Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial

JF. Timsit, JA. Huntington, RG. Wunderink, N. Shime, MH. Kollef, Ü. Kivistik, M. Nováček, Á. Réa-Neto, I. Martin-Loeches, B. Yu, EH. Jensen, JR. Butterton, DJ. Wolf, EG. Rhee, CJ. Bruno

. 2021 ; 25 (1) : 290. [pub] 20210811

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22003937
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220127145714.0
007      
ta
008      
220113s2021 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s13054-021-03694-3 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34380538
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Timsit, Jean-François $u Intensive Care Medicine Department, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France
245    10
$a Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial / $c JF. Timsit, JA. Huntington, RG. Wunderink, N. Shime, MH. Kollef, Ü. Kivistik, M. Nováček, Á. Réa-Neto, I. Martin-Loeches, B. Yu, EH. Jensen, JR. Butterton, DJ. Wolf, EG. Rhee, CJ. Bruno
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a antibakteriální látky $x farmakologie $x normy $x terapeutické užití $7 D000900
650    _2
$a cefalosporiny $x farmakologie $x normy $x terapeutické užití $7 D002511
650    _2
$a dvojitá slepá metoda $7 D004311
650    _2
$a hodnocení ekvivalence jako téma $7 D000074099
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a nozokomiální pneumonie $x farmakoterapie $7 D000077299
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a logistické modely $7 D016015
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a meropenem $x farmakologie $x normy $x terapeutické užití $7 D000077731
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a bakteriální pneumonie $x farmakoterapie $7 D018410
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a tazobaktam $x farmakologie $x normy $x terapeutické užití $7 D000078142
655    _2
$a klinické zkoušky, fáze III $7 D017428
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
700    1_
$a Huntington, Jennifer A $u MRL, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA
700    1_
$a Wunderink, Richard G $u Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
700    1_
$a Shime, Nobuaki $u Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
700    1_
$a Kollef, Marin H $u Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
700    1_
$a Kivistik, Ülo $u Pulmonology Centre, North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia
700    1_
$a Nováček, Martin $u Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, General Hospital of Kolin, Kolin, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Réa-Neto, Álvaro $u Departamento de Clínica Médica, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
700    1_
$a Martin-Loeches, Ignacio $u Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), St James' Hospital, Dublin, Ireland $u Hospital Clinic, Universitat de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERES, Barcelona, Spain
700    1_
$a Yu, Brian $u MRL, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA
700    1_
$a Jensen, Erin H $u MRL, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA
700    1_
$a Butterton, Joan R $u MRL, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA
700    1_
$a Wolf, Dominik J $u MRL, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA
700    1_
$a Rhee, Elizabeth G $u MRL, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA
700    1_
$a Bruno, Christopher J $u MRL, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. christopher.bruno@merck.com
773    0_
$w MED00006603 $t Critical care (London, England) $x 1466-609X $g Roč. 25, č. 1 (2021), s. 290
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34380538 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220113 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220127145711 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1751410 $s 1155086
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 25 $c 1 $d 290 $e 20210811 $i 1466-609X $m Critical care $n Crit Care $x MED00006603
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220113

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...