CAP Treatment Options; Are Quinolones the Same?

Transcription

1 CAP Treatment Options; Are Quinolones the Same? Tunis, Hammamat Yasmine July 2011 Jamal Wadi Al Ramahi M.D. Infectious Diseases Medicine Chairman IPC, Al Khalidi Hospital

2 Schema CAP Epidemiology CAP diagnosis; Sputum is still useful! Quinolones Quorum sensing; comparative antibiogram susceptibility testing Comparative quinolones MICs Induction of resistance among respiratory pathogens: are quinolones the same? PK/PD, Quinolones Quinolones Clinical Trials in CAP

3 LRTI: Most Common Etiological Pathogens of CAP Inpatient (non-icu) Aspiration Legionella species Mycoplasma pneumoniae Chlamydophila pneumoniae Respiratory viruses (Influenza A and B, adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and parainfluenza) S. Pneumoniae H. Influenzae Outpatient Staphylococcus aureus Gram-negative bacilli Inpatient (ICU) CID 2007; 44:S27 72

4 Haemophilus influenzae and β-lactamases (started after 1972) Before 1972, Penicillin and Ampicillin MICs of mg/l. MIC 90 changed from 1mg/dl to 32 mg/dl in β -lactamases positive ones. In a decade: Amoxicillin susceptibility dropped from 84% to 53.5% Cefuroxime susceptibility has dropped from 94 to 76% Cefixime susceptibility remains 100%, MIC 90 of 0.1mg/dl Jan Verhoef, International Journal of Antimicrobial agents 21 (2003)

5 Prevalence of β-lactamase Positive Haemophilus influenzae ,2 25,5 24,4 Percentages in Red Isolate Numbers in Black /38 30/111 25/98 94/ /30 7 4,5 3,2 3/93 6/133 7/100 Alexander Network Website,

6 H. influenzae Resistance TRUST 7 (2003) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ceftriaxone Amox/clav Cefuroxime Ampicillin Azithromycin TMP/SMX Cefixime N = 1212 R I S NICs : Ceftriaxone 0.015: Amox/clav 2: Cefuroxime 2: Ampicillin >8: Azithromycin 2: TMP-SMX >4: Cefixime TRUST = Tracking Resistance in the United States Today MIC 90 = minimum inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates; S = susceptible; I = intermediate; R = resistant Daniel F. Sahm PhD Clinical Cornerstone Volume 2003 Suppl Blondeau, Missaghi; Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, May 2004, Vol. 5, No. 5, *Jan Verhoef, International Journal of Antimicrobial agents 21 (2003)

7 Selected Quinolones MIC 90 Against Isolates of 0,035 0,07 0,03 0,06 0,025 0,02 0,015 0,01 0, ,015 Gemifloxacin N = ,03 Moxifloxacin N = ,015 0,015 Gatifloxacin N = 2764 Levofloxacin N = ,03 Ciprofloxacin N = 8523 MIC90 (μg/ml) 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0 0,015 Gemifloxacin N = 874 0,06 Moxifloxacin N = 250 0,03 Gatifloxacin N = 250 0,06 0,06 Levofloxacin N = 421 Ciprofloxacin N = 874 H. influenzae M. catarrhalis Alexander Project

8 S. Pneumoniae PCN-Resistant & PCN-Intermediate 12.7 % * * N = % N = 33,499 Trust us * 21.5 % * 14.6 % *Clinical Infectious Diseases 2009; 48. e 23 e33 Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004; 39:S142 50

9 S. pneumoniae: Prevalence of PCN-Resistant Strains Lebanon 59% 9% Turkey 24% 1% Kuwait 66% 0% UAE 71% 6% Tunisia 32% 18% Egypt 94% 0% Jordan 47% 0% Saudi Arabia 38% 13% Penicillin-intermediate (MIC µg/ml) Penicillin-resistant (MIC 2 µg/ml) Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004;10 Suppl 3:111, Abs No P507.

10 Worldwide Rates of macrolide and penicillin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae from Rates of macrolide and penicillin resistance PCN Eryth Penicillin resistance (Pen R) is defined as MIC 2 mg/l Erythromycin resistance (Ery R) is defined as MIC 1mg/L PROTEKT US: Prospective Resistant Organism Tracking and Epidemiology for the Ketolide Telithromycin, for Antimicrobial-Resistant Pneumococci CID 2005:41 (Suppl 4) S229

11 TRUST US, MDR-Streptococcus pneumoniae Resistant to 3 antimicrobial classes, (most commonly penicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and macrolides) Dr. Adolf W. Karchmer, Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004; 39:S142 50

