The efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections - the European experience
- PMID: 19036670
- DOI: 10.1179/joc.2008.20.Supplement-1.12
The efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections - the European experience
Abstract
The polymicrobial nature of complicated intra-abdominal infections makes these infections particularly challenging to treat. The initial selection of antimicrobial therapy is therefore extremely important. Inappropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy has been shown to delay clinical resolution, increase length of hospital stay, and increase the risk of mortality. In addition, the increasing frequency with which resistant isolates (e.g., extended spectrum beta-lactamases [ESBLs]) are recovered from patients mandates that empiric antimicrobial therapy covers these difficult-to-treat organisms. Here, we assessed the efficacy of a new antimicrobial agent, tigecycline. This is a combined analysis of data from the European sites that participated in two Phase III, double-blind trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tigecycline, versus that of imipenem/cilastatin, in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Patients received either tigecycline (initial dose of 100 mg, followed by 50 mg intravenously every 12 hours) or imipenem/cilastatin (500/500 mg intravenously every 6 hours) for 5-14 days. The primary end point was the clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (12-44 days after therapy) in the co-primary microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiological modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations. For the ME group, clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were 92.4% (219/237) for tigecycline versus 88.8% (198/223) for imipenem/cilastatin (95% CI = -2.2, 9.4). Clinical cure rates for the mmITT populations were 87.3% (247/283) for tigecycline versus 83.5% (228/273) for imipenem/cilastatin (95% CI = -2.5, 10.0) at the test-of-cure visit. Pretherapy in vitro activity against baseline isolates for tigecycline and imipenem/cilastatin were also determined. The mean MIC(90) for tigecycline against the most commonly isolated aerobes and anaerobes was < or =2.0 microg/mL. No pretherapy isolates displayed resistance to tigecycline based on the breakpoints used. Bacterial susceptibilities to tigecycline appeared to be consistent with clinical responses. Most commonly reported treatment emergent adverse events for tigecycline and imipenem/cilastatin were nausea (14.7% and 11.8%, respectively, p = 0.267) and vomiting (10.7% and 7.3%, respectively p = 0.146). This combined analysis demonstrates that tigecycline is safe and effective for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections, and reflects the findings of the global population.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00081744 NCT00136201.
Similar articles
-
The efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: analysis of pooled clinical trial data.Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Sep 1;41 Suppl 5:S354-67. doi: 10.1086/431676. Clin Infect Dis. 2005. PMID: 16080073 Clinical Trial.
-
A multicenter trial of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus imipenem/cilastatin in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections [Study ID Numbers: 3074A1-301-WW; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00081744].BMC Infect Dis. 2005 Oct 19;5:88. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-5-88. BMC Infect Dis. 2005. PMID: 16236177 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Predictors of efficacy and health resource utilization in treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: evidence for pooled clinical studies comparing tigecycline with imipenem-cilastatin.Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2007 Apr;8(2):159-72. doi: 10.1089/sur.2005.058. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2007. PMID: 17437361 Clinical Trial.
-
Tigecycline: a glycylcycline antimicrobial agent.Clin Ther. 2006 Aug;28(8):1079-1106. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.08.011. Clin Ther. 2006. PMID: 16982286 Review.
-
Tigecycline: a review of a new glycylcycline antibiotic.J Dermatolog Treat. 2005;16(4):207-12. doi: 10.1080/09546630510011810. J Dermatolog Treat. 2005. PMID: 16249141 Review.
Cited by
-
Tigecycline in febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies: a retrospective case documentation in four university hospitals.Infection. 2014 Feb;42(1):97-104. doi: 10.1007/s15010-013-0524-x. Epub 2013 Aug 25. Infection. 2014. PMID: 23979853
-
Empiric therapy for hospital-acquired, Gram-negative complicated intra-abdominal infection and complicated urinary tract infections: a systematic literature review of current and emerging treatment options.BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Aug 5;15:313. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-1054-1. BMC Infect Dis. 2015. PMID: 26243291 Free PMC article.
-
Anaerobic infections: update on treatment considerations.Drugs. 2010 May 7;70(7):841-58. doi: 10.2165/11534490-000000000-00000. Drugs. 2010. PMID: 20426496 Review.
-
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease.Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011 Mar;55(3):1162-72. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01402-10. Epub 2010 Dec 20. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011. PMID: 21173186 Free PMC article.
-
Carbapenems vs tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Oct;98(40):e17436. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017436. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019. PMID: 31577763 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical