Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Delafloxacin is an investigational anionic fluoroquinolone in development for oral or intravenous administration for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive (including MRSA), Gram-negative, atypical and anaerobic organisms.

Objectives

To establish the non-inferiority of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and to compare the safety of the two antimicrobials.

Patients and methods

A Phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study with 660 patients compared delafloxacin 300 mg or vancomycin 15 mg/kg plus aztreonam 2 g each administered twice daily intravenously for 5-14 days. Non-inferiority was evaluated by objective response (≥20% erythema reduction) at 48-72 h after initiation of study drug, investigator subjective assessment of outcome and microbiological responses. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01811732. EudraCT number: 2012-001767-71.

Results

In the ITT analysis set, the objective response was 78.2% in the delafloxacin arm and 80.9% in the vancomycin/aztreonam arm (mean treatment difference, -2.6%; 95% CI, -8.78% to 3.57%). Investigator-assessed cure was similar between the two groups at follow-up (52.0% versus 50.5%) and late follow-up (70.4% versus 66.6%). Bacterial eradication of MRSA was 100% and 98.5% in the delafloxacin group and the vancomycin/aztreonam group, respectively. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events in the delafloxacin and vancomycin/aztreonam groups was similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation were higher in the vancomycin/aztreonam group compared with the delafloxacin group (4.3% versus 0.9%).

Conclusions

Delafloxacin, an anionic fluoroquinolone, was statistically non-inferior to vancomycin/aztreonam at 48-72 h following the start of therapy and was well tolerated as monotherapy in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

SUBMITTER: Pullman J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5890686 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized study.

Pullman J J Gardovskis J J Farley B B Sun E E Quintas M M Lawrence L L Ling R R Cammarata S S

The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy 20171201 12

<h4>Background</h4>Delafloxacin is an investigational anionic fluoroquinolone in development for oral or intravenous administration for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive (including MRSA), Gram-negative, atypical and anaerobic organisms.<h4>Objectives</h4>To establish the non-inferiority of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and to compare the safety of the two antimicrobials.<h4>Patients a ...[more]

PMID: 29029278

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe development of novel broad-spectrum antibiotics, with efficacy against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, has the potential to enhance treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation intravenous cephalosporin with broad in vitro activity against gram-positive (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and gram-negative pathogens.MethodsTARGET was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 noninferiority study that compared ceftobiprole with vancomycin plus aztreonam. The Food and Drug Administration-defined primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response 48-72 hours after treatment initiation in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and the European Medicines Agency-defined primary endpoint was investigator-assessed clinical success at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Noninferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in success rates (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin/aztreonam) >-10%. Safety was assessed through adverse event and laboratory data collection.ResultsIn total, 679 patients were randomized to ceftobiprole (n = 335) or vancomycin/aztreonam (n = 344). Early clinical success rates were 91.3% and 88.1% in the ceftobiprole and vancomycin/aztreonam groups, respectively, and noninferiority was demonstrated (adjusted difference: 3.3%; 95% CI: -1.2, 7.8). Investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit was similar between the 2 groups, and noninferiority was demonstrated for both the ITT (90.1% vs 89.0%) and clinically evaluable (97.9% vs 95.2%) populations. Both treatment groups displayed similar microbiological success and safety profiles.ConclusionsTARGET demonstrated that ceftobiprole is noninferior to vancomycin/aztreonam in the treatment of ABSSSIs, in terms of early clinical response and investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit.Clinical trials registrationNCT03137173.

Project description:Ceftolozane-tazobactam (TOL-TAZ) is a novel antibacterial with activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other common Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, that are associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). This prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase II trial assessed patient clinical and microbiological responses to and the safety of TOL-TAZ plus metronidazole compared with those of meropenem. Hospitalized adults with cIAIs that required surgical intervention were randomized (2:1) to receive intravenous (i.v.) TOL-TAZ (1.5 g [containing 1,000 mg TOL and 500 mg TAZ] every 8 h [q8h]) with or without i.v. metronidazole (500 mg q8h) or i.v. meropenem (1 g q8h) for 4 to 7 days. The primary endpoint was the clinical response at the test-of-cure visit in the microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) and microbiologically evaluable (ME) populations. Secondary measures included the patients' microbiological response and safety. In total, 82 patients received TOL-TAZ (90.2% with metronidazole), and 39 received meropenem. For the mMITT population, clinical cure was seen in 83.6% of the patients (51/61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 71.9 to 91.8) who received TOL-TAZ and 96.0% of the patients (24/25; 95% CI, 79.6 to 99.9) who received meropenem (difference, -12.4%; 95% CI, -34.9% to 11.1%); in the ME population, clinical cure was seen in 88.7% and 95.8% of the patients (difference, -7.1%; 95% CI, -30.7% to 16.9%) who received TOL-TAZ and meropenem, respectively. TOL-TAZ demonstrated microbiological success against Escherichia coli (89.5%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (100%), and P. aeruginosa (100%). The adverse event rates were similar in the groups (50.0% with TOL-TAZ and 48.8% with meropenem). TOL-TAZ in combination with metronidazole was well tolerated and resulted in clinical and microbiological success rates supportive of further clinical development in patients with cIAIs. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01147640.).

