Key Points
- Doripenem (Doribax, Johnson & Johnson) was approved on October 12, 2007, as a single agent for the treatment of complicated
IAIs and for the treatment of complicated UTIs, including pyelonephritis.
- The pharmacokinetic profile of doripenem is similar to the profiles of meropenem and imipenem/ cilastatin; each have a half-life
of approximately 1 hour in patients with normal renal function.
- The most common drug-related adverse events (as assessed by the study investigators) in patients receiving doripenem for the
treatment of complicated IAIs or complicated UTIs were nausea, diarrhea and phlebitis.
- The recommended dosing regimen of IV doripenem for the treatment of complicated UTIs and IAIs is 500 mg administered over
1 hour every 8 hours in patients with preserved renal function (CrCl >50 mL/min)
Abstract
Doripenem is a carbapenem antibiotic recently approved for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs)
and complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), including pyelonephritis. An NDA has also been submitted for the use of doripenem
in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Doripenem is the fourth carbapenem
approved for use in the United States and exhibits many pharmacologic similarities with imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem.
Doripenem has a broad spectrum of activity against various gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria,
including many multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens. Improved potency against nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria
has also been demonstrated with doripenem compared with other carbapenems. In clinical trials, doripenem was generally well
tolerated; headache, nausea, diarrhea, and phlebitis were the most commonly reported drug-related adverse events. Because
doripenem exhibits similarities with imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem, it is likely that institutional susceptibility patterns
and cost may be the 2 factors that will carry the most weight in formulary decisions. (Formulary. 2007;42:676–688.)
Infections secondary to drug-resistant pathogens continue to present therapeutic challenges to clinicians. Because a number
of the historically most active antimicrobials have undergone widespread susceptibility diminution, healthcare professionals
are now presented with scenarios in which infecting microbes are resistant to all but a handful of antibiotics. Pathogens
that have emerged as particularly problematic include gram-positive microbes such as Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus species; extended-spectrum, AmpC, and metallobeta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae; and nonfermentative gram-negative
species such as Acinetobacter species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.1,2
Patients who receive empiric anti-microbial therapy to which the causative pathogen is resistant fare significantly worse
than those who are administered appropriate therapy.3 This underscores the importance of selecting an empiric antimicrobial that possesses activity against the range of suspected
pathogens, including those with problematic susceptibility profiles. Throughout this crisis of resistance, carbapenem antibiotics
have remained highly active against a vast number of troublesome pathogens. In many cases, carbapenems are among the few agents
with preserved activity. Traditionally, carbapenems have been recommended as a treatment option for empiric therapy of nosocomial
pneumonia.4 Carbapenems may also be used for a variety of additional infections caused by susceptible microorganisms, including, but
not limited to, skin and skin-structure infections, intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), and complicated urinary tract infections
(UTIs). Four carbapenems are currently approved for use in the United States (dori-penem, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and ertapenem).
Ertapenem is considered a narrower spectrum agent, as it has limited activity against certain pathogens of concern such as
P aeruginosa. The other 3 carbapenems have a broader spectrum of activity and are considered a distinct subclass of the carbapenems.
Despite the carbapenems' broad spectrum of activity and the positive clinical outcomes associated with these agents, problems
of drug stability, shortages, side effects such as reduced seizure threshold, and the emergence of isolates that demonstrate
carbapenem resistance threaten to limit the use of these drugs. As a result, the introduction of a new agent into this class
of antibiotics represents a potentially significant addition to the antimicrobial armamentarium.
Doripenem (Doribax, Johnson & Johnson) was approved on October 12, 2007, as a single agent for the treatment of complicated
IAIs and for the treatment of complicated UTIs, including pyelonephritis. An NDA has also been submitted for the use of doripenem
in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).5
CHEMISTRY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Doripenem is a carbapenem antibiotic with a broad spectrum of activity.6 As with other drugs in its class, doripenem has a carbon atom in position 1 of its structure and a trans configuration of the hydroxyethyl group.7,8 These features differentiate the carbapenems from other beta-lactam antibiotics and promote stability against the majority
of beta-lactamases (including extended-spectrum beta-lactamases).8,9
Doripenem also contains a 1-beta methyl side chain (similarly present in meropenem and ertapenem).10,11 This side chain prevents hydrolysis by renal dehydropeptidase-1 and allows for administration without concurrent use of
a dehydropeptidase-1 inhibitor. Imi-penem does not contain a 1-beta methyl side chain and consequently is administered with
a dehydropeptidase-1 inhibitor (cilastatin) to decrease the metabolism of imipenem and to sustain antimicrobial efficacy.
Doripenem's side chain contains a sulfamoylaminomethyl-pyrrolidinylthio group, which may contribute to enhanced gram-negative
antimicrobial activity.10,11 As with other beta-lactam antimicrobials, doripenem exerts its antibacterial effect by binding to penicillin-binding proteins
(PBPs), leading to inhibition of cell wall synthesis.6,7
PHARMACOKINETICS AND PHARMACODYNAMICS
Doripenem's pharmacokinetic profile has been evaluated after intravenous (IV) administration of doses ranging from 125 to
1,000 mg.12–16 The pharmacokinetic profile of doripenem is similar to the profiles of meropenem and imipenem/ cilastatin; each have a half-life
of approximately 1 hour in patients with normal renal function. Protein binding of doripenem is approximately 8% compared
with meropenem (2%) and imipenem (20%).6,17,18 In contrast, ertapenem is highly protein bound (approximately 85%–95%) and subsequently has an extended half-life (approximately
4 h in adults with normal renal function).19 All 4 approved carbapenems are predominately excreted unchanged in the urine and require dose adjustment in patients with
renal dysfunction.6,17–19
 Table 1: Mean pharmacokinetic parameters of single-dose doripenem in patients with varying degrees of renal impairment
|
The mean peak plasma concentration and area under the curve (AUC)0–∝ of doripenem after administration of a single 500-mg dose infused over 30 minutes were demonstrated to be 30.8 mcg/mL and
36.9 mcg•h/mL, respectively (Table 1).12 When infused over 1 hour, the mean peak plasma concentration after a 500-mg dose was 23.0 mcg/mL, and the AUC0–∝was 36.3 mcg mcg•h/mL.6 After administration of multiple doses of doripenem 500 mg every 8 or 12 hours (via a 30-min infusion), the AUC0–tau was 35.3 mcg•h/mL and 33.7 mcg•h/mL, respectively (Table 2).13,14 The pharmacokinetic profile of doripenem after dosing regimens of 1,000 mg administered via infusions of 1 hour, 4 hours,
and 6 hours has also been evaluated (Table 2).13,14 No drug accumulation was noted after multiple doses in healthy volunteers.13,14  Table 2: Mean pharmacokinetic parameters of multiple-dose doripenem in healthy volunteers
|
Doripenem's volume of distribution (16.8 L; range, 8.09–55.5 L) approximates the volume of extracellular fluid.6 Doripenem has been demonstrated to distribute throughout the body into various tissues and fluids.20 The penetration of doripenem into peritoneal exudate was evaluated in 10 patients undergoing abdominal surgery.21 After a 500-mg dose administered over 30 minutes, maximum drug concentrations measured in the serum and peritoneal exudate
were 46.9 and 24.5 mg/L, respectively. Mean AUC0–∝ was 59.3 mg•h/L in the serum and 49.3 mg•h/L in the peritoneal exudate.
Approximately 70% to 75% of a doripenem dose is excreted in the urine as unchanged drug.12–14 Clearance is reduced in patients with renal impairment, resulting in an increased half-life (Table 1).12 In a phase 1 study that evaluated 24 patients with varying degrees of renal impairment, the average half-life of dori-penem
increased from approximately 1 hour in healthy matched control volunteers (n=8) to almost 9 hours in patients with end-stage
renal disease who were not yet undergoing dialysis.12 As a result, dose adjustment is warranted for patients with impaired renal function (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≤50 mL/min).
Data regarding the pharmacokinetics of doripenem in patients with hepatic impairment are currently lacking.
Doripenem, similar to other carba-penems, exhibits non-concentration-dependent activity. Optimal activity may be expected
if drug concentrations can be maintained above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of organisms for ≥40% of the dosing
interval.22 In phase 3 clinical trials, a 1-hour infusion time has been used predominately.23–26 In the Chastre et al27 study, however, an extended infusion time of 4 hours was used for the treatment of patients with VAP.
An extended infusion time theoretically optimizes the pharmacodynamic characteristics of the drug and may be more effective
in maintaining the drug concentration above the MIC of less susceptible path-ogens.22,28 Additional clinical data are necessary to further elucidate the true clinical relevance of this extended infusion time.
SPECTRUM OF ACTIVITY
Much like the other carbapenems, doripenem has demonstrated a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity against a variety of
clinically relevant pathogens, including gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic species.10,29–34 Of particular interest is doripenem's appreciable activity against a variety of drug-resistant pathogens, including beta-lactamase-producing
gram-negative species.9,35–38 Jones et al35 demonstrated that doripenem may possess improved in vitro activity against an array of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-
and AmpC-producing gram-negative bacilli (dori-penem MIC90, 0.03–0.5 mcg/mL) compared with the other carbapenems. The authors also noted that doripenem was the most active of the carbapenems
against penicillin-resistant streptococci.35 Improved in vitro activity has also been noted with doripenem against resistant gram-negative species (P aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia) isolated from patients with cystic fibrosis.36,37 Although data such as these suggest superior in vitro potency for doripenem versus imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem, the
clinical relevance of these in vitro findings is not clear.
One difference between doripenem and the other carbapenems is the improved activity noted in several in vitro studies for
doripenem against P aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species.32,34,35 Jones et al35 demonstrated that, compared with other carbapenems, doripenem possesses superior in vitro activity against carbapenem-resistant,
nonfermenting gram-negative bacilli. Pillar et al34 also noted that, of the carbapenems, doripenem exhibits the greatest potency against P aeruginosa. These data suggest that doripenem may be an effective treatment option for patients who are at high risk of infection with
resistant P aeruginosa (eg, patients at risk for nosocomial infections, patients with cystic fibrosis). However, increased MICs have been observed
for doripenem against isolates of P aeruginosa that express the MDR phenotype, a trend that is also observed with imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem.38 Some data have suggested that the combination of doripenem with an aminoglycoside may prevent the development of resistance
when treating infections caused by P aeruginosa isolates with elevated carbapenem MICs.39 Whether the improved in vitro activity of doripenem against P aeruginosa will translate into superior clinical outcomes for patients infected with such isolates requires further evaluation.
CLINICAL TRIALS
 Table 3: Summary of doripenem phase 3 clinical trials
|
Complicated UTIs. A large randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial (N=753 randomized) was conducted by Naber et al23 to evaluate the efficacy of IV doripenem 500 mg administered over 1 hour every 8 hours versus IV levo-floxacin 250 mg administered
over 1 hour every 24 hours for the treatment of complicated UTIs in adult patients (Table 3). Patients received ≥9 doses of
IV antibiotics before they were permitted to switch to oral therapy with levofloxacin 250 mg/d for a total of 10 days of therapy.
The investigators performed microbiological and clinical assessments of patients 6 to 9 days after the end of treatment. The
organisms most commonly present in patients were Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Among microbiologically evaluable patients, those treated with doripenem demonstrated a microbiological cure rate of 82.1%
versus 83.4% among levofloxacin-treated patients (treatment difference, –1.3; 95% CI, –8.0% to 5.5%); patients treated with
doripenem demonstrated a clinical cure rate of 95.1% versus 90.2% among levofloxacin-treated patients (treatment difference,
4.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%–9.6%). Doripenem was noninferior to levofloxacin in the microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mITT)
population; the microbiological cure rate was 79.2% among doripenem-treated patients versus 78.2% among levofloxacin-treated
patients (treatment difference, 1.0; 95% CI, –5.6% to 7.6%).
