Outcomes in participants with ventilated nosocomial pneumonia and organ failure treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem: a subset analysis of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ASPECT-NP trial

Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Andrew F. Shorr, Richard G. Wunderink, Marin H. Kollef, Jean François Timsit, Brian Yu, Jennifer A. Huntington, Erin Jensen, Christopher J. Bruno

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: The pivotal ASPECT-NP trial showed ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we evaluated treatment outcomes by degree of respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction. Methods: This was a subset analysis of data from ASPECT-NP, a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). Adults with vHABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam or 1 g meropenem every 8 h for 8–14 days. Outcomes in participants with a baseline respiratory component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (R-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of severe respiratory failure), cardiovascular component of the SOFA score (CV-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of shock), or R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 were compared by treatment arm. The efficacy endpoint of primary interest was 28-day all-cause mortality. Clinical response, time to death, and microbiologic response were also evaluated. Results: There were 726 participants in the intention-to-treat population; 633 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 (312 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 321 meropenem), 183 with CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (84 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 99 meropenem), and 160 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (69 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 91 meropenem). Baseline characteristics, including causative pathogens, were generally similar in participants with R-SOFA ≥ 2 or CV-SOFA ≥ 2 across treatment arms. The 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.7% and 24.0% [difference: 0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 6.4, 6.9] for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 33.3% and 30.3% (difference: − 3.0%, 95% CI − 16.4, 10.3) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 34.8% and 30.8% (difference: − 4.0%, 95% CI − 18.6, 10.3), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Clinical cure rates were as follows: 55.8% and 54.2% (difference: 1.6%, 95% CI − 6.2, 9.3) for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 53.6% and 55.6% (difference: − 2.0%, 95% CI − 16.1, 12.2) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 53.6% and 56.0% (difference: − 2.4%, 95% CI − 17.6, 12.8), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Time to death was comparable in all SOFA groups across both treatment arms. A higher rate of microbiologic eradication/presumed eradication was observed for CV-SOFA ≥ 2 and R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 with ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem. Conclusions: The presence of severe respiratory failure or shock did not affect the relative efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem; either agent may be used to treat critically ill patients with vHABP/VABP. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757. Registered 25 February 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757

Original languageEnglish
Article number8
JournalAnnals of Intensive Care
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2023

Keywords

  • ASPECT-NP
  • Gram-negative
  • Nosocomial
  • Pneumonia
  • Pseudomonas
  • Shock
  • SOFA

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes in participants with ventilated nosocomial pneumonia and organ failure treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem: a subset analysis of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ASPECT-NP trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this