Project description:IntroductionDalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic approved as a single- and two-dose regimen for adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by susceptible gram-positive organisms. We present nephrotoxicity rates for patients with ABSSSI who received dalbavancin in three pivotal clinical trials and compare the rates with vancomycin.MethodsIn a phase 3b clinical trial (DUR001-303), patients were randomized to dalbavancin single-dose (1500 mg intravenous [IV]) or two-dose regimen (1000 mg IV on day 1, 500 mg IV on day 8). In two phase 3 clinical trials (DISCOVER 1 and DISCOVER 2), patients were randomized to dalbavancin (two-dose regimen) or vancomycin 1 g (or 15 mg/kg) IV every 12 h for at least 3 days with an option to switch to orally administered linezolid 600 mg every 12 h for 10-14 days. Patients on dalbavancin with a creatinine clearance below 30 mL/min not on regular dialysis received a reduced dose of 1000 mg (single-dose arm) or 750 mg IV on day 1, 375 mg IV on day 8 (two-dose arm). Nephrotoxicity was defined as a 50% increase from baseline serum creatinine (SCr) or an absolute increase in SCr of 0.5 mg/dL at any time point. P values were obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.ResultsIn dalbavancin-treated patients, rates of nephrotoxicity were low. The safety population with available creatinine values included 1325/1347 patients on any regimen of dalbavancin, and 54/651 patients who received vancomycin intravenously for at least 10 days and were not switched to orally administered linezolid. Patients on any regimen of dalbavancin had a lower rate of nephrotoxicity compared with patients receiving vancomycin intravenously for at least 10 days (3.7% vs 9.3%, respectively; P = 0.039).ConclusionsNephrotoxicity rates were lower in patients on dalbavancin relative to vancomycin for at least 10 days. On the basis of this experience, dalbavancin may be less nephrotoxic than intravenously administered vancomycin.

Project description:AimExploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsAdults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm2) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5-14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS.ResultsOverall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001).ConclusionsClinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

Project description:BackgroundClostridium difficile infection is the most common health-care-associated infection in the USA. We assessed the safety and efficacy of ridinilazole versus vancomycin for treatment of C difficile infection.MethodsWe did a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. Participants with signs and symptoms of C difficile infection and a positive diagnostic test result were recruited from 33 centres in the USA and Canada and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ridinilazole (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. The primary endpoint was achievement of a sustained clinical response, defined as clinical cure at the end of treatment and no recurrence within 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vancomycin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population comprising all individuals with C difficile infection confirmed by the presence of free toxin in stool who were randomly assigned to receive one or more doses of the study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092935.FindingsBetween June 26, 2014, and August 31, 2015, 100 patients were recruited; 50 were randomly assigned to receive ridinilazole and 50 to vancomycin. 16 patients did not complete the study, and 11 discontinued treatment early. The primary efficacy analysis included 69 patients (n=36 in the ridinilazole group; n=33 in the vancomycin group). 24 of 36 (66·7%) patients in the ridinilazole group versus 14 of 33 (42·4%) of those in the vancomycin group had a sustained clinical response (treatment difference 21·1%, 90% CI 3·1-39·1, p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statistical superiority at the 10% level. Ridinilazole was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of vancomycin: 82% (41 of 50) of participants reported adverse events in the ridinilazole group and 80% (40 of 50) in the vancomycin group. There were no adverse events related to ridinilazole that led to discontinuation.InterpretationRidinilazole is a targeted-spectrum antimicrobial that shows potential in treatment of initial C difficile infection and in providing sustained benefit through reduction in disease recurrence. Further clinical development is warranted.FundingWellcome Trust and Summit Therapeutics.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized study.

Background

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets