antibiotic development strategies to understand and label microbial endpoints such as slow killing,...
TRANSCRIPT
Antibiotic Development Strategies to Understand and Label Microbial Endpoints such as Slow killing,
resistance and Failure, AUIC Dosing and Success via Synergy
Jerome J. Schentag, PharmD
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York
2
Introduction
• Yesterday, we considered trial design conditions to establish one antibiotic for all.
• Today, I wish to discuss the trial design issues if our goal becomes one antibiotic for each.
• I will then show that the two approaches work well together to answer the questions of antibiotic efficacy for resistant microbes.
3
PK/PD: AUIC and Selected Resistance
0
25
75
50
100
Pro
bab
ilit
y of
rem
ain
ing
susc
epti
ble
0 5 10 15 20Days from initiation of Therapy
AUIC<100
AUIC>101
Thomas JK, Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. 42: 521-527, 1998.
4
PK/PD trials of Antibiotics• Small numbers of patients yield very robust
data
• Time considerations dominate over one-time sampling
• The more range you have in the data, the better the ability of PK/PD to establish correlations
• Antibiotics are very good models, because the bacteria can be treated like a drug receptor.
• Drug effects are the key to applications of PK/PD
5
Time (hours) Time (hours)
Van
com
ycin
ser
um c
once
ntra
tion
Van
com
ycin
ser
um c
once
ntra
tion
30
8
2
0.5
Vancomycin 1 gm q 12hr:2 pks of 30 mcg/ml in 24 hrs
AUC24=254
120
MIC90
MIC50Peak:MIC=60, AUIC=508
Peak:MIC=3.75, AUIC=32
Peak:MIC=15, AUIC=127
6
MRSA: Issues With Appropriately Dosed Vancomycin?
• MRSA MICs are usually 0.5 to 1.0 mcg/ml
– Slow killing of organisms in vitro and in vivo
– Recent MICs are 2.0 mcg/ml, a 2-4 fold loss of activity
• MRSA MBCs are increasingly 4-32 mcg/ml
– Staphylococci that are not yet VISA or VRSA, but no longer responding to vancomycin
– Slow cidal..and getting progressively slower?
• Protocol Study; Find these cases and study them using PK/PD; offer solutions while vancomycin is still in the mix of options
7
0 10 20 30Day of Eradication
0
20
40
60
80
100P
erc
en
t Cu
lture
Pos
itive
AUIC >400
AUIC <400
P=0.0402
Moise & Schentag. Am J Health Sys Pharmacy: October 2000 Suppl.
Comparison of Vancomycin days to eradication for MRSA Infections
free AUIC=140
8
Study Design Issues• MRSA is seldom eradicated quickly, and improvements
in activity could yield shorter T-erad
• Once established, this organism will persist in blood and soft tissues, despite therapy
• Weak antimicrobial action (vancomycin) keeps the patient from death, but dissemination continues to foreign bodies, bone, heart valves, etc.
• Accept only MRSA positive patients on vanco for at least 5 days with continued CX positive– Enroll pts who continued on vanco for retrospective controls
– Enroll pts who have vanco dose increased (additivity control) and follow for changes in time to eradication
– Enroll pts who have same vanco dose but add another ABX (synergy test)
9
Strategies for MRSA failing vancomycin after 5 days Tx
• In the Vancomycin failure patient with MIC ~ 2.0:– Raise the vancomycin dose; target peaks of 50 and troughs
of 20 mcg/ml; higher if we dare…
– Vancomycin at conventional doses (troughs ~ 10) in Combination therapy: Target Synergy
• Rifampin
• Aminoglycosides
• Oxacillin
• Linezolid
• Synercid
10
Synercid Killing Curves w/w.o. Vancomycin
Growth Control
Vancomycin
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4
Test tube time-kill curves; MRSA 67 was used.
Time (h)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4
Time (h)
Lo
g 1
0 C
FU
/ml
Synercid
Synercid plus Vancomycin
B. High InoculaA. Low Inocula
11
In Vivo Synergy:Quinupristin/Dalfopristin Plus Vancomycin Against
MLSBC Strains of MRSA for Endocarditis*
• Quinupristin/dalfopristin (Q/D) plus vancomycin was significantly (P<.05) more active than either agent alone against both Q-resistant (MLSBC) and Q-susceptible (MLSBI/MLSBS) Staphylococcus aureus in animal models
• Enhanced cidal activity and sterilization of valvular vegetations
• Mechanism of synergy unclear
• Q/D plus vancomycin at 1 x MIC was synergistic against Q-susc. S aureus and additive against Q-Res. S aureus
Pavie, et al. ICAAC 2000. Abstract 1006.
*rabbit endocarditis model
MLSBC = macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B–constitutively resistant
MRSA = methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
MLSBI = macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B–inducibly resistant
MLSBS = macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B–susceptible
MIC = minimal inhibitory concentration
12
Vancomycin Failure Study
• Enrollment of Vancomycin treatment failures (CX remain positive after 5 days at rec. levels)
– Retrospective collection of vancomycin failures treated with normal troughs ~10 mcg/ml
– Retrospective collection of vancomycin failures treated with vancomycin troughs ~20 mcg/ml
– Prospective collection of vancomycin at troughs of ~ 20 mcg/ml
– Prospective collection of Synercid added to vancomycin at troughs of ~10 mcg/ml
• All of the above collected if organism was available, site would do serial cultures, and sites would fill out CRFs.
