Clinical TrialComparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia☆
Introduction
Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is associated with significant rates of morbidity and mortality, increased health care expenditures, and substantial consumption of resources (Craven et al., 1991). Mortality related directly to HAP, the “attributable mortality”, has been estimated to be between 33% and 50% (Heyland et al., 1999). Delays in treatment have been associated with higher mortality rates that can be reduced by up to 60% with appropriate antimicrobial therapy (Celis and Torres, 1988, Rello et al., 2001).
To improve outcomes and reduce mortality resulting from hospital-acquired infections, the American Thoracic Society (2005) (ATS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have established guidelines for the management of HAP. The new guidelines embrace the trio of prevention, diagnosis, and prompt, appropriate (adequate doses), broad-spectrum initial antibiotic therapy that is active against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms.
Tigecycline is the first commercially available member of the glycylcyclines, a new class of antimicrobial agents. In vitro, it is active against vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and many species of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria such as Acinetobacter baumannii and extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli (Poulakou and Giamarellou, 2007).
The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a tigecycline ± ceftazidime ± aminoglycoside regimen with that of an imipenem/cilastatin ± vancomycin ± aminoglycoside regimen to treat patients with HAP. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the microbiologic efficacy of tigecycline, to obtain in vitro susceptibility data on tigecycline for a range of bacteria that cause HAP, to compare health care utilization between treatment arms, and to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of tigecycline for patients with HAP.
The decision to evaluate the efficacy of tigecycline in the treatment of HAP was based on its spectrum of in vitro activity (Fritsche and Jones, 2004, Sader et al., 2005) and the results of previous studies in animals showing its efficacy in the treatment of pneumonia (Entenza and Moreillon, 2009). In an animal model of Legionnaires' disease, Edelstein et al. (2003) have shown that treatment with tigecycline is effective in preventing death from otherwise fatal Legionella pneumophila pneumonia. Tigecycline was also shown to have in vivo activity in immunocompromised murine pneumonia models against A. baumannii and MRSA (Koomanachai et al., 2009a, Koomanachai et al., 2009b) and in combination with gentamicin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Mikels and Brown, 1999). Other indications of the potential of tigecycline as an effective treatment for HAP came from pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, which indicated that tigecycline achieved acceptable concentrations in the lung (Conte et al., 2005, Rodvold et al., 2006). More recently, results from studies in humans have shown that tigecycline is safe and achieved clinical cure rates similar to levofloxacin in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (Tanaseanu et al., 2008). In addition, there are isolated case reports of good responses with tigecycline in patients with HAP (Curcio et al., 2009, Maclayton and Hall, 2007). The dose approved for other infections (i.e., 100 mg then 50 mg every 12 h) is predicted to have adequate serum concentrations for efficacy in HAP when used in combination with ceftazidime (Kuti et al., 2008).
Section snippets
Study design
This was a phase 3, randomized (1:1), double-blind trial of patients with HAP with 7 to 14 days of therapy and a test-of-cure (TOC) assessment 10 to 21 days after the last day of therapy. This trial was conducted in 138 sites in 31 countries between March 2004 and December 2006. Stratification at randomization was by diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) or non-VAP and Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score (≤15 or >15) in order to ensure balance in
Results
Of the 979 patients screened, 34 were screen failures. A total of 945 patients comprised the randomized (ITT) population. A total of 934 patients (467 in each treatment group) were randomly assigned and received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment, comprising the modified intent-to-treat (mITT or safety) population. Of these, the CE subset of patients included 268 patients treated with tigecycline and 243 patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (Fig. 1). The most common reasons for
Discussion
In the current study, the tigecycline regimen was noninferior to the imipenem/cilastatin regimen for the c-mITT population but not for the CE population. A statistically significant interaction was noted for the a priori stratification of non-VAP and VAP patients, with the initial analysis clearly indicating that the VAP subgroup behaved differently than the non-VAP subgroup. In non-VAP patients, tigecycline was noninferior to imipenem/cilastatin. Cure rates were 75.4% versus 81.3% in the CE
Conclusions
Overall, the study presented mixed results, with 1 of the coprimary efficacy end points being met and the other not being met. Various analyses indicate that the VAP subpopulation of patients drove the failure to meet 1 of the end points. It is not clear why VAP patients treated with tigecycline had lower cure rates compared with those who received imipenem/cilastatin, although a hypothesis is the lower tigecycline AUC/MIC that was observed, or why imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients had such
Acknowledgments
The statistical, programming, and managerial assistance of Jean Li Yan, Jeff Goodrich, Debbie Ruffo, Christina Auten, and Gaelle Amiard is greatly appreciated. Phil Vinall, a former Wyeth employee, assisted in the preparation of the preliminary draft of this article. Additional editorial support was provided by Upside endeavors, LLC (Sanatoga). This study was sponsored and funded by Wyeth Research, Collegeville, PA, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in October 2009.