12 Clinical indications for more diagnostic testing Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44:S27 72

13 Recovery of S. pneumoniae in Sputum Adults with CAP S. Pneumoniae, Percentage Recovered N = N = N = N = N = N = N = N = N = N = , N = N = N = John G. Bartlet. CID 2011;52(S4):S296 S304

14 Diagnostic Tests for Agents of CAP Expectorated Sputum CAP approved sputum samples for analysis is 32-76% Upper airways; colonized CFU/mL Sputum washing in tea strainer, careful fleck picking, and cytological screening SEC < 25/LPF, PMN > 25/LPF, dominant microorganisms Plate within 2 hours, or store at 4C O Sputum is good for: S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, H. influenzae, Enterobacteriaceae, M. catarrhalis, N. meningitidis, and pseudomonads John G. Bartlet. CID 2011;52(S4):S296 S304

15 Diagnostic Tests for Agents of CAP Transtracheal aspiration Originally described in 1959 Disfavored in the 1980s; patient non acceptance questionable complications sentiment that the procedure was unnecessary? Not good in chronic lung disease Transthoracic needle Was introduced in 1883 This procedure is now rarely performed; patient safety, patient acceptance, and need. False negative by not hitting the diseased area John G. Bartlet. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;52(S4):S296 S304

16 Diagnostic Tests for Agents of CAP Bronchoscopy Initially viewed as an excellent method Clear evidence of contamination by oral flora Largely restricted to NAP and VAP; rarely for CAP Alternative methods subsequently gained favor with threshold for: BAL samples is 10 4 CFU/mL (since 1978) PSB specimens is 10 3 CFU/mL (since 1979) John G. Bartlet. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;52(S4):S296 S304

17 Diagnostic Tests for Agents of CAP Urinary Antigens Detection and other tests Advantages Disadvantages and other tests Better yield even after antibiotic treatment. Sensitivity and specificity are less in non bacteremic Pneumonia One prospective, controlled trial positive results: 88 (82%, N =107) adults with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia false positive in just 3 (3%, N = 106) with septicemia due to other microbes. Sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 97% For C. pneumoniae and M. pneumoniae, there is no test that has been cleared by the FDA PCR assay that has been cleared by the FDA for detection of 12 respiratory tract viruses Good for Legionnaires disease, (accounts for 2% 6% of CAP) John G. Bartlet. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;52(S4):S296 S304

18 Why we need a microbiological Diagnosis? Pathogen-Directed Antibiotic Treatment Compared with Empiric Antibiotic Treatment for CAP Absolute Numbers Mortality % Length of Stay, Mean Days Clinical Failure Rate% , Pathogen-Directed Treatment N = 134 Empiric Treatment N = 128 John G. Bartlet. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;52(S4):S296 S304 van der Eerden. Thorax 2005; 60:672 8

19 Classification of quinolone antimicrobials First generation Nalidixic acid Cinoxacin Second generation Norfloxacin Ciprofloxacin (a) Lomefloxacin Ofloxacin Levofloxacin Third generation (b) Sparfloxacin Gatifloxacin Grepafloxacin Fourth generation (c) Trovafloxacin Moxifloxacin Gemifloxacin a Most potent agent against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. b More potent against Streptococcus pneumoniae and anaerobes, compared with earlier agents. c Most potent against S. pneumoniae and anaerobes. Vincent Andriole CID 2005:41, S114 (Suppl 2)

20 Trends of outpatient CAP Antimicrobial drug treatment by Year & percentage, across all age groups. 60 Percent Antimicrobial Treatment Tetracyclines Macrolides Quinolones Aminopenicillins Cephalosporines TMP-SMZ Others Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2005 CDC

21 Fluoroquinolone prescriptions, by age group, in the United States, Ellie J. C. Goldstein and Susan M. Garabedian-Ruffalo. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2002; 35:

22 Ciprofloxacin Use and Pneumococcal Resistance in Canada Ciprofloxacin Resistance (%) years 65 years Quinolone Prescriptions Prescriptions per 100 Person Year Dr. Donald E. Low, CID 2004; 38(Suppl 4):S357 62a