13
Outcomes
Clinical Success
Micro Eradication
Mean Vanco Days Prior
Q/D + Vanco83.3%(n=12)
83.3%(n=12)
15.7
Vanco HD70.6%(n=17)
72.2%(n=18)
5.9
Vanco TD56.0%(n=25)
57.7%(n=26)
5.5
Q/D, quinupristin/dalfopristin; Vanco, vancomycin; Vanco HD, “high-dose” vancomycin; VancoTD; traditionally dosed vancomycin N, number of evaluable patients used in analysis
14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Day
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt C
ultu
re P
osi
tive
Quinu/Dalfo Plus Vanco (n=12)Vancomycin HD (n=17)Vancomycin TD (n=15)
14 Day (% Culture Positive)
15
% o
f p
atie
nts
rem
ain
ing
cult
ure
-p
osit
ive
Days of treatment
0 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 4 6 8 10 12 1400
100100
7575
5050
2525AUIC 125-250AUIC 125-250
AUIC > 250AUIC > 250
AUIC < 125AUIC < 125
Ciprofloxacin: Eradication vs AUIC24
Forrest A, Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 37:1073–1081, 1993.
16
PK/PD
• Targets Bacterial Killing in the Individual Patient when concentration exceeds the killing threshold of 80% above the MIC
– Explains Clinical Failure as a failure to eradicate the organism
– Explains selection of a resistant strain when it occurs
– Can use these methods to detect effects of antibiotics in combination, as antagonism, synergy or additivity
• Very Little is left as Random Noise when PK/PD is linked to bacterial outcome.
– AUIC accounts for over 80% of the variability in outcomes in a logistic regression model
17
Micro Cure as a Surrogate?• When the patient reaches clinical cure status, and
there is nothing to culture, the micro outcome of the patient is recorded as “micro cure”
• This form of “micro cure” is can be employed in over 80% of patients in equivalence trials of old vs. new antibiotics
• The use of this surrogate for “micro cure” removes any hope of finding differences in eradication or the emergence of selected resistance
• “Micro cure” on non culture is uninformative at best, there is no information on speed of eradication, time to events, or inoculum reduction
18
So, Why do the FDA regulatory So, Why do the FDA regulatory approval trials not see these approval trials not see these differences in Clinical Cure Rates differences in Clinical Cure Rates ..between two Antibiotic AUICs ..between two Antibiotic AUICs That differ in Killing Rate so That differ in Killing Rate so Dramatically?Dramatically?
19
Clinical Trials are Designed to Assure Equivalence....
A.
Time, days
%
%
Cu
red
Cu
red
0
50
100
1050
B
This is When weThis is When weDetermine Outcomes Determine Outcomes in Most Trials......in Most Trials......
C. Nightingale, 1998C. Nightingale, 1998
20
ABX Equivalence vs Superiority• Current trend is how many do we need to conclude
ABX are equivalent. Because of Delta of 10%, we now need twice as many patients to conclude equivalence– With this you get FDA approval but you can’t sell it for more.
• Antibiotics are never equivalent. In the real world, one is always better. The right endpoint can differentiate almost any antibiotic from any other, with only small numbers of patients
• Patient by Patient, the better ABX kills the pathogen faster and/or prevents the selection of resistant sub-populations
• Compare these methods
21
Delta, power and sample size on a dichotomous vs continuous endpoint
Dichotomous (cure / failure)
Continuous (T to Erad vs AUIC)
Power 90% 90%
Delta 10% + 1 day
Variability: Type I two tailed error
- SD = 20-40%
Cure Rate (%) 85-90% (clinical) 80% (MicroErad) at median Terad 3d
# pts per group to conclude A=B
1532 <10 to ~ 90
# pts per group to conclude A>>B
inf <10 to ~ 90
22
Alternative View from the Front
• Obscured in every NDA of 5000 patients, there are ~100 who, if you listen (i.e. PK/PD) will teach you everything that is truly important about the drug.
• We should not allow our statistically driven quest for equivalence to silence those voices.
23
Recommendations
• Change the endpoint of antibiotic action, from Clinical to Microbiological
• Express Efficacy as time to eradication to handle static vs cidal, and time dependent vs conc dependent killing in vivo
• Resistance protection or facilitation vs achieved serum concentrations and AUICs
• Substantial lowering of drug development costs and faster time to NDA approval
• Still need to deal with safety issues and numbers, but standard equivalence design can accomplish this.
24
Disclosures - J.J. Schentag• Much of the MRSA study is the work of
Pamela A. Moise, PharmD
• Research Support: Bayer, Aventis, Pharmacia, Wyeth-Ayerst, Versicor, Lilly, Pfizer, GSK, Bristol Myers, Roche, Eisai
• Consultant: Bayer, Aventis, Versicor, Eisai
• Stock/Options: None of the above
• This trip was paid out of my own pocket..