Search

Objectives: To examine the incidence of pancreatitis among subjects enrolled in the tigecycline clinical trial programme, summarize cases and examine concomitant use of other pancreatitis-causing medications.Methods: Subject data from Phase 3 and 4 comparative tigecycline studies were included in the analysis; investigator-reported adverse events of 'pancreatitis', 'necrotizing pancreatitis' or 'pancreas disorder' were reviewed. Data were summarized and cases were reported. No statistical comparisons were made. The incidence of overall pancreatitis with 95% CIs was calculated. The Wilson score method was used to calculate CIs.Results: Nineteen subjects with investigator-determined pancreatitis were identified from the programme database, which included 3788 subjects treated with tigecycline and 3646 subjects treated with a comparator. There were 9 cases identified among the tigecycline-treated subjects [9 of 3788 (0.24%; 95% CI, 0.11-0.45)] and 10 cases among the comparator-treated subjects [10 of 3646 (0.27%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50)]. The demographic characteristics of the subjects with pancreatitis were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of tigecycline therapy was 8.0 days compared with 11.0 days of comparator treatment. Concomitant or prior exposure to a Badalov class I medication was evident in the majority of subjects who developed pancreatitis. A numerically higher number of tigecycline-treated subjects were exposed to furosemide prior to the onset of pancreatitis than comparator-treated subjects.Conclusions: Pancreatitis was uncommon in subjects treated with tigecycline, with an occurrence of <1%. Concomitant medications known to cause pancreatitis should be considered when prescribing tigecycline, but may not identify those at risk of developing pancreatitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tigecycline belongs to a new class of tetracyclines, the glycylcyclines, less than 20% of which is metabolized in the liver. Twenty-five patients with cirrhosis with varying degrees of functional hepatic reserve (Child-Pugh A, n = 10; B, n = 10; C, n = 5) and 23 healthy adults, matched by age, sex, weight, and smoking habits, received 100 mg of tigecycline infused intravenously over 60 minutes. Serum and urine samples were collected up to 120 hours after dosing. Pharmacokinetic data were derived using non-compartmental methods. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in healthy volunteers were nausea (56.5%), vomiting (21.7%), and headache (21.7%) and in the patients with cirrhosis, albuminuria (12%). Mean (±1 SD) tigecycline clearance values were 29.8 ± 11.3 L/h in healthy subjects and 31.2 ± 13.9 L/h (Child-Pugh A), 22.1 ± 9.3 L/h (Child-Pugh B), and 13.5 ± 2.7 L/h (Child-Pugh C) in the patients. A single intravenous dose of tigecycline 100 mg was safe and well-tolerated in patients with cirrhosis with varying degrees of hepatic functional reserve. No adjustment of tigecycline maintenance dosage is warranted in patients with compensated or moderately decompensated cirrhosis; doses should be reduced by 50%, to 25 mg, every 12 hours in patients with severely decompensated disease. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: To compare efficacy and safety of a tigecycline regimen with an imipenem/cilastatin regimen in hospital-acquired pneumonia patients, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, study evaluated 945 patients. Coprimary end points were clinical response in clinically evaluable (CE) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) populations at test-of-cure. Cure rates were 67.9% for tigecycline and 78.2% for imipenem (CE patients) and 62.7% and 67.6% (c-mITT patients), respectively. A statistical interaction occurred between ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and non-VAP subgroups, with significantly lower cure rates in tigecycline VAP patients compared to imipenem; in non-VAP patients, tigecycline was noninferior to imipenem. Overall mortality did not differ between the tigecycline (14.1%) and imipenem regimens (12.2%), although more deaths occurred in VAP patients treated with tigecycline than imipenem. Overall, the tigecycline regimen was noninferior to the imipenem/cilastatin regimen for the c-mITT but not the CE population; this difference appears to have been driven by results in VAP patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]