Search

Taniborbactam (formerly known as VNRX-5133) is a novel bicyclic boronate β-lactamase inhibitor of serine β-lactamases (SBLs) [Ambler classes A, C, and D] and metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) [Ambler class B], including NDM and VIM, but not IMP. Cefepime-taniborbactam is active in vitro against most isolates of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), including both carbapenemase-producing and carbapenemase-non-producing CRE and CRPA, as well as against multidrug-resistant (MDR), ceftazidime-avibactam-resistant, meropenem-vaborbactam-resistant, and ceftolozane-tazobactam-resistant Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. The addition of taniborbactam to cefepime resulted in a > 64-fold reduction in MIC 90 compared with cefepime alone for a 2018-2021 global collection of > 13,000 clinical isolates of Enterobacterales. In the same study, against > 4600 P. aeruginosa, a fourfold MIC reduction was observed with cefepime-taniborbactam, compared with cefepime alone. Whole genome sequencing studies have shown that resistance towards cefepime-taniborbactam in Enterobacterales arises due to the presence of multiple resistance mechanisms, often in concert, including production of IMP, PBP3 alterations, permeability (porin) defects, and upregulation of efflux pumps. In P. aeruginosa, elevated cefepime-taniborbactam MICs are also associated with the presence of multiple, concurrent mechanisms, most frequently IMP, PBP3 mutations, and upregulation of efflux pumps, as well as AmpC (PDC) overexpression. The pharmacokinetics of taniborbactam are dose proportional, follow a linear model, and do not appear to be affected when combined with cefepime. Taniborbactam's approximate volume of distribution (V d ) at steady state is 20 L and the approximate elimination half-life (t ½ ) is 2.3 h, which are similar to cefepime. Furthermore, like cefepime, taniborbactam is primarily cleared renally, and clearance corresponds with renal function. Pharmacodynamic studies (in vitro and in vivo) have reported that cefepime-taniborbactam has bactericidal activity against various β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli that are not susceptible to cefepime alone. It has been reported that antimicrobial activity best correlated with taniborbactam exposure (area under the curve). A phase III clinical trial showed that cefepime-taniborbactam (2 g/0.5 g administered as an intravenous infusion over 2 h) was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis, caused by Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa while demonstrating similar safety compared with meropenem. The safety and tolerability of taniborbactam and cefepime-taniborbactam has been reported in one pharmacokinetic trial, and in two pharmacokinetic trials and one phase III clinical trial, respectively. Cefepime-taniborbactam appears to be well tolerated in both healthy subjects and patients. Headache and gastrointestinal upset are the most common drug-related adverse effects associated with cefepime-taniborbactam use. Cefepime-taniborbactam will likely have a role in the treatment of infections proven or suspected to be caused by MDR Gram-negative bacteria, including Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. In particular, it may be useful in the treatment of infections caused by isolates that harbor an MBL (NDM, VIM) enzyme, although further clinical data are needed. Additional safety and efficacy studies may support indications for cefepime-taniborbactam beyond cUTI., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Sulopenem (formerly known as CP-70,429, and CP-65,207 when a component of a racemic mixture with its R isomer) is an intravenous and oral penem that possesses in vitro activity against fluoroquinolone-resistant, extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL)-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacterales. Sulopenem is being developed to treat patients with uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) as well as intra-abdominal infections. This review will focus mainly on its use in UTIs. The chemical structure of sulopenem shares properties of penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Sulopenem is available as an oral prodrug formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil, which is hydrolyzed by intestinal esterases, resulting in active sulopenem. In early studies, the S isomer of CP-65,207, later developed as sulopenem, demonstrated greater absorption, higher drug concentrations in the urine, and increased stability against the renal enzyme dehydropeptidase-1 compared with the R isomer, which set the stage for its further development as a UTI antimicrobial. Sulopenem is active against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive microorganisms. Sulopenem's β-lactam ring alkylates the serine residues of penicillin-binding protein (PBP), which inhibits peptidoglycan cross-linking. Due to its ionization and low molecular weight, sulopenem passes through outer membrane proteins to reach PBPs of Gram-negative bacteria. While sulopenem activity is unaffected by many β-lactamases, resistance arises from alterations in PBPs (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA]), expression of carbapenemases (e.g., carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales and in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), reduction in the expression of outer membrane proteins (e.g., some Klebsiella spp.), and the presence of efflux pumps (e.g., MexAB-OprM in Pseudomonas aeruginosa), or a combination of these mechanisms. In vitro studies have reported that sulopenem demonstrates greater activity than meropenem and ertapenem against Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, as well as similar activity to carbapenems against Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes. With some exceptions, sulopenem activity against Gram-negative aerobes was less than ertapenem and meropenem but greater than imipenem. Sulopenem activity against Escherichia coli carrying ESBL, CTX-M, or Amp-C enzymes, or demonstrating MDR phenotypes, as well as against ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, was nearly identical to ertapenem and meropenem and greater than imipenem. Sulopenem exhibited identical or slightly greater activity than imipenem against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative anaerobes, including Bacteroides fragilis. The pharmacokinetics of intravenous sulopenem appear similar to carbapenems such as imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and doripenem. In healthy subjects, reported volumes of distribution (V d ) ranged from 15.8 to 27.6 L, total drug clearances (CL T ) of 18.9-24.9 L/h, protein binding of approximately 10%, and elimination half-lives (t ½ ) of 0.88-1.03 h. The estimated renal clearance (CL R ) of sulopenem is 8.0-10.6 L/h, with 35.5% ± 6.7% of a 1000 mg dose recovered unchanged in the urine. An ester prodrug, sulopenem etzadroxil, has been developed for oral administration. Initial investigations reported a variable oral bioavailability of 20-34% under fasted conditions, however subsequent work showed that bioavailability is significantly improved by administering sulopenem with food to increase its oral absorption or with probenecid to reduce its renal tubular secretion. Food consumption increases the area under the curve (AUC) of oral sulopenem (500 mg twice daily) by 23.6% when administered alone and 62% when administered with 500 mg of probenecid. Like carbapenems, sulopenem demonstrates bactericidal activity that is associated with the percentage of time that free concentrations exceed the MIC (%f T > MIC). In animal models, bacteriostasis was associated with %f T > MICs ranging from 8.6 to 17%, whereas 2-log 10 kill was seen at values ranging from 12 to 28%. No pharmacodynamic targets have been documented for suppression of resistance. Sulopenem concentrations in urine are variable, ranging from 21.8 to 420.0 mg/L (median 84.4 mg/L) in fasted subjects and 28.8 to 609.0 mg/L (median 87.3 mg/L) in those who were fed. Sulopenem has been compared with carbapenems and cephalosporins in guinea pig and murine systemic and lung infection animal models. Studied pathogens included Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, B. fragilis, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Proteus vulgaris, and Serratia marcescens. These studies reported that overall, sulopenem was non-inferior to carbapenems but appeared to be superior to cephalosporins. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-1) reported that sulopenem was not non-inferior to ciprofloxacin in women infected with fluoroquinolone-susceptible pathogens, due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in sulopenem-treated patients at the test-of-cure visit. However, the researchers reported superiority of sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid over ciprofloxacin for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in women infected with fluoroquinolone/non-susceptible pathogens, and non-inferiority in all patients with a positive urine culture. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-2) compared intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid with ertapenem in the treatment of complicated UTIs. No difference in overall success was noted at the end of therapy. However, intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil was not non-inferior to ertapenem followed by oral stepdown therapy in overall success at test-of-cure due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem arm. After a meeting with the US FDA, Iterum stated that they are currently evaluating the optimal design for an additional phase III uncomplicated UTI study to be conducted prior to the potential resubmission of the New Drug Application (NDA). It is unclear at this time whether Iterum intends to apply for EMA or Japanese regulatory approval. The safety and tolerability of sulopenem has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase III clinical trials. Sulopenem (intravenous and oral) appears to be well tolerated in healthy subjects, with and without the coadministration of probenecid, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported to date. Reported TEAEs affecting ≥1% of patients were (from most to least common) diarrhea, nausea, headache, vomiting and dizziness. Discontinuation rates were low and were not different than comparator agents. Sulopenem administered orally and/or intravenously represents a potentially well tolerated and effective option for treating uncomplicated and complicated UTIs, especially in patients with documented or highly suspected antimicrobial pathogens to commonly used agents (e.g. fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli), and in patients with documented microbiological or clinical failure or patients who demonstrate intolerance/adverse effects to first-line agents. This agent will likely be used orally in the outpatient setting, and intravenously followed by oral stepdown in the hospital setting. Sulopenem also allows for oral stepdown therapy in the hospital setting from intravenous non-sulopenem therapy. More clinical data are required to fully assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sulopenem, especially in patients with complicated UTIs caused by resistant pathogens such as ESBL-producing, Amp-C, MDR E. coli. Antimicrobial stewardship programs will need to create guidelines for when this oral and intravenous penem should be used., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Lefamulin is a novel oral and intravenous (IV) pleuromutilin developed as a twice-daily treatment for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). It is a semi-synthetic pleuromutilin with a chemical structure that contains a tricyclic core of five-, six-, and eight-membered rings and a 2-(4-amino-2-hydroxycyclohexyl)sulfanylacetate side chain extending from C14 of the tricyclic core. Lefamulin inhibits bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 50S bacterial ribosomal subunit in the peptidyl transferase center (PTC). The pleuromutilin tricyclic core binds to a pocket close to the A site, while the C14 side chain extends to the P site causing a tightening of the rotational movement in the binding pocket referred to as an induced-fit mechanism. Lefamulin displays broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria as well as against atypical bacteria that commonly cause CABP. Pleuromutilin antibiotics exhibit low rates of resistance development and lack cross-resistance to other antimicrobial classes due to their unique mechanism of action. However, pleuromutilin activity is affected by mutations in 23S rRNA, 50S ribosomal subunit proteins rplC and rplD, ATP-binding cassette (ABC)-F transporter proteins such as vga(A), and the methyltransferase cfr. The pharmacokinetic properties of lefamulin include: volume of distribution (V d ) ranging from 82.9 to 202.8 L, total clearance (CL T ) of 19.5 to 21.4 L/h, and terminal elimination half-life (t 1/2 ) of 6.9-13.2 h; protein binding of lefamulin is high and non-linear. The oral bioavailability of lefamulin has been estimated as 24% in fasted subjects and 19% in fed subjects. A single oral dose of lefamulin 600 mg administered in fasted patients achieved a maximum plasma concentration (C max ) of 1.2-1.5 mg/L with a time of maximum concentration (T max ) ranging from 0.8 to 1.8 h, and an area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC 0-∞ ) of 8.5-8.8 mg h/L. The pharmacodynamic parameter predictive of lefamulin efficacy is the free plasma area under the concentration-time curve divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration (fAUC 24h /MIC). Lefamulin efficacy has been demonstrated using various animal models including neutropenic murine thigh infection, pneumonia, lung infection, and bacteremia. Lefamulin clinical safety and efficacy was investigated through a Phase II clinical trial of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI), as well as two Phase III clinical trials of CABP. The Phase III trials, LEAP 1 and LEAP 2 established non-inferiority of lefamulin to moxifloxacin in both oral and IV formulations in the treatment of CABP. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Health Canada have each approved lefamulin for the treatment of CABP. A Phase II clinical trial has been completed for the treatment of ABSSSI, while the pediatric program is in Phase I. The most common adverse effects of lefamulin include mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal-related events such as nausea and diarrhea. Lefamulin represents a safe and effective option for treating CABP in cases of antimicrobial resistance to first-line therapies, clinical failure, or intolerance/adverse effects to currently used agents. Clinical experience and ongoing clinical investigation will allow clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programs to optimally use lefamulin in the treatment of CABP.

Omadacycline is a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic developed as a once-daily, intravenous and oral treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Omadacycline, a derivative of minocycline, has a chemical structure similar to tigecycline with an alkylaminomethyl group replacing the glycylamido group at the C-9 position of the D-ring of the tetracycline core. Similar to other tetracyclines, omadacycline inhibits bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 30S ribosomal subunit. Omadacycline possesses broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic, anaerobic, and atypical bacteria. Omadacycline remains active against bacterial isolates possessing common tetracycline resistance mechanisms such as efflux pumps (e.g., TetK) and ribosomal protection proteins (e.g., TetM) as well as in the presence of resistance mechanisms to other antibiotic classes. The pharmacokinetics of omadacycline are best described by a linear, three-compartment model following a zero-order intravenous infusion or first-order oral administration with transit compartments to account for delayed absorption. Omadacycline has a volume of distribution (V d ) ranging from 190 to 204 L, a terminal elimination half-life (t ½ ) of 13.5-17.1 h, total clearance (CL T ) of 8.8-10.6 L/h, and protein binding of 21.3% in healthy subjects. Oral bioavailability of omadacycline is estimated to be 34.5%. A single oral dose of 300 mg (bioequivalent to 100 mg IV) of omadacycline administered to fasted subjects achieved a maximum plasma concentration (C max ) of 0.5-0.6 mg/L and an area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC 0-∞ ) of 9.6-11.9 mg h/L. The free plasma area under concentration-time curve divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration (i.e., fAUC 24h /MIC), has been established as the pharmacodynamic parameter predictive of omadacycline antibacterial efficacy. Several animal models including neutropenic murine lung infection, thigh infection, and intraperitoneal challenge model have documented the in vivo antibacterial efficacy of omadacycline. A phase II clinical trial on complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and three phase III clinical trials on ABSSSI and CABP demonstrated the safety and efficacy of omadacycline. The phase III trials, OASIS-1 (ABSSSI), OASIS-2 (ABSSSI), and OPTIC (CABP), established non-inferiority of omadacycline to linezolid (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) and moxifloxacin (OPTIC), respectively. Omadacycline is currently approved by the FDA for use in treatment of ABSSSI and CABP. Phase II clinical trials involving patients with acute cystitis and acute pyelonephritis are in progress. Mild, transient gastrointestinal events are the predominant adverse effects associated with use of omadacycline. Based on clinical trial data to date, the adverse effect profile of omadacycline is similar to studied comparators, linezolid and moxifloxacin. Unlike tigecycline and eravacycline, omadacycline has an oral formulation that allows for step-down therapy from the intravenous formulation, potentially facilitating earlier hospital discharge, outpatient therapy, and cost savings. Omadacycline has a potential role as part of an antimicrobial stewardship program in the treatment of patients with infections caused by antibiotic-resistant and multidrug-resistant Gram-positive [including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)] and Gram-negative pathogens.

