Drug Evaluation

Ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections

*Author for correspondence:

Infectious Diseases Division, Santa Maria Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy

Clinica Malattie Infettive, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Santa Maria della Misericordia, Piazzale Santa Maria della Misericordia 15, 33100 Udine, Italy

Search for more papers by this author

Elda Righi

Infectious Diseases Division, Santa Maria Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:17 Feb 2015https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.14.112

View article

Abstract

ABSTRACT

High rates of morbidity and mortality have been linked to the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, especially in the hospital setting. Infections due to extended-spectrum-β-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (e.g., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae) and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa pose a major health threat and dramatically reduce the therapeutic options to achieve an appropriate treatment. There is a need for novel antimicrobials that could provide clinical efficacy toward multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum-β-lactamase and carbapenemase producers. Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a novel antipseudomonal cephalosporin associated with a well-established β-lactamase inhibitor currently in clinical development for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections, complicated urinary tract infections and nosocomial pneumonia. Phase II and III trials have shown high efficacy and good tolerability in complicated urinary and intra-abdominal infections compared with standard therapy. A study for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia is planned.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1 Correa L, Martino MD, Siqueira I et al. A hospital-based matched case–control study to identify clinical outcome and risk factors associated with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. BMC Infect. Dis. 13, 80 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Maragakis LL, Perencevich EN, Cosgrove SE. Clinical and economic burden of antimicrobial resistance. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 6, 751–763 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Pitout JD, Laupland KB. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: an emerging public-health concern. Lancet Infect. Dis. 8, 159–166 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
4 Tam VH, Chang KT, Abdelraouf K et al. Prevalence, resistance mechanisms, and susceptibility of multidrug-resistant bloodstream isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54, 1160–1164 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
5 Kanj SS, Kanafani ZA. Current concepts in antimicrobial therapy against resistant gram-negative organisms: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mayo Clin. Proc. 86, 250–259 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 Gupta N, Limbago BM, Patel JB, Kallen AJ. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: epidemiology and prevention. Clin. Infect. Dis. 53, 60–67 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Munoz-Price LS, Poirel L, Bonomo RA et al. Clinical epidemiology of the global expansion of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases. Lancet Infect. Dis. 13, 785–796 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS et al. Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 48, 1–12 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9 Moya B, Zamorano L, Juan C, Perez JL, Ge Y, Oliver A. Activity of a new cephalosporin, CXA-101 (FR264205), against beta-lactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa mutants selected in vitro and after antipseudomonal treatment of intensive care unit patients. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54, 1213–1217 (2010).• Summarizes the activity of ceftolozane against resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains selected both in vitro and from treatment of patients in the ICU.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
10 Jones RN, Kirby JT, Rhomberg PR. Comparative activity of meropenem in US medical centers (2007): initiating the 2nd decade of MYSTIC program surveillance. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 61, 203–213 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
11 Eagye KJ, Kuti JL, Sutherland CA, Christensen H, Nicolau DP. In vitro activity and pharmacodynamics of commonly used antibiotics against adult systemic isolates of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at forty US Hospitals. Clin. Ther. 31, 2678–2688 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
12 Bassetti M, Merelli M, Temperoni C, Astilean A. New antibiotics for bad bugs: where are we? Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 12, 22 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Clinicaltrials.gov. Study comparing the safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infection, including pyelonephritis. Identifier NCT01345929. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01345929.Google Scholar
14 Clinicaltrials.gov. Study comparing the safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infection, including pyelonephritis. Identifier NCT01345955. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01345955.Google Scholar
15 Clinicaltrials.gov. Study comparing the safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous meropenem in complicated intraabdominal infections. Identifier NCT01445678. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01445678.Google Scholar
16 Clinicaltrials.gov. Safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous meropenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections. Identifier NCT01445665. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01445665.Google Scholar
17 Clinicaltrials.gov. Study of intravenous ceftolozane/tazobactam vs. piperacillin/tazobactam in ventilator associated pneumonia. Identifier NCT02070757. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757?term=ceftolozane%2tazobactam&rank=1.Google Scholar
18 Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Ge Y. Chequerboard titration of cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) and tazobactam versus beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 65, 1972–1974 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
19 Titelman E, Karlsson IM, Ge Y, Giske CG. In vitro activity of CXA-101 plus tazobactam (CXA-201) against CTX-M-14- and CTX-M-15-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 70, 137–141 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
20 Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Farrell DJ, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of CXA-101, a novel cephalosporin tested in combination with tazobactam against Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacteroides fragilis strains having various resistance phenotypes. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55, 2390–2394 (2011).•• Reports the activity of ceftolozane against Gram-negative bacteria.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
21 Moya B, Zamorano L, Juan C, Ge Y, Oliver A. Affinity of the new cephalosporin CXA-101 to penicillin-binding proteins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54, 3933–3937 (2010).• Summary of the escape mechanisms of ceftolozane towards P. aeruginosa PBPs.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
