16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Abstract

          Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam for treating hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP), with a comparable tolerability profile. Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an efficacious treatment option for nosocomial pneumonia, including HABP/VABP in mechanically ventilated and critically ill, high-risk patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

          It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections.

            Currently, no single U.S. surveillance system can provide estimates of the burden of all types of health care-associated infections across acute care patient populations. We conducted a prevalence survey in 10 geographically diverse states to determine the prevalence of health care-associated infections in acute care hospitals and generate updated estimates of the national burden of such infections. We defined health care-associated infections with the use of National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. One-day surveys of randomly selected inpatients were performed in participating hospitals. Hospital personnel collected demographic and limited clinical data. Trained data collectors reviewed medical records retrospectively to identify health care-associated infections active at the time of the survey. Survey data and 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, stratified according to patient age and length of hospital stay, were used to estimate the total numbers of health care-associated infections and of inpatients with such infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. Surveys were conducted in 183 hospitals. Of 11,282 patients, 452 had 1 or more health care-associated infections (4.0%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 4.4). Of 504 such infections, the most common types were pneumonia (21.8%), surgical-site infections (21.8%), and gastrointestinal infections (17.1%). Clostridium difficile was the most commonly reported pathogen (causing 12.1% of health care-associated infections). Device-associated infections (i.e., central-catheter-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia), which have traditionally been the focus of programs to prevent health care-associated infections, accounted for 25.6% of such infections. We estimated that there were 648,000 patients with 721,800 health care-associated infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. Results of this multistate prevalence survey of health care-associated infections indicate that public health surveillance and prevention activities should continue to address C. difficile infections. As device- and procedure-associated infections decrease, consideration should be given to expanding surveillance and prevention activities to include other health care-associated infections.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              International ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: Guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ALAT).

              The most recent European guidelines and task force reports on hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) were published almost 10 years ago. Since then, further randomised clinical trials of HAP and VAP have been conducted and new information has become available. Studies of epidemiology, diagnosis, empiric treatment, response to treatment, new antibiotics or new forms of antibiotic administration and disease prevention have changed old paradigms. In addition, important differences between approaches in Europe and the USA have become apparent.The European Respiratory Society launched a project to develop new international guidelines for HAP and VAP. Other European societies, including the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, were invited to participate and appointed their representatives. The Latin American Thoracic Association was also invited.A total of 15 experts and two methodologists made up the panel. Three experts from the USA were also invited (Michael S. Niederman, Marin Kollef and Richard Wunderink).Applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, the panel selected seven PICO (population-intervention-comparison-outcome) questions that generated a series of recommendations for HAP/VAP diagnosis, treatment and prevention.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Infect Dis
                Clin Infect Dis
                cid
                Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
                Oxford University Press (US )
                1058-4838
                1537-6591
                01 December 2021
                12 August 2020
                12 August 2020
                : 73
                : 11
                : e4539-e4548
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Clinical Hospital , Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine
                [2 ] Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago, Illinois, USA
                [3 ] EA3826 Thérapeutiques Anti-Infectieuses, Institut de Recherche en Santé 2 Nantes Biotech, Université, de Nantes , Nantes, France
                [4 ] Department of Intensive Care, Hospital Civil de Guadalajara , Guadalajara, Mexico
                [5 ] Department of Medicine & Philippine General Hospital, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of the Philippines , Manila, Philippines
                [6 ] Division of Geographic Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Tufts Medical Center , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [7 ] Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School , Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
                [8 ] Merck Research Laboratories, Merck & Co, Inc , Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: L. F. Chen, Merck & Co, Inc, 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033 ( luke.chen@ 123456merck.com )
                Article
                ciaa803
                10.1093/cid/ciaa803
                8662781
                32785589
                db2da8f6-abf0-4500-85a0-da697840e313
                © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 December 2019
                : 08 June 2020
                : 16 July 2020
                : 12 August 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                Funded by: Merck Sharp and Dohme, DOI 10.13039/100009947;
                Categories
                Online Only Articles
                Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship
                AcademicSubjects/MED00290

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                carbapenem resistant,kpc,pseudomonas,nosocomial pneumonia,mechanical ventilation

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log