23 IDSA Guidelines in CAP Treatment Outpatient Inpatient, Non ICU Inpatient, ICU A macrolide (azithromycin, clarithromycin, or erythromycin) A: A Respiratory fluoroquinolone (moxifloxacin, the macrolide gemifloxacin, recommended. or levofloxacin [750 mg]) A respiratory A β-lactam fluoroquinolone (cefotaxime, (strong ceftriaxone, recommendation) or ampicillin-sulbactam) e.g. plus either Gemifloxacin, azithromycin Moxifloxacin, (level Gatifloxacin II evidence) or a fluoroquinolone (level I evidence) A ß-lactam (strong plus arecommendation) macrolide (strong recommendation) Preferred - lactam agents include cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ampicillin; ertapenem For forpcn-allergic selected patients; patients, with a respiratory doxycyclinefluoroquinolone as an alternative and to aztreonam are For Pseudomonas infection, use an antipneumococcal, antipseudomonal β- A respiratory fluoroquinolone should be used for penicillin-allergic lactam (piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, imipenem, or meropenem) plus patients either ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin (750-mg dose) B: A ß-lactam plus a macrolide or Preferred (High-dose amoxicillin [e.g., 1 gm TID] or amoxicillin-clavulanate or [2 gm BID] is Alternatives include ceftriaxone, cefpodoxime, and cefuroxime [500 mg BID]; doxycycline [level II evidence] is an alternative to the macrolide.) *Macrolide the alone above can β-lactam be used only plus for an aminoglycoside the treatment of and carefully azithromycin selected hospitalized patients with non severe disease and without risk factors the for above infection β-lactam with drug-resistant plus aminoglycoside pathogens. and an antipneumococcal However, fluoroquinolone such monotherapy (for cannot PCN-allergic be routinely patients, recommended. substitute aztreonam for the above β-lactam). (Moderate recommendation; level III evidence.) For CA-MRSA infection, add vancomycin or linezolid. *Due to increasing resistance rates (Moderate recommendation; level III evidence.) Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007;44:S27-S72

24 Do following guidelines lead to better results? Detroit, Michigan for the years for the Recommendation of Administering Antibiotics Within 4 hours Normal CXR,? CAP p 0.04 Received Antibiotics within 4 hours p Blood Culture Obtained p < Final Diagnosis of CAP p < ,9 N = ,6 65,8 58,9 53,8 46, ,6 28, before Guidlines 2005 After Guidelines Their was significant increase in antibiotic utilization for 2005 compared with 2003 (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in PSI or CURB-65 scores The 4 hour period was changed to 6-8 hours in 2007 IDSA Guidlines Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44:S27 72 Mohamad G. Fakih. CHEST 2007; 131: )

25 Adherence to ATS guidelines empirical antibiotic recommendations for 2001 and CAP outcome 780 CAP pt., in Barcelona Adherent Non-Adherent Multivariate analysis. Overall adherence 84% ICU adherence (52%) Adherence to the 2001 ATS guidelines was high except in CAP patients admitted to an intensive care unit ,6 10,4 7,6 3 Mortality Length of Stay p = < p = Percent Impact of Adherence ship Eur Respir J 2008; 32: DOI: /

26 Independent Associations Between Initial Antimicrobial Therapy & 30-day Mortality 2,46 Hazard Ratio LL, 95 % CI Mean UL, 95% CI 1,77 1,28 1,43 1,21 1,02 1,61 1,06 1 0,69 0,92 0,96 0,94 0,74 0,71 0,6 0,64 0,52 0,43 ß-L/ß-lase Aminglyc + Macrolides Non Pseud 3 rd NonPseud 3rd 2nd Ceph Fluoroquinolo macrolides any other agent only Ceph only Ceph + macrolide nes macrolide 6 7 alone 8 Drugs, 71(6), 16 April 2011, pp (14) ß -Lactam Resistant S. pneumoniae CID 2002:34 (Suppl 1) S23

27 Quinolones; MICs, resistance and Evolution of resistance (genotype/phenotype)

28 Selected Quinolones MIC90 Against Isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae MIC90 (μg/ml) 1,8 2 1,6 1,4 1,2 0,8 1 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0,03 0,25 0,5 1 2 Numbers below Antimicrobials denotes tested isolates Alexander Project

29 Fluoroquinolone Resistance Among Canadian isolates of S. pneumoniae Ciprofloxacin 1.8%, Levofloxacin 0.7% Gatifloxacin 0.6% Moxifloxacin 0.3% Gemifloxacin 0.1 TRUST, and PROTEKT US Surveillance Data Karchmer, CID 2004; 39:S Jacobs et al, JAC; 2003, 52,

30 Activity of Various Antibiotics Against Ciprofloxacin- Susceptible Pneumococcal strains with Different Susceptibility Patterns to Penicillin Antibiotic MIC 90 (µg/ml) Penicillinsusceptible (n=64) Penicillinintermediate (n=68) Penicillinresistant (n=75) Gemifloxacin Ciprofloxacin Levofloxacin Clarithromycin 0.03/ / />128.0 Amoxicillin Cefuroxime Azithromycin 0.5 >128 >128 Adopted from Todd A. Davies et al, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, February 2000, p , Vol. 44, No. 2

31 Activity of Various Quinolones Against 28 Ciprofloxacin-Resistant Pneumococcal Strains Fluoroquinolone Range of MIC (µg/ml) MIC 50 (µg/ml) MIC 90 (µg/ml) Ciprofloxacin >32 Gemifloxacin Levofloxacin 4 ->32 16 >32 Sparfloxacin Grepafolxacin Trovafloxacin Davies et al. AAC. 2000;44:

32 Comparative activities of fluoroquinolones against levofloxacin-susceptible S. pneumoniae clinical isolates N = 125 Levofloxacin Gatifloxacin Trovafloxacin Gemifloxacin >16 No. of strains with MICs (µg/ml) Adopted from Jorgrnsen et al. AAC, Nov. 2000, p

33 Comparative activities of fluoroquinolones against levofloxacin-resistant S. pneumoniae clinical isolates N = 57 Levofloxacin Gatifloxacin Trovafloxacin Gemifloxacin >16 No. of strains with MICs (µg/ml) Adopted from Jorgrnsen et al. AAC, Nov. 2000, p

34 The Evolution of Resistance to Quinolones MIC-3M MIC-2M 4 8 X MIC-1M 4 8 X MIC-WT 4 8 X Each step in the evolution represents a spontaneous mutation that diminishes quinolone susceptibility 4-8 fold. Thus the MIC of the quinolone used to select mutants from the wild type (WT) is 4-8 fold diminished for successive first-step (1M), second-step (2M), and third-step (3M) mutants. Resistance among the Quinolones x CID 2001:32 (Suppl 1)

35 The Evolution of Resistance to Quinolones Cross-resistance Among the Quinolones MIC-3M Drug A MIC-2M 256 MIC-3M MIC-1M 64 MIC-2M 64 MIC-WT 4.0 MIC-1M 16 2µg/ml 1.0 MIC-WT 1.0 Drug B 0.25 If both quinolones achieve a concentration of 2 µg/ml at the site of infection, the 8-fold rule would predict that quinolone B would provide the most effective therapy and be less likely to select for resistance because achievable concentrations exceed the MIC for the wild-type and first-step mutants. Resistance among the Quinolones x CID 2001:32 (Suppl 1)

36 The Evolution of Resistance to Quinolones Dichotomous resistance among the quinolones MIC-3M Drug A MIC-2M MIC-1M MIC-2M MIC-3M MIC-WT MIC-1M Drug B A as selected by quinolone A is shown (left), with each successive mutation causing diminished susceptibility to quinolone A. Because the mechanisms responsible for the mutations in the firststep (1M) and third-step (3M) mutants do not affect susceptibility to quinolone B, a pattern of dichotomous resistance emerges. Only the mutation in the second-step (2M) mutant reduces susceptibility to quinolone B. Resistance among the Quinolones x CID 2001:32 (Suppl 1)

37 Effect of ParC and GyrA mutations on the in vitro MICs of 4 Quinolones against S. pneumoniae 50 Fold Change in MIC ParC only GyrA Only ParC and GyrA Ciprofloxacin Levofloxacin Moxifloxacin Gemifloxacin topoisomerase IV topoisomerase II IV and II George M. Eliopoulos, Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004; 38(Suppl 4):S350 6 Stephen H. Gillespie et al. Microbial Drug Resistance. June 2002, 8(2): L. MARK FISHER.AAC. Nov. 2000, p

38 Mutant Prevention Concentration Initially described in M. bovis and S. aureus It is the difference between wild bacteria inhibited at MIC and other colonies inhibited at a higher concentration (i.e. first step mutant), the higher concentration was coined MPC. Other definition; The MIC of most first step mutant in a heterogeneous population using standard inoculum of 10 5 CFU/ml as recommended by CLSI. Yuzhi Dong, et al. AAC, July 1999, p Blondeau & Missaghi. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2004, 5 (5): AAC, Feb. 2001, p

39 Mutant Prevention Concentration Dual targeting fluoroquinolone e.g. Gemifloxacin and moxifloxacin have less potential to select out mutants Based on their potential for restricting the selection of resistant mutants, the five fluoroquinolones, in descending order, were found to be Gemifloxacin > moxifloxacin > trovafloxacin > gatifloxacin > grepafloxacin > levofloxacin Yuzhi Dong, et al. AAC, July 1999, p AAC, Feb. 2001, p Blondeau & Missaghi. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2004, 5 (5): AAC, Apr. 2007, p

40 Quinolones and Pharmacodynamics/Pharmacokinetics

41 PK/PD: Time Dependent Killing Drug Concentration Time Above MIC MIC T > MIC Β-lactams Dose T 1 T 2 Time Dose Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44:79 86

42 PK/PD: Concentration Dependent Killing Drug Concentration C max Or Peak C max / MIC Aminoglycosides Fluoroquinolones Daptomycin Glycopeptides ABDC Ecchinocandins MIC Dose Time Dose Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44:79 86

43 PK/PD: Exposure Dependent Killing AUC 0-24 / MIC Drug Concentration MIC Aminoglycosides Fluoroquinolones Daptomycin Glycopeptides Ketolides Macrolides Clindamycin Streptogramins Oxazolidonoes Tetracyclines Glycycyclines Triazoles Ecchinocandins Dose Time Dose Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44:79 86

44 Desired AUC 24 /MIC and fauc 24 /MIC ratios for major pathogens are: Concentration MPC MIC Time Pneumococcal 30 to 50 Gram-negative organisms In immunocompromised patients on intravenous therapy, a ratio of at least 100 is required Adopted: Peter C. Appelbaum. AAC, 2010 Feb:

45 Β-Lactam, poor killing with increased concentrations Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44:79 86 Clinical Infectious Diseases 2001; 33(Suppl 3):S233 7 W. Craig Clinical Infectious Diseases 1998;26:1 12

46 Different Relationships for gatifloxacin between above Parameters for 2 strains of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi with differing MIC values and changes in bacterial density o a susceptible strain with a GyrA mutation (Asp87rAsn) and a gatifloxacin MIC of 0.5 mg/ml a resistant strain with GyrA (Ser83rTry; Asp87rGly) and ParC (Thr57rSer; Ser80rIle) mutations and a gatifloxacin MIC of 4 mg/ml. GC, growth control. AUCFU, area under the colony-forming unit time curve Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44:79 86

47 Relationship between the 24-hour AUC/MIC ratio and survival among animal models infected with a variety of gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens The solid and open circles represent data obtained in the thigh-infection model and other animal models, respectively The 24-hour AUC/MIC is the sum of the AUCs for all doses administered every 24 hours divided by the MIC W. Craig Clinical Infectious Diseases 1998;26:1 12

48 Relationship between the 24-hour AUC/MIC ratio and the ME and CE of Ciprofloxacin in 64 patients with serious bacterial infections. Number on column tops are total of 64 patients The 24-hour AUC/MIC is the sum of the AUCs for all doses administered every 24 hours divided by the MIC W. Craig Clinical Infectious Diseases 1998;26:1 12

49 Correlation of PK/PD parameters in patients treated with 500 mg of levofloxacin for 5-14 Days Number of Patients 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AUC/MIC < 25 Peak/MIC < 3 Success Failure Percent Failure AUC/MIC Peak/MIC 3-12 N = 134 Patients With RTI, cuti, STI AUC/MIC >100 Peak/MIC > 12 Jacobs MR. Clin Micobiol infec November: l7(11)

50 MPC, AUC/MIC90 Concept of S. pneumoniae 300 The exact role of protein binding in calculation of the above number is also a matter of discussion Pneumococcal Gram-negative organisms Immunocompromised 100 AUC 0-24 /MIC90 ratio Total Unbound 0 Ciprofloxacin 500 mg/day Ciprofloxacin 750 mg/day Levofloxacin 500 mg/dose Levofloxacin 750 mg/dose Trovafloxacin 200 mg/dose Moxifloxacin 400 mg/dose Gatifloxacin 400 mg/dose Gemifloxacin 320 mg/dose AAC, Feb. 2010, p Christopher R. Frei, et al. Pharmacotherapy. 2005;25(9): : Jacobs MR. Clin Micobiol infec. Vol 7, Num 11, November 2001

51 Potential for Resistance Evolution

52 RFQ Resistance in S. pneumoniae: AUIC (AUC /MIC) Ratio and Resistance Development with Gatifloxacin, Gemifloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin Simulation model, to 10 9 log10 CFU/ml S. pneumonia ATCC 49619, and BSP2443 Strains have no mutations in the (QRDRs) of parc, pare, gyra, and gyrb and no efflux Antimicrobial were infused to simulate target f AUC/MIC Protein binding (manufacturer guidelines); 20% for gatifloxacin, 60% for gemifloxacin, 30% for levofloxacin and 40% for moxifloxacin Objective: Head-to-head comparison of resistance development potentials between the four respiratory fluoroquinolone QRDR: quinolone resistance-determining regions Michael J, Ryback.AAC, 2007 Apr:

53 Time-kill assessment and resistance development at fauc/mic of Selected quinolones versus WT S. pneumoniae (BSP2443 and ATCC 49619). Each graph represents in vitro model results at the highest simulated fauc/mic for each organism where resistance development occurred (P = 0.001; 95%[CI], 13 to 50) (P = 0.001; 95%, CI, 29 to 68) (P = ; 95% CI, 44 to 81) Michael J, Ryback.AAC. Apr. 2007, p

54 Conclusion (f AUC/MIC) Clinical doses of gatifloxacin, gemifloxacin, and moxifloxacin exceed the f AUC/MIC resistance breakpoint against wild-type S. neumoniae With regard to the prevention of resistance, moxifloxacin = gemifloxacin > levofloxacin. These differences possibly related to structural variations within the cslass. Using a fluoroquinolone regimen that exceeds the PK/PD breakpoint for resistance development may decrease the emergence of resistance in patients with S. pneumoniae infections. Michael J, Ryback.AAC. Apr. 2007, p

55 In vitro susceptibilities of S. pneumoniae strains to Some Quinolones and mutations identified in the QRDRs (parc, gyra, and gyrb) None Efflux Par C Par C Par C Gyr A Par C + Gyr A CIP: Ciprofloxacin LVX: Levofloxacin MFX: Moxifloxacin QRDR: Quinolone resistance determining region AAC, May 2004, p

56 The Evolution of Resistance to Quinolones Dichotomous resistance among the quinolones MIC-3M Drug A MIC-2M MIC-1M MIC-2M MIC-3M MIC-WT MIC-1M Drug B A as selected by quinolone A is shown (left), with each successive mutation causing diminished susceptibility to quinolone A. Because the mechanisms responsible for the mutations in the firststep (1M) and third-step (3M) mutants do not affect susceptibility to quinolone B, a pattern of dichotomous resistance emerges. Only the mutation in the second-step (2M) mutant reduces susceptibility to quinolone B. Resistance among the Quinolones x CID 2001:32 (Suppl 1)

57 Clinical Studies

58 Severe pneumococcal pneumonia: impact of new quinolones on prognosis Guidelines propose β-lactam + a quinolone or a macrolide for severe CAP To evaluate new versus old RFQ combined with β-lactam Retrospective, consecutive patients admitted in ICU January January 2009 Severe CAP (PSI 4) All were PCN-S pneumococci, treated with a β-lactam + RFQ Doses and Antiinfectives: Amoxicillin > 50 mg/kg/d: Cefotaxime > 50 mg/kg/d: Ceftriaxone > 20 mg/kg/d: Piperacillin > 200 mg/kg/d: Ofloxacin = 200 mg/12 h: Ciprofloxacin = 400 mg/12 h; Levofloxacin = 500 mg/12 h Olive et al. BMC Infectious Diseases 2011, 11:66

59 Severe pneumococcal pneumonia: impact of new quinolones on prognosis N = 70 n = 38 β-lactam combined with ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin n = 32 β-lactam combined with levofloxacin 26 (37.1%) patients died in the ICU Independent factors associated with mortality in ICU were: septic shock on ICU admission (AOR = 10.6; 95% CI ; p = ) age > 70 yrs. (AOR = 4.88; 95% CI ; p = 0.01) initial treatment with a β-lactam with ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin (AOR = 4.1; 95% CI ; p = 0.03) Olive et al. BMC Infectious Diseases 2011, 11:66

60 15-day survival curves in patients treated with β-lactam combined with levofloxacin versus β-lactam combined with ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin β-lactam + levofloxacin Survival Distribution Function β-lactam + ciprofloxaicn or ofloxacin Log rank test: p = Time (Days) Adopted: Olive et al. BMC Infectious Diseases 2011, 11:66

61 ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin levofloxacin Conclusion: Results suggest that, when combined to a β-lactam, Levofloxacin is associated with lower mortality than Ofloxacin or Ciprofloxacin in severe pneumococcal CAP Olive et al. BMC Infectious Diseases 2011, 11:66

62 CAP Recovery in the Elderly (CAPRIE): Efficacy and Safety of Moxifloxacin Therapy versus That of Levofloxacin Therapy Age, 65 years or older hospitalized patients with CAP Efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin vs. levofloxacin for the treatment of CAP Intravenous/oral moxifloxacin (400 mg daily) or intravenous/oral levofloxacin (500 mg daily) for 7 14 days PPP; 141 in the moxifloxacin, and 140 in the levofloxacin group test-of-cure; the primary efficacy end point was between days 5-21 after completion of therapy Clinical Infectious Diseases 2006; 42:73 81

63 Clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit for the clinically valid population, stratified by CAP severity and age No Statistical significant Difference in Both Sides, tested by P value and C.I. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2006; 42:73 81

64 Clinical outcomes for the clinically valid population Moxifloxacin Levofloxacin ,9 95% CI ( ) P= % CI (-1.9 to 11.9) P=0.2 Clinical Recovery (% of Patients) Faster Recovery 92,9 87,9 80 During Therapy Clinical recovery during therapy (between days 3 and 5 after the start of treatment) Test of Cure Clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit i.e., primary efficacy outcome) Clinical Infectious Diseases 2006; 42:73 81

65 Efficacy of short-course antibiotic regimens for CAP: a meta-analysis PURPOSE: There is little consensus on the appropriate duration of antibiotic treatment for CAP. METHODS: Searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL Studies included RCT that compared short-course ( 7) versus extended-course (>7 days) antibiotic monotherapy for CAP in adults The primary outcome measure was failure to achieve clinical improvement. Li JZ, Winston LG, Moore DH, Bent S. Am J Med Sep;120(9):

66 Efficacy of short-course antibiotic regimens for CAP: a meta-analysis RESULTS 7 >7 Clinical failure Risk of mortality Bacteriologic eradication 15 RCT, N = 2796 patients azithromycin (n=10), ß-lactams (n=2), fluoroquinolones (n=2), ketolides (n=1), 3 studies utilized the same antibiotic whereas 9 involved an antibiotic of the same class. No difference (0.89, 95% CI, ) No differences (0.81, 95% CI, ) No difference (1.11, 95% CI, ) Subgroup analyses: a trend toward favorable clinical efficacy for the short-course regimens in all antibiotic classes (range of relative risk, ) Conclusion Adults with mild to moderate CAP can be safely and effectively treated with an antibiotic regimen of 7 days Less antimicrobial exposure May be less resistance Less cost Better patinets adherence and tolerability. Li JZ, Winston LG, Moore DH, Bent S. Am J Med Sep;120(9):

67 High-Dose, Short-Course Levofloxacin for the treatment of mild to severe CAP A multicenter, randomized, double-blind investigation 93, , , ,5 90 ITT 528 patients C.E M.E 750 mg for 5 days 500 mg for 10 days These data demonstrate that 750 mg of levofloxacin per day for 5 days is at least as effective as 500 mg per day for 10 days for treatment of mild-to-severe CAP. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2003; 37:752 60

68 Gemifloxacin QD for 5 days versus 7 days for the treatment of CAP: a randomized, multicentre, double-blind study Objectives: Short-course therapy has been advocated for the treatment of CAP The efficacy and safety of 5 and 7 day courses of gemifloxacin for outpatient treatment of mild moderate CAP were compared. Patients and methods: A multicentre, double-blind, parallel group RCT 320 mg of oral gemifloxacin once daily for 5 or 7 days. Over 95% of all patients in each cohort had a Fine score of III The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical cure at follow-up (days 24 30) Secondary outcomes were clinical and bacteriological responses at the EOT (days 7 9) and bacteriological and radiological responses at follow-up Adverse events (AEs) were also monitored. Thomas M. File, Jr, Lionel A. Mandell, et al. JAC (March, 2007) 60, 1 9

69 Gemifloxacin once daily for 5 days versus 7 days for the treatment of CAP: PPS 5 Days N = Days N = EOT= 7 9 days Follow-up visit = days Clinical Responses 5 days 7 days Discontinuation rates 1.2% 2% Rash (P = 0.04). 0.4% 2.8% Bacteriological Responses Conclusions: Gemifloxacin once daily for 5 days is not inferior to 7 days in the PPP with respect to clinical, bacteriological and radiological efficacy Thomas M. File, Jr, Lionel A. Mandell, et al. JAC (March, 2007) 60, 1 9

70 Gemifloxacin for the treatment of CAP and AECB: a meta-analysis of RCT To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of gemifloxacin for the treatment of patients with CAP A meta-analysis of RCTs comparing gemifloxacin with other approved antibiotics PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, with no language restrictions. Primary outcome measures: (1) all-cause mortality (2) treatment success in ITT and CE populations N RCT = 10 comparing gemifloxacin with other quinolones (in 5 RCTs) and β- lactams and/or macrolides (in 5 RCTs), N patients = 3940 patients LIU You-ning, Falagas E. Matthew, et al. Chinese Medical Journal 2012;125(4):

71 Main characteristics of randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis and outcome TOCV: test-of-cure visit. CE: clinical efficacy. ITT: intent to treat. NA: not available. RCT: randomized controlled trial MC: multicenter. DB: double blind. SB: single blinded Adopted: LIU You-ning, Falagas E. Matthew, et al. Chinese Medical Journal 2012;125(4):

72 Clinical success in ITT patients Analysis in subgroup of different antibiotics: gemifloxacin compared with other quinolones Analysis in subgroup of different diseases: CAP LIU You-ning, Falagas E. Matthew, et al. Chinese Medical Journal 2012;125(4):