References (35)
- et al.
Tigecycline possibly underdosed for the treatment of pneumonia: a pharmacokinetic viewpoint
Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents
(2009) - et al.
Nosocomial pneumonia: a multivariate analysis of risk and prognosis
Chest
(1988) - et al.
Mortality and time to extubation in severe hospital-acquired pneumonia
Am. J. Infect. Control
(2009) - et al.
Steady-state serum and intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tigecycline
Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents
(2005) - et al.
Tigecycline in combination with other antimicrobials: a review of in vitro, animal and case report studies
Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents
(2009) - et al.
Antimicrobial activity of tigecycline (GAR-936) tested against 3498 recent isolates of Staphylococcus aureus recovered from nosocomial and community-acquired infections
Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents
(2004) - et al.
Comparative clinical trial of ceftazidime and imipenem/cilastatin in patients with severe nosocomial pneumonias and septicaemias
J. Hosp. Infect.
(1990) - et al.
Comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam and imipenem/cilastatin, both in combination with tobramycin, administered every 6 h for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia
Respir. Med.
(2006) - et al.
Results of a multicenter, randomized, open-label efficacy and safety study of two doses of tigecycline for complicated skin and skin-structure infections in hospitalized patients
Clin. Ther.
(2004) - et al.
International conference for the development of consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia
Chest
(2001)
Antimicrobial activity of tigecycline tested against nosocomial bacterial pathogens from patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit
Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
Integrated results of 2 phase 3 studies comparing tigecycline and levofloxacin in community-acquired pneumonia
Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
Levofloxacin compared with imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label study
Clin. Ther.
Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care. Med.
The efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: analysis of pooled clinical trial data
Clin. Infect. Dis.
Preventing nosocomial pneumonia: state of the art and perspectives from the 1990's
Am. J. Med.
Late onset ventilator-associated pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter spp.: experience with tigecycline
J. Chemother.
Cited by (250)
Carbapenem vs. non-carbapenem antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review with meta-analysis
2024, Respiratory InvestigationAcinetobacter baumannii
2023, Molecular Medical Microbiology, Third EditionMortality and clinical cure rates for pneumonia: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized control trials comparing bactericidal and bacteriostatic antibiotic treatments
2022, Clinical Microbiology and InfectionCitation Excerpt :Fifteen of 43 trials were open-label studies, resulting in a significant risk of performance bias [34,36,38,42,45,46,51,53,56,60,64,66,69,71,76]. Thirty-two trials (74.4%) were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company (Table S2) [34,36–39,41,43–49,52–57,59–63,67,68,71–76]. Inconsistency in reporting of different secondary outcomes was deemed serious due to substantial heterogeneity in reporting (i.e. ˃50%).
Tetracyclines
2022, Comprehensive PharmacologyIntrapulmonary pharmacokinetics of high doses of tigecycline in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia
2022, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
- ☆
This study was supported by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in October 2009.