Complicated IAIs. Solomkin et al26 presented pooled data from two phase 3 clinical trials.24,40 IV doripenem 500 mg administered over 1 hour every 8 hours (n=486) was compared with meropenem 1 g administered as an IV
bolus over 3 to 5 minutes every 8 hours (n=476) for the treatment of IAIs (Table 3). After $3 days (≥9 doses) of IV therapy,
patients could switch to oral amoxicillin/clavulanate (875 mg/125 mg BID) for a total of 5 to 14 days of therapy. A follow-up
assessment of clinical response was conducted 21 to 60 days after the completion of treatment. Pathogens isolated at baseline
included Streptococcus species, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterobacteriaceae, E coli, K pneumoniae, P aeruginosa, Bacteroides species, and gram-positive anaerobes. Among microbiologically evaluable patients, those treated with doripenem demonstrated
a clinical cure rate of 84.6% versus 84.1% among meropenem-treated patients (treatment difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, –5.5% to
6.4%). In the microbiological mITT population, doripenem-treated patients demonstrated a clinical cure rate of 76.2% versus
77.3% among meropenem-treated patients (treatment difference, –1.1%; 95% CI, –7.4% to 5.1%).
Nosocomial pneumonia and early-onset VAP. Rea-Neto et al25 conducted a large, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy of doripenem compared with piperacillin/tazobactam
(PTZ) for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia or early-onset VAP (onset <5 d) (Table 3). Patients (N=448 randomized) received
either IV doripenem 500 mg administered over 1 hour every 8 hours or IV PTZ 4.5 g administered over 30 minutes every 6 hours;
patients were allowed to switch to oral levofloxacin 750 mg/d after the completion of ≥72 hours of IV therapy. In the clinically
evaluable population, clinical cure rates at 7 to 14 days after treatment were 81.3% for doripenem-treated patients and 79.8%
for PTZ-treated patients (treatment difference, 1.5%; 95% CI, –9.1% to 12.1%). In the clinical mITT population, clinical cure
rates were 69.5% for doripenem-treated patients and 64.1% for PTZ-treated patients (treatment difference, 5.4%; 95% CI, –4.1%
to 14.8%). Resistance to dori-penem was noted less frequently than resistance to PTZ among strains of P aeruginosa (4% vs 27%) and K pneumoniae (0 vs 43%).
 Formulary considerations
|
Chastre et al27 evaluated the efficacy of doripenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of VAP in a large, open-label, phase 3
clinical trial (Table 3). Patients (N=531 randomized) were assigned to receive 7 to 14 days of IV doripenem 500 mg administered
over 4 hours every 8 hours or IV imipenem/ cilastatin 500 mg every 6 hours or 1,000 mg every 8 hours administered over 30
to 60 minutes. During the study, patients were not allowed to receive systemic anti-microbial agents other than the study
drugs. At 7 to 14 days after treatment, patients in the clinically evaluable population who were treated with doripenem demonstrated
a clinical cure rate of 68.3% versus 64.8% among imipenem/ cilastatin-treated patients (treatment difference, 3.5%; 95% CI,
–9.1% to 16.1%). Among the clinical mITT population, clinical cure rates were 59.0% for doripenem-treated patients and 57.8%
for imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients (treatment difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, –7.9% to 10.3%). Again, resistance to doripenem
occurred less frequently than resistance to imipenem/ cilastatin, particularly among P aeruginosa strains. Five of 28 P aeruginosa strains in the doripenem arm and 14 of 25 P aeruginosa strains in the imipenem/cilastatin arm were either resistant at baseline or subsequently developed resistance during therapy
(P<.05).