73 All-cause mortality Adopted: LIU You-ning, Falagas E. Matthew, et al. Chinese Medical Journal 2012;125(4):

74 Gemifloxacin for the treatment of CAP and AECB: a meta-analysis of RCT Conclusions Overall, the treatment success was higher for gemifloxacin when compared with other antibiotics ITT- OR 1.39, 95% C.I CE-OR 1.33, 95% C.I No significant difference in microbiological success No significant difference in all-cause mortality The total drug related AE were: similar for gemifloxacin when compared with other quinolones (0.89, ) lower when compared with β-lactams and/or macrolides (0.71, ) gemifloxacin was associated with less cases of diarrhoea (0.66, ) more rashes compared with other antibiotics (2.36, ) The available evidence suggests that gemifloxacin 320 mg oral daily is equivalent or superior to other approved antibiotics in effectiveness and safety for CAP LIU You-ning, Falagas E. Matthew, et al. Chinese Medical Journal 2012;125(4):

75 Hospital visits and costs following outpatient treatment of CAP with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin Outpatient To differentiate between outpatient treatment with levofloxacin and moxifloxacin. Retrospective Treatment with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin Subsequent 30-day risk of pneumonia-related hospital visits and 30-day health care costs Results: N(15,472 levofloxacin and 6474 moxifloxacin) N = 6352 matched pairs levofloxacin treatment was associated with a: 35% reduction in the odds of pneumonia-related hospital visits (odds ratio = 0.65, P = 0.004) lower per-patient costs for pneumonia-related hospital visits ($102 vs. $210, P = 0.001) lower pneumonia-related total costs ($363 vs. $491, P < 0.001) lower total costs ($1308 vs. $1446, P < 0.001) vs. moxifloxacin over the 30-day observation period. James E. Signorovitch et al. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2010 February: 26(2);

76 A comparison of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin use in CAP patients in the US: focus on length of stay Hospitalized patients: A retrospective study. Cohorts were matched 1:1 N = levofloxacin = mg I.V QD Initially treated for the first 3 days moxifloxacin = mg I.V. QD Outcome measure: Complications and relationship of LOS and comorbidities were examined. Results: patients treated with levofloxacin had a significantly shorter mean hospital compared with moxifloxacin (5.8 vs. 6.4 days; least squares mean difference = 0.54 days; p = 0.020) Hospitalization costs were also lower for the levofloxacin patients (least squares mean difference = US$129; p = 0.753) Complications; similar Jeff Schein et al. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2008: 24(3);

77 Comparative Analysis of Length of Stay, Total Costs, and Treatment Success between Intravenous Moxifloxacin 400 mg and Levofloxacin 750 mg among Hospitalized Patients with CAP (US) Retrospective, Adults patients identified in the Premier Perspective comparative database I.V. moxifloxacin 400 mg or I.V. levofloxacin 750 mg for 3 days were Primary outcomes were LOS and costs Secondary outcomes included treatment consistency, which was defined as: 1) no additional IV moxifloxacin or levofloxacin after 1 day off study drug 2) no switch to another IV antibiotic 3) no addition of another IV antibiotic Howard Friedman, Science Direct 2009 November December:12(8);

78 Comparative Analysis of Length of Stay, Total Costs, and Treatment Success between Intravenous Moxifloxacin 400 mg and Levofloxacin 750 mg among Hospitalized Patients with CAP N = 7720 patients 6040 receiving moxifloxacin = 1680 receiving levofloxacin mean LOS (5.87 vs days; P = ) and total costs/patient ($7302 vs. $6362; P < ) (significantly greater with moxifloxacin) Propensity matching (well matched for demographic, clinical, hospital, and payor characteristics) 1300 Moxi 1300 Levo mean LOS (5.63 vs days; P = 0.462) and total costs ($6624 vs. $6473; P = 0.476) Treatment consistency Moxi (propesity) = before 81.0% s = After 82.8% P = P = Treatment consistency Levo (propensity)= before 78.9% s = After 78% Howard Friedman, Science Direct 2009 November December:12(8);

79 To Wrap Up Penicillin- and cipro-resistant S. pneumoniae do not preclude using other generations RFQ Based on several surveillance studies RFQ resistance is low and steady so far (lowest for the 4 th generation e.g. Gemifloxacin, moxifloxacin) *In this context, all quinolones are not equal and should not be used interchangeably *Vincent Andriole CID 2005:41, S114 (Suppl 2)

80 To Wrap Up *Key observations have demonstrated that, not only is the level of resistance different among various quinolones, but it also is different among the various species of bacteria. Speed of Recovery Occurs faster with Fourth Generation Quinolones Compared with Second generation. Using Mortality as an end point, RFQ were the same. 4 th generation RFQ treatment is more consistant Cost saving may be associated with some quinolones Drugs, 71(6), 16 April 2011, pp (14 *Vincent Andriole CID 2005:41, S114 (Suppl 2)

81 Thank You Discussion? Comments! Questions? CAP Treatment Options; Are quinolones the Same? Tunis, Yasmine Hammat May 2012 Jamal Wadi Al Ramahi M.D.