Cefiderocol is an injectable siderophore cephalosporin discovered and being developed by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. As with other β-lactam antibiotics, the principal antibacterial/bactericidal activity of cefiderocol occurs by inhibition of Gram-negative bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to penicillin binding proteins; however, it is unique in that it enters the bacterial periplasmic space as a result of its siderophore-like property and has enhanced stability to β-lactamases. The chemical structure of cefiderocol is similar to both ceftazidime and cefepime, which are third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, respectively, but with high stability to a variety of β-lactamases, including AmpC and extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs). Cefiderocol has a pyrrolidinium group in the side chain at position 3 like cefepime and a carboxypropanoxyimino group in the side chain at position 7 of the cephem nucleus like ceftazidime. The major difference in the chemical structures of cefiderocol, ceftazidime and cefepime is the presence of a catechol group on the side chain at position 3. Together with the high stability to β-lactamases, including ESBLs, AmpC and carbapenemases, the microbiological activity of cefiderocol against aerobic Gram-negative bacilli is equal to or superior to that of ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem, and it is active against a variety of Ambler class A, B, C and D β-lactamases. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem versus Acinetobacter baumannii, including meropenem non-susceptible and multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates. Cefiderocol's activity against meropenem-non-susceptible and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriales is comparable or superior to ceftazidime-avibactam. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem against all resistance phenotypes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The current dosing regimen being used in phase III studies is 2 g administered intravenously every 8 h (q8 h) using a 3-h infusion. The pharmacokinetics of cefiderocol are best described by a three-compartment linear model. The mean plasma half-life (t ½ ) was ~ 2.3 h, protein binding is 58%, and total drug clearance ranged from 4.6-6.0 L/h for both single- and multi-dose infusions and was primarily renally excreted unchanged (61-71%). Cefiderocol is primarily renally excreted unchanged and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. Dosage adjustment is thus required for both augmented renal clearance and in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. In vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic studies have reported that as with other cephalosporins the pharmacodynamic index that best predicts clinical outcome is the percentage of time that free drug concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT > MIC). In vivo efficacy of cefiderocol has been studied in a variety of humanized drug exposure murine and rat models of infection utilizing a variety of MDR and extremely drug resistant strains. Cefiderocol has performed similarly to or has been superior to comparator agents, including ceftazidime and cefepime. A phase II prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of cefiderocol 2000 mg q8 h versus imipenem/cilastatin 1000 mg q8 h, both administered intravenously for 7-14 days over 1 h, in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI, including pyelonephritis) or acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis in hospitalized adults. A total of 452 patients were initially enrolled in the study, with 303 in the cefiderocol arm and 149 in the imipenem/cilastatin arm. The primary outcome measure was a composite of clinical cure and microbiological eradication at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit, that is, 7 days after the end of treatment in the microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population. Secondary outcome measures included microbiological response per pathogen and per patient at early assessment (EA), end of treatment (EOT), TOC, and follow-up (FUP); clinical response per pathogen and per patient at EA, EOT, TOC, and FUP; plasma, urine and concentrations of cefiderocol; and the number of participants with adverse events. The composite of clinical and microbiological response rates was 72.6% (183/252) for cefiderocol and 54.6% (65/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Clinical response rates per patient at the TOC visit were 89.7% (226/252) for cefiderocol and 87.4% (104/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Microbiological eradication rates were 73.0% (184/252) for cefiderocol and 56.3% (67/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Additionally, two phase III clinical trials are currently being conducted by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. The two trials are evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of serious infections in adult patients caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens and evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia or healthcare-associated pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens. Cefiderocol appears to be well tolerated (minor reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal and phlebitis related), with a side effect profile that is comparable to other cephalosporin antimicrobials. Cefiderocol appears to be well positioned to help address the increasing number of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant and MDR Gram-negative bacilli, including ESBL- and carbapenemase-producing strains (including metallo-β-lactamase producers). A distinguishing feature of cefiderocol is its activity against resistant P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. maltophilia and Burkholderia cepacia.

Section heading 5.2, which currently reads 5.2 Meropenem-Relebactam.

