患者中,251例(86%)有符合条件的基线革兰阴性病原体,包括肺炎克雷伯菌(92例[32%])、铜绿假单胞菌(48例[16%])、鲍曼不动杆菌(47例[16%])和大肠埃希菌(41例[14%])。142例(49%)患者的APACHE II评分为16或更高,175例(60%)接受机械通气,199例(68%)在随机分组时在重症监护病房。头孢地尔组第14天的全因死亡率为12.4%(145例中的18例),美罗培南组为11.6%(146例中的17例;调整后的治疗差异为0.8%,95%CI为 - 6.6至8.2;非劣效性假设的p = 0.002)。头孢地尔组148名参与者中有130名(88%)报告了治疗中出现的不良事件,美罗培南组150名中有129名(86%)。治疗中最常见的不良事件在头孢地尔组是尿路感染(148例中的23例[16%]),在美罗培南组是低钾血症(150例中的23例[15%])。头孢地尔组148名参与者中有2名(1%)和美罗培南组150名中有2名(1%)因药物相关不良事件停止研究。
在革兰阴性医院获得性肺炎患者中,头孢地尔在第14天的全因死亡率方面不劣于高剂量、延长输注时间的美罗培南,且耐受性相似。结果表明,头孢地尔是治疗医院获得性肺炎患者的一个潜在选择,包括由耐多药革兰阴性菌引起的肺炎。
盐野义制药公司。