22 Bonomo RA, Liu J, Chen Y, Ng L, Hujer AM, Anderson VE. Inactivation of CMY-2 beta-lactamase by tazobactam: initial mass spectroscopic characterization. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1547, 196–205 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
23 Bush K, Macalintal C, Rasmussen BA, Lee VJ, Yang Y. Kinetic interactions of tazobactam with beta-lactamases from all major structural classes. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 37, 851–858 (1993).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
24 Juan C, Zamorano L, Perez JL et al. Activity of a new antipseudomonal cephalosporin, CXA-101 (FR264205), against carbapenem-resistant and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54, 846–851 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
25 Moya B, Dotsch A, Juan C et al. Beta-lactam resistance response triggered by inactivation of a nonessential penicillin-binding protein. PLoS Pathog. 5, e1000353 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26 Umeh O, Cebrik D, Friedland I. A double-blind, randomized, Phase 2 study to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-101 (CXA) and intravenous ceftazidime (CTZ) in complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI). Presented at: 50th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Boston, MA, USA, 12–15 September 2010.Google Scholar
27 European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters, Version 3.1, 2013. www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints.Google Scholar
28 Brown NP, Pillar CM, Sahm DF, Ge Y. Activity profile of CXA-101 and CXA-101/tazobactam against target Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens. Presented at: 49th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Francisco, CA, USA, 12–15 September 2009.Google Scholar
29 Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Ge Y, Warner M. Activity of cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia group strains and isolates. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 34, 402–406 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
30 Giske CG, Karlsson I, Ge Y. CXA-101 (CXA) has high activity against clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa including ceftazidime-resistant isolates. Presented at: 49th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Francisco, CA, USA, 12–15 September 2009.Google Scholar
31 Riera E, Macia MD, Mena A et al. Activity of the new cephalosporin CXA-101 against biofilms of relevant P. aeruginosa (PA) phenotypes in cystic fibrosis chronic respiratory infection: mucoid and hypermutable strains. Presented at: 49th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Francisco, CA, USA, 12–15 September 2009.Google Scholar
32 Ge Y, Whitehouse MJ, Friedland I, Talbot GH. Pharmacokinetics and safety of CXA-101, a new antipseudomonal cephalosporin, in healthy adult male and female subjects receiving single- and multiple-dose intravenous infusions. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54, 3427–3431 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
33 Miller B, Hershberger E, Benziger D, Trinh M, Friedland I. Pharmacokinetics and safety of intravenous ceftolozane-tazobactam in healthy adult subjects following single and multiple ascending doses. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56, 3086–3091 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
34 Hong MC, Hsu DI, Bounthavong M. Ceftolozane/tazobactam: a novel antipseudomonal cephalosporin and β-lactamase-inhibitor combination 6. Infect. Drug Resist. 6, 215–223 (2013).• Summarizes the most important PK characteristics of ceftolozane/tazobactam.Medline, Google Scholar
35 Jacqueline C, Bretonniere C, Desessard C et al. In vivo activity of CXA- 101 against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) in a rabbit experimental model of pneumonia: comparison with ceftazidime (CAZ), piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP), and imipenem (IMP). Presented at: 51st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago, IL, USA, 17–20 September 2011.Google Scholar
36 Bulik CC, Tessier PR, Keel RA, Sutherland CA, Nicolau DP. In vivo comparison of CXA-101 (FR264205) with and without tazobactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam using human simulated exposures against phenotypically diverse Gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56, 544–549 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
37 Melchers MJ, Mavridou E, Seyedmojtaba S, van Mil A, Lagarde C, Mouton JV. Pharmacodynamics of ceftolozane combined with tazobactam in a neutropenic mouse thigh model. Presented at: 53rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Denver, CO, USA, 10–13 September 2013.Google Scholar
38 Van Scoy B, Mendes RE, Nicasio AM et al. Pharmacokinetics–pharmacodynamics of tazobactam in combination with ceftolozane in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 57, 2809–2814 (2013).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
39 Cabot G, Bruchmann S, Mulet X et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance development requires multiple mutations leading to overexpression and structural modification of AmpC. Presented at: 53rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Denver, CO, USA, 10–13 September 2013.Google Scholar
40 Van Scoy BD, Mendes RE, Castanheira M et al. Relationship between ceftolozane/tazobactam (TOL/TAZ) exposure and E. coli resistance amplification prevention in a hollow fiber infection model (HFIM). Presented at: 53rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Denver, CO, USA, 10–13 September 2013.Google Scholar
41 Wooley M. Bernardo P. Miller B. Hershberger E. Krishna G. Evaluation of the potential for drug–drug interactions between ceftolozane/tazobactam and drugs metabolised by CYP1A2 or CYP3A4 or transported by OAT1 and OAT3. Presented at: 24th European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID). Barcelona, Spain, 10–13 May 2014.Google Scholar
42 Wagenlehner F, Umeh O, Huntington J et al. Efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (CUTI)/pyelonephritis in hospitalised adults: results from the Phase 3 aspect-CUTI trial. Presented at: 24th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID). Barcelona, Spain, 10–13 May 2014.•• Presents the results of the Phase III trials in cUTIs comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam versus levofloxacin.Google Scholar
43 Lucasti C, Hershberger E, Miller B et al. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, Phase II trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with meropenem in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. doi:10.1002/jcph.395 (2014) (Epub ahead of print).•• Presents the results of the Phase II trials in cIAIs comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
44 Eckmann C. Hershberger E. Miller B et al. Efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) in hospitalised adults: results from the Phase 3 aspect-cIAI trial. Presented at: 24th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID). Barcelona, Spain, 10–13 May 2014.•• Presents the results of the Phase III trials in cIAIs comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem.Google Scholar

Vol. 10, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 302 times

History

Published online 17 February 2015

Published in print February 2015

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

M Bassetti serves on scientific advisory boards for Cubist, Pfizer, Inc., Merck, Novartis and Astellas Pharma, Inc.; and has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Cubist, Inc., Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas Pharma Inc. and Ranbaxy. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download