Relebactam (formerly known as MK-7655) is a non-β-lactam, bicyclic diazabicyclooctane, β-lactamase inhibitor that is structurally related to avibactam, differing by the addition of a piperidine ring to the 2-position carbonyl group. Vaborbactam (formerly known as RPX7009) is a non-β-lactam, cyclic, boronic acid-based, β-lactamase inhibitor. The structure of vaborbactam is unlike any other currently marketed β-lactamase inhibitor. Both inhibitors display activity against Ambler class A [including extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs)] and class C β-lactamases (AmpC). Little is known about the potential for relebactam or vaborbactam to select for resistance; however, inactivation of the porin protein OmpK36 in K. pneumoniae has been reported to confer resistance to both imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam. The addition of relebactam significantly improves the activity of imipenem against most species of Enterobacteriaceae [by lowering the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) by 2- to 128-fold] depending on the presence or absence of β-lactamase enzymes. Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the addition of relebactam also improves the activity of imipenem (MIC reduced eightfold). Based on the data available, the addition of relebactam does not improve the activity of imipenem against Acinetobacter baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and most anaerobes. Similar to imipenem-relebactam, the addition of vaborbactam significantly (2- to > 1024-fold MIC reduction) improves the activity of meropenem against most species of Enterobacteriaceae depending on the presence or absence of β-lactamase enzymes. Limited data suggest that the addition of vaborbactam does not improve the activity of meropenem against A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, or S. maltophilia. The pharmacokinetics of both relebactam and vaborbactam are described by a two-compartment, linear model and do not appear to be altered by the co-administration of imipenem and meropenem, respectively. Relebactam's approximate volume of distribution (V d ) and elimination half-life (t ½ ) of ~ 18 L and 1.2-2.1 h, respectively, are similar to imipenem. Likewise, vaborbactam's V d and t ½ of ~ 18 L and 1.3-2.0 h, respectively, are comparable to meropenem. Like imipenem and meropenem, relebactam and vaborbactam are both primarily renally excreted, and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. In vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic studies have reported bactericidal activity for imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam against various Gram-negative β-lactamase-producing bacilli that are not inhibited by their respective carbapenems alone. These data also suggest that pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters correlating with efficacy include time above the MIC for the carbapenems and overall exposure for their companion β-lactamase inhibitors. Phase II clinical trials to date have reported that imipenem-relebactam is as effective as imipenem alone for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis. Imipenem-relebactam is currently in two phase III clinical trials for the treatment of imipenem-resistant bacterial infections, as well as hospital-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). A phase III clinical trial has reported superiority of meropenem-vaborbactam over piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis. Meropenem-vaborbactam has recently demonstrated higher clinical cure rates versus best available therapy for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), as well as for HABP and VABP. The safety and tolerability of imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase II and III clinical trials. Both combinations appear to be well tolerated in healthy subjects and hospitalized patients, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events reported to date. In conclusion, relebactam and vaborbactam serve to broaden the spectrum of imipenem and meropenem, respectively, against β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli. The exact roles for imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam will be defined by efficacy and safety data from further clinical trials. Potential roles in therapy for these agents include the treatment of suspected or documented infections caused by resistant Gram-negative bacilli-producing ESBL, KPC, and/or AmpC β-lactamases. The usage of these agents in patients with CRE infections will likely become the standard of care. Finally, increased activity of imipenem-relebactam against P. aeruginosa may be of clinical benefit to patients with suspected or documented P. aeruginosa infections.

Solithromycin is a novel fluoroketolide developed in both oral and intravenous formulations to address increasing macrolide resistance in pathogens causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). When compared with its macrolide and ketolide predecessors, solithromycin has several structural modifications which increase its ribosomal binding and reduce its propensity to known macrolide resistance mechanisms. Solithromycin, like telithromycin, affects 50S ribosomal subunit formation and function, as well as causing frame-shift errors during translation. However, unlike telithromycin, which binds to two sites on the ribosome, solithromycin has three distinct ribosomal binding sites. Its desosamine sugar interacts at the A2058/A2059 cleft in domain V (as all macrolides do), an extended alkyl-aryl side chain interacts with base pair A752-U2609 in domain II (similar to telithromycin), and a fluorine at C-2 of solithromycin provides additional binding to the ribosome. Studies describing solithromycin activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae have reported that it does not induce erm-mediated resistance because it lacks a cladinose moiety, and that it is less susceptible than other macrolides to mef-mediated efflux due to its increased ribosomal binding and greater intrinsic activity. Solithromycin has demonstrated potent in vitro activity against the most common CABP pathogens, including macrolide-, penicillin-, and fluoroquinolone-resistant isolates of S. pneumoniae, as well as Haemophilus influenzae and atypical bacterial pathogens. Solithromycin displays multi-compartment pharmacokinetics, a large volume of distribution (>500 L), approximately 67% bioavailability when given orally, and serum protein binding of 81%. Its major metabolic pathway appears to follow cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, with metabolites of solithromycin undergoing biliary excretion. Its serum half-life is approximately 6-9 h, which is sufficient for once-daily administration. Pharmacodynamic activity is best described as fAUC 0-24 /MIC (the ratio of the area under the free drug concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h to the minimum inhibitory concentration of the isolate). Solithromycin has completed one phase II and two phase III clinical trials in patients with CABP. In the phase II trial, oral solithromycin was compared with oral levofloxacin and demonstrated similar clinical success rates in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (84.6 vs 86.6%). Clinical success in the clinically evaluable patients group was 83.6% of patients receiving solithromycin compared with 93.1% for patients receiving levofloxacin. In SOLITAIRE-ORAL, a phase III trial which assessed patients receiving oral solithromycin or oral moxifloxacin for CABP, an equivalent (non-inferior) early clinical response in the ITT population was demonstrated for patients receiving either solithromycin (78.2%) or moxifloxacin (77.9%). In a separate phase III trial, SOLITAIRE-IV, patients receiving intravenous-to-oral solithromycin (79.3%) demonstrated non-inferiority as the primary outcome of early clinical response in the ITT population compared with patients receiving intravenous-to-oral moxifloxacin (79.7%). Overall, solithromycin has been well tolerated in clinical trials, with gastrointestinal adverse events being most common, occurring in approximately 10% of patients. Transaminase elevation occurred in 5-10% of patients and generally resolved following cessation of therapy. None of the rare serious adverse events that occurred with telithromycin (i.e., hepatotoxicity) have been noted with solithromycin, possibly due to the fact that solithromycin (unlike telithromycin) does not possess a pyridine moiety in its chemical structure, which has been implicated in inhibiting nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Because solithromycin is a possible substrate and inhibitor of both CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein (P-gp), it may display drug interactions similar to macrolides such as clarithromycin. Overall, the in vitro activity, clinical efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of solithromycin demonstrated to date suggest that it continues to be a promising treatment for CABP.

Eravacycline is an investigational, synthetic fluorocycline antibacterial agent that is structurally similar to tigecycline with two modifications to the D-ring of its tetracycline core: a fluorine atom replaces the dimethylamine moiety at C-7 and a pyrrolidinoacetamido group replaces the 2-tertiary-butyl glycylamido at C-9. Like other tetracyclines, eravacycline inhibits bacterial protein synthesis through binding to the 30S ribosomal subunit. Eravacycline demonstrates broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and anaerobic bacteria with the exception of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eravacycline is two- to fourfold more potent than tigecycline versus Gram-positive cocci and two- to eightfold more potent than tigecycline versus Gram-negative bacilli. Intravenous eravacycline demonstrates linear pharmacokinetics that have been described by a four-compartment model. Oral bioavailability of eravacycline is estimated at 28 % (range 26-32 %) and a single oral dose of 200 mg achieves a maximum plasma concentration (C max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) of 0.23 ± 0.04 mg/L and 3.34 ± 1.11 mg·h/L, respectively. A population pharmacokinetic study of intravenous (IV) eravacycline demonstrated a mean steady-state volume of distribution (V ss) of 320 L or 4.2 L/kg, a mean terminal elimination half-life (t ½) of 48 h, and a mean total clearance (CL) of 13.5 L/h. In a neutropenic murine thigh infection model, the pharmacodynamic parameter that demonstrated the best correlation with antibacterial response was the ratio of area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 24 h to the minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC0-24h/MIC). Several animal model studies including mouse systemic infection, thigh infection, lung infection, and pyelonephritis models have been published and demonstrated the in vivo efficacy of eravacycline. A phase II clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of eravacycline in the treatment of community-acquired complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) has been published as well, and phase III clinical trials in cIAI and complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) have been completed. The eravacycline phase III program, known as IGNITE (Investigating Gram-Negative Infections Treated with Eravacycline), investigated its safety and efficacy in cIAI (IGNITE 1) and cUTI (IGNITE 2). Eravacycline met the primary endpoint in IGNITE 1, while data analysis for IGNITE 2 is currently ongoing. Common adverse events reported in phase I-III studies included gastrointestinal effects such as nausea and vomiting. Eravacycline is a promising intravenous and oral fluorocycline that may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with serious infections, particularly those caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens.

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone prodrug (converted to the active form tedizolid by phosphatases in vivo) that has been developed and recently approved (June 2014) by the United States FDA for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) caused by susceptible Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone, but differs from other oxazolidinones by possessing a modified side chain at the C-5 position of the oxazolidinone nucleus which confers activity against certain linezolid-resistant pathogens and has an optimized C- and D-ring system that improves potency through additional binding site interactions. The mechanism of action of tedizolid is similar to other oxazolidinones and occurs through inhibition of bacterial protein synthesis by binding to 23S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) of the 50S subunit of the ribosome. As with other oxazolidinones, the spontaneous frequency of resistance development to tedizolid is low. Tedizolid is four- to eightfold more potent in vivo than linezolid against all species of staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, including drug-resistant phenotypes such as MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and linezolid-resistant phenotypes. Importantly, tedizolid demonstrates activity against linezolid-resistant bacterial strains harboring the horizontally transmissible cfr gene, in the absence of certain ribosomal mutations conferring reduced oxazolidinone susceptibility. With its half-life of approximately 12 h, tedizolid is dosed once daily. It demonstrates linear pharmacokinetics, has a high oral bioavailability of approximately 90 %, and is primarily excreted by the liver as an inactive, non-circulating sulphate conjugate. Tedizolid does not require dosage adjustment in patients with any degree of renal dysfunction or hepatic dysfunction. Studies in animals have demonstrated that the pharmacodynamic parameter most closely associated with the efficacy of tedizolid is fAUC(0-24h)/MIC. In non-neutropenic animals, a dose-response enhancement was observed with tedizolid and lower exposures were required compared to neutropenic cohorts. Two Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of a once-daily tedizolid 200 mg dose for 6-10 days versus twice-daily 600 mg linezolid for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Both trials used the primary endpoint of early clinical response at 48-72 h; however, one trial compared oral formulations while the other initiated therapy with the parenteral formulation and allowed oral sequential therapy following initial clinical response. Throughout its development, tedizolid has demonstrated that it is well tolerated and animal studies have shown a lower propensity for neuropathies with long-term use than its predecessor linezolid. Data from the two completed Phase III clinical trials demonstrated that the studied tedizolid regimen (200 mg once daily for 6 days) had significantly less impact on hematologic parameters as well as significantly less gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) than its comparator linezolid. As with linezolid, tedizolid is a weak, reversible MAO inhibitor; however, a murine head twitch model validated to assess serotonergic activity reported no increase in the number of head twitches with tedizolid even at doses that exceeded the C max in humans by up to 25-fold. Tyramine and pseudoephedrine challenge studies in humans have also reported no meaningful MAO-related interactions with tedizolid. With its enhanced in vitro activity against a broad-spectrum of Gram-positive aerobic bacteria, convenient once-daily dosing, a short 6-day course of therapy, availability of both oral and intravenous routes of administration, and an adverse effect profile that appears to be more favorable than linezolid, tedizolid is an attractive agent for use in both the hospital and community settings. Tedizolid is currently undergoing additional Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilated nosocomial pneumonia (VNP).

Ceftolozane is a novel cephalosporin currently being developed with the β-lactamase inhibitor tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). The chemical structure of ceftolozane is similar to that of ceftazidime, with the exception of a modified side-chain at the 3-position of the cephem nucleus, which confers potent antipseudomonal activity. As a β-lactam, its mechanism of action is the inhibition of penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). Ceftolozane displays increased activity against Gram-negative bacilli, including those that harbor classical β-lactamases (e.g., TEM-1 and SHV-1), but, similar to other oxyimino-cephalosporins such as ceftazidime and ceftriaxone, it is compromised by extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and carbapenemases. The addition of tazobactam extends the activity of ceftolozane to include most ESBL producers as well as some anaerobic species. Ceftolozane is distinguished from other cephalosporins by its potent activity versus Pseudomonas aeruginosa, including various drug-resistant phenotypes such as carbapenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and ceftazidime-resistant isolates, as well as those strains that are multidrug-resistant (MDR). Its antipseudomonal activity is attributed to its ability to evade the multitude of resistance mechanisms employed by P. aeruginosa, including efflux pumps, reduced uptake through porins and modification of PBPs. Ceftolozane demonstrates linear pharmacokinetics unaffected by the coadministration of tazobactam; specifically, it follows a two-compartmental model with linear elimination. Following single doses, ranging from 250 to 2,000 mg, over a 1-h intravenous infusion, ceftolozane displays a mean plasma half-life of 2.3 h (range 1.9-2.6 h), a steady-state volume of distribution that ranges from 13.1 to 17.6 L, and a mean clearance of 102.4 mL/min. It demonstrates low plasma protein binding (20 %), is primarily eliminated via urinary excretion (≥92 %), and may require dose adjustments in patients with a creatinine clearance <50 mL/min. Time-kill experiments and animal infection models have demonstrated that the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic index that is best correlated with ceftolozane's in vivo efficacy is the percentage of time in which free plasma drug concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration of a given pathogen (%fT >MIC), as expected of β-lactams. Two phase II clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate ceftolozane ± tazobactam in the settings of cUTIs and cIAIs. One trial compared ceftolozane 1,000 mg every 8 h (q8h) versus ceftazidime 1,000 mg q8h in the treatment of cUTI, including pyelonephritis, and demonstrated similar microbiologic and clinical outcomes, as well as a similar incidence of adverse effects after 7-10 days of treatment, respectively. A second trial has been conducted comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam 1,000/500 mg and metronidazole 500 mg q8h versus meropenem 1,000 mg q8h in the treatment of cIAI. A number of phase I and phase II studies have reported ceftolozane to possess a good safety and tolerability profile, one that is consistent with that of other cephalosporins. In conclusion, ceftolozane is a new cephalosporin with activity versus MDR organisms including P. aeruginosa. Tazobactam allows the broadening of the spectrum of ceftolozane versus β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli including ESBLs. Potential roles for ceftolozane/tazobactam include empiric therapy where infection by a resistant Gram-negative organism (e.g., ESBL) is suspected, or as part of combination therapy (e.g., with metronidazole) where a polymicrobial infection is suspected. In addition, ceftolozane/tazobactam may represent alternative therapy to the third-generation cephalosporins after treatment failure or for documented infections due to Gram-negative bacilli producing ESBLs. Finally, the increased activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus P. aeruginosa, including MDR strains, may lead to the treatment of suspected and documented P. aeruginosa infections with this agent. Currently, ceftolozane/tazobactam is being evaluated in three phase III trials for the treatment of cUTI, cIAI, and VABP.

Avibactam (formerly NXL104, AVE1330A) is a synthetic non-β-lactam, β-lactamase inhibitor that inhibits the activities of Ambler class A and C β-lactamases and some Ambler class D enzymes. This review summarizes the existing data published for ceftazidime-avibactam, including relevant chemistry, mechanisms of action and resistance, microbiology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy and safety data from animal and human trials. Although not a β-lactam, the chemical structure of avibactam closely resembles portions of the cephem bicyclic ring system, and avibactam has been shown to bond covalently to β-lactamases. Very little is known about the potential for avibactam to select for resistance. The addition of avibactam greatly (4-1024-fold minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] reduction) improves the activity of ceftazidime versus most species of Enterobacteriaceae depending on the presence or absence of β-lactamase enzyme(s). Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the addition of avibactam also improves the activity of ceftazidime (~fourfold MIC reduction). Limited data suggest that the addition of avibactam does not improve the activity of ceftazidime versus Acinetobacter species or most anaerobic bacteria (exceptions: Bacteroides fragilis, Clostridium perfringens, Prevotella spp. and Porphyromonas spp.). The pharmacokinetics of avibactam follow a two-compartment model and do not appear to be altered by the co-administration of ceftazidime. The maximum plasma drug concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of avibactam increase linearly with doses ranging from 50 mg to 2,000 mg. The mean volume of distribution and half-life of 22 L (~0.3 L/kg) and ~2 hours, respectively, are similar to ceftazidime. Like ceftazidime, avibactam is primarily renally excreted, and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. Pharmacodynamic data suggest that ceftazidime-avibactam is rapidly bactericidal versus β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli that are not inhibited by ceftazidime alone.Clinical trials to date have reported that ceftazidime-avibactam is as effective as standard carbapenem therapy in complicated intra-abdominal infection and complicated urinary tract infection, including infection caused by cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative isolates. The safety and tolerability of ceftazidime-avibactam has been reported in three phase I pharmacokinetic studies and two phase II clinical studies. Ceftazidime-avibactam appears to be well tolerated in healthy subjects and hospitalized patients, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events reported to date.In conclusion, avibactam serves to broaden the spectrum of ceftazidime versus ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli. The exact roles for ceftazidime-avibactam will be defined by efficacy and safety data from further clinical trials. Potential future roles for ceftazidime-avibactam include the treatment of suspected or documented infections caused by resistant Gram-negative-bacilli producing extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL), Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs) and/or AmpC ß-lactamases. In addition, ceftazidime-avibactam may be used in combination (with metronidazole) for suspected polymicrobial infections. Finally, the increased activity of ceftazidime-avibactam versus P. aeruginosa may be of clinical benefit in patients with suspected or documented P. aeruginosa infections.

Dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin are semisynthetic lipoglycopeptides that demonstrate promise for the treatment of patients with infections caused by multi-drug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Each of these agents contains a heptapeptide core, common to all glycopeptides, which enables them to inhibit transglycosylation and transpeptidation (cell wall synthesis). Modifications to the heptapeptide core result in different in vitro activities for the three semisynthetic lipoglycopeptides. All three lipoglycopeptides contain lipophilic side chains, which prolong their half-life, help to anchor the agents to the cell membrane and increase their activity against Gram-positive cocci. In addition to inhibiting cell wall synthesis, telavancin and oritavancin are also able to disrupt bacterial membrane integrity and increase membrane permeability; oritavancin also inhibits RNA synthesis. Enterococci exhibiting the VanA phenotype (resistance to both vancomycin and teicoplanin) are resistant to both dalbavancin and telavancin, while oritavancin retains activity. Dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin exhibit activity against VanB vancomycin-resistant enterococci. All three lipoglycopeptides demonstrate potent in vitro activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis regardless of their susceptibility to meticillin, as well as Streptococcus spp. Both dalbavancin and telavancin are active against vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA), but display poor activity versus vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA). Oritavancin is active against both VISA and VRSA. Telavancin displays greater activity against Clostridium spp. than dalbavancin, oritavancin or vancomycin. The half-life of dalbavancin ranges from 147 to 258 hours, which allows for once-weekly dosing, the half-life of oritavancin of 393 hours may allow for one dose per treatment course, while telavancin requires daily administration. Dalbavancin and telavancin exhibit concentration-dependent activity and AUC/MIC (area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio) is the pharmacodynamic parameter that best describes their activities. Oritavancin's activity is also considered concentration-dependent in vitro, while in vivo its activity has been described by both concentration and time-dependent models; however, AUC/MIC is the pharmacodynamic parameter that best describes its activity. Clinical trials involving patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) have demonstrated that all three agents are as efficacious as comparators. The most common adverse effects reported with dalbavancin use included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation, while injection site reactions, fever and diarrhoea were commonly observed with oritavancin therapy. Patients administered telavancin frequently reported nausea, taste disturbance and insomnia. To date, no drug-drug interactions have been identified for dalbavancin, oritavancin or telavancin. All three of these agents are promising alternatives for the treatment of cSSSIs in cases where more economical options such as vancomycin have been ineffective, in cases of reduced vancomycin susceptibility or resistance, or where vancomycin use has been associated with adverse events.

Ceftaroline is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin currently under clinical investigation for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSI), including those caused by meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Ceftaroline has the ability to bind to penicillin-binding protein (PBP)2a, an MRSA-specific PBP that has low affinity for most other beta-lactam antibacterials. The high binding affinity of ceftaroline to PBP2a (median inhibitory concentration 0.90 microg/mL) correlates well with its low minimum inhibitory concentration for MRSA. Ceftaroline is active in vitro against Gram-positive cocci, including MRSA, meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (not E. faecium). The broad-spectrum activity of ceftaroline includes many Gram-negative pathogens but does not extend to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing or AmpC-derepressed Enterobacteriaceae or most nonfermentative Gram-negative bacilli. Ceftaroline demonstrates limited activity against anaerobes such as Bacteroides fragilis and non-fragilis Bacteroides spp. Limited data show that ceftaroline has a low propensity to select for resistant subpopulations. Ceftaroline fosamil (prodrug) is rapidly converted by plasma phosphatases to active ceftaroline. For multiple intravenous doses of 600 mg given over 1 h every 12 hours for 14 days, the maximum plasma concentration was 19.0 microg/mL and 21.0 microg/mL for first and last dose, respectively. Ceftaroline has a volume of distribution of 0.37 L/kg (28.3 L), low protein binding (<20%) and a serum half-life of 2.6 hours. No drug accumulation occurs with multiple doses and elimination occurs primarily through renal excretion (49.6%). Based on Monte Carlo simulations, dosage adjustment is recommended for patients with moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance 30-50 mL/min); no adjustment is needed for mild renal impairment. Currently, limited clinical trial data are available for ceftaroline. A phase II study randomized 100 patients with cSSSI to intravenous ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 hours or intravenous vancomycin 1 g every 12 hours with or without intravenous aztreonam 1 g every 8 hours (standard therapy) for 7-14 days. Clinical cure rates were 96.7% for ceftaroline compared with 88.9% for standard therapy. Adverse events were similar between groups and generally mild in nature. In a phase III trial, 702 patients with cSSSI were randomized to ceftaroline 600 mg or vancomycin 1 g plus aztreonam 1 g, each administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5-14 days. Ceftaroline was noninferior to vancomycin plus aztreonam in treating cSSSI caused by both Gram-positive and -negative pathogens. Adverse event rates were similar between groups. Ceftaroline is well tolerated, which is consistent with the good safety and tolerability profile of the cephalosporin class. In summary, ceftaroline is a promising treatment for cSSSI and CAP, and has potential to be used as monotherapy for polymicrobial infections because of its broad-spectrum activity. Further clinical studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline, and to define its role in patient care.

Ceftobiprole, an investigational cephalosporin, is currently in phase III clinical development. Ceftobiprole is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with demonstrated in vitro activity against Gram-positive cocci, including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and meticillin-resistant S. epidermidis, penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae, Enterococcus faecalis, Gram-negative bacilli including AmpC-producing Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but excluding extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing strains. Like cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, and cefepime, ceftobiprole demonstrates limited activity against anaerobes such as Bacteroides fragilis and non-fragilis Bacteroides spp. In single-step and serial passage in vitro resistance development studies, ceftobiprole demonstrated a low propensity to select for resistant subpopulations. Ceftobiprole, like cefepime, is a weak inducer and a poor substrate for AmpC beta-lactamases.Ceftobiprole medocaril, the prodrug of ceftobiprole, is converted by plasma esterases to ceftobiprole in <30 minutes. Peak serum concentrations of ceftobiprole observed at the end of a single 30-minute infusion were 35.5 mug/mL for a 500-mg dose and 59.6 mug/mL for a 750-mg dose. The volume of distribution of ceftobiprole is 0.26 L/kg ( approximately 18 L), protein binding is 16%, and its serum half-life is approximately 3.5 hours. Ceftobiprole is renally excreted ( approximately 70% in the active form) and systemic clearance correlates with creatinine clearance, meaning that dosage adjustment is required in patients with renal dysfunction. Ceftobiprole has a modest post-antibiotic effect (PAE) of approximately 0.5 hours for MRSA and a longer PAE of approximately 2 hours for penicillin-resistant pneumococci. Ceftobiprole, when administered intravenously at 500 mg once every 8 hours (2-hour infusion), has a >90% probability of achieving f T(>MIC) (free drug concentration exceeds the minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC]) for 40% and 60%, respectively, of the dosing interval for isolates with ceftobiprole MIC < or =4 and < or =2 mg/L, respectively.Currently, only limited clinical trial data are published for ceftobiprole. In a phase III trial, 784 patients with Gram-positive skin infections were randomized to treatment with either ceftobiprole 500 mg or vancomycin 1 g, each administered twice daily for 7-14 days; 93.3% of patients were clinically cured with ceftobiprole compared with 93.5% receiving vancomycin, and the eradication rate for MRSA infections was 91.8% for ceftobiprole compared with 90% for vancomycin. A phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial compared ceftobiprole 500 mg every 8 hours with vancomycin 1 g every 12 hours plus ceftazidime 1 g every 8 hours in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. Of the 828 patients enrolled, 31% had diabetic foot infections, 30% had abscesses, and 22% had wounds. No difference in clinical cure was reported in the clinically evaluable, intent-to-treat and microbiologically evaluable populations with cure rates of 90.5%, 81.9%, and 90.8%, respectively, in the ceftobiprole-treated patients and 90.2%, 80.8%, and 90.5%, respectively, in the vancomycin plus ceftazidime-treated group. Microbiologic eradication of Gram-positive cocci meticillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) [ceftobiprole 91% vs vancomycin plus ceftazidime 92%] and MRSA (ceftobiprole 87% vs vancomycin plus ceftazidime 80%), as well as Gram-negative bacilli, E. coli (ceftobiprole 89% vs vancomycin plus ceftazidime 92%), and P. aeruginosa (ceftobiprole 87% vs vancomycin plus ceftazidime 100%), was not significantly different between groups. Similar cures rates in the microbiologically evaluable population occurred in both groups for Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL)-positive MSSA and PVL-positive MRSA.Currently, ceftobiprole has completed phase III trials for complicated skin and skin structure infections due to MRSA and nosocomial pneumonia due to suspected or proven MRSA; phase III trials are also ongoing in community-acquired pneumonia. Ceftobiprole has so far demonstrated a good safety profile in preliminary studies with similar tolerability to comparators. The broad-spectrum activity of ceftobiprole may allow it to be used as monotherapy in situations where a combination of antibacterials might be required. Further clinical studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole and to define its role in patient care.

The carbapenems are beta-lactam antimicrobial agents with an exceptionally broad spectrum of activity. Older carbapenems, such as imipenem, were often susceptible to degradation by the enzyme dehydropeptidase-1 (DHP-1) located in renal tubules and required co-administration with a DHP-1 inhibitor such as cilastatin. Later additions to the class such as meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem demonstrated increased stability to DHP-1 and are administered without a DHP-1 inhibitor. Like all beta-lactam antimicrobial agents, carbapenems act by inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to and inactivating penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). Carbapenems are stable to most beta-lactamases including AmpC beta-lactamases and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. Resistance to carbapenems develops when bacteria acquire or develop structural changes within their PBPs, when they acquire metallo-beta-lactamases that are capable of rapidly degrading carbapenems, or when changes in membrane permeability arise as a result of loss of specific outer membrane porins. Carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem, doripenem) possess broad-spectrum in vitro activity, which includes activity against many Gram-positive, Gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria; carbapenems lack activity against Enterococcus faecium, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Compared with imipenem, meropenem and doripenem, the spectrum of activity of ertapenem is more limited primarily because it lacks activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus spp. Imipenem, meropenem and doripenem have in vivo half lives of approximately 1 hour, while ertapenem has a half-life of approximately 4 hours making it suitable for once-daily administration. As with other beta-lactam antimicrobial agents, the most important pharmacodynamic parameter predicting in vivo efficacy is the time that the plasma drug concentration is maintained above the minimum inhibitory concentration (T>MIC). Imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem have been studied in comparative clinical trials establishing their efficacy in the treatment of a variety of infections including complicated intra-abdominal infections, skin and skin structure infections, community-acquired pneumonia, nosocomial pneumonia, complicated urinary tract infections, meningitis (meropenem only) and febrile neutropenia. The current role for imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem in therapy remains for use in moderate to severe nosocomial and polymicrobial infections. The unique antimicrobial spectrum and pharmacokinetic properties of ertapenem make it more suited to treatment of community-acquired infections and outpatient intravenous antimicrobial therapy than for the treatment of nosocomial infections. Doripenem is a promising new carbapenem with similar properties to those of meropenem, although it appears to have more potent in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa than meropenem. Clinical trials are required to establish the efficacy and safety of doripenem in moderate to severe infections, including nosocomial infections.

The tetracycline class of antimicrobials exhibit a broad-spectrum of activity against numerous pathogens, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, as well as atypical organisms. These compounds are bacteriostatic, and act by binding to the bacterial 30S ribosomal subunit and inhibiting protein synthesis. The tetracyclines have been used successfully for the treatment of a variety of infectious diseases including community-acquired respiratory tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, as well in the management of acne. The use of tetracyclines for treating bacterial infections has been limited in recent years because of the emergence of resistant organisms with efflux and ribosomal protection mechanisms of resistance. Research to find tetracycline analogues that circumvented these resistance mechanisms has lead to the development of the glycylcyclines. The most developed glycylcycline is the 9-tert-butyl-glycylamido derivative of minocycline, otherwise known as tigecycline (GAR-936). The glycylcyclines exhibit antibacterial activities typical of earlier tetracyclines, but with more potent activity against tetracycline-resistant organisms with efflux and ribosomal protection mechanisms of resistance. The glycylcyclines are active against other resistant pathogens including methicillin-resistant staphylococci, penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Tigecycline is only available in an injectable formulation for clinical use unlike currently marketed tetracyclines that are available in oral dosage forms. Tigecycline has a significantly larger volume of distribution (> 10 L/kg) than the other tetracyclines (range of 0.14 to 1.6 L/kg). Protein binding is approximately 68%. Presently no human data are available describing the tissue penetration of tigecycline, although studies in rats using radiolabelled tigecycline demonstrated good penetration into tissues. Tigecycline has a half-life of 36 hours in humans, less than 15% of tigecycline is excreted unchanged in the urine. On the basis of available data, it does not appear that the pharmacokinetics of tigecycline are markedly influenced by patient gender or age. The pharmacodynamic parameter that best correlates with bacteriological eradication is time above minimum inhibitory concentration. Several animal studies have been published describing the efficacy of tigecycline. Human phase 1 and 2 clinical trials have been completed for tigecycline. Phase 2 studies have been conducted in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections, and in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections have been published as abstracts. Both studies concluded that tigecycline was efficacious and well tolerated. Few human data are available regarding the adverse effects or drug interactions resulting from tigecycline therapy; however, preliminary data report that tigecycline can be safely used, is well tolerated and that the adverse effects experienced were typical of the tetracyclines (i.e. nausea, vomiting and headache). Tigecycline appears to be a promising new antibacterial based on in vitro and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic activity; however more clinical data are needed to fully evaluate its potential.

The first macrolide, erythromycin A, demonstrated broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and was used primarily for respiratory and skin and soft tissue infections. Newer 14-, 15- and 16-membered ring macrolides such as clarithromycin and the azalide, azithromycin, have been developed to address the limitations of erythromycin. The main structural component of the macrolides is a large lactone ring that varies in size from 12 to 16 atoms. A new group of 14-membered macrolides known as the ketolides have recently been developed which have a 3-keto in place of the L-cladinose moiety. Macrolides reversibly bind to the 23S rRNA and thus, inhibit protein synthesis by blocking elongation. The ketolides have also been reported to bind to 23S rRNA and their mechanism of action is similar to that of macrolides. Macrolide resistance mechanisms include target site alteration, alteration in antibiotic transport and modification of the antibiotic. The macrolides and ketolides exhibit good activity against gram-positive aerobes and some gram-negative aerobes. Ketolides have excellent activity versus macrolide-resistant Streptococcus spp. Including mefA and ermB producing Streptococcus pneumoniae. The newer macrolides, such as azithromycin and clarithromycin, and the ketolides exhibit greater activity against Haemophilus influenzae than erythromycin. The bioavailability of macrolides ranges from 25 to 85%, with corresponding serum concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 12 mg/L and area under the concentration-time curves from 3 to 115 mg/L x h. Half-lives range from short for erythromycin to medium for clarithromycin, roxithromycin and ketolides, to very long for dirithromycin and azithromycin. All of these agents display large volumes of distribution with excellent uptake into respiratory tissues and fluids relative to serum. The majority of the agents are hepatically metabolised and excretion in the urine is limited, with the exception of clarithromycin. Clinical trials involving the macrolides are available for various respiratory infections. In general, macrolides are the preferred treatment for community-acquired pneumonia and alternative treatment for other respiratory infections. These agents are frequently used in patients with penicillin allergies. The macrolides are well-tolerated agents. Macrolides are divided into 3 groups for likely occurrence of drug-drug interactions: group 1 (e.g. erythromycin) are frequently involved, group 2 (e.g. clarithromycin, roxithromycin) are less commonly involved, whereas drug interactions have not been described for group 3 (e.g. azithromycin, dirithromycin). Few pharmacoeconomic studies involving macrolides are presently available. The ketolides are being developed in an attempt to address the increasingly prevalent problems of macrolide-resistant and multiresistant organisms.