Developing Outcomes Assessments as Endpoints for Registrational Clinical Trials of Antibacterial Drugs: 2015 Update From the Biomarkers Consortium of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.
ABSTRACT: One important component in determining the benefits and harms of medical interventions is the use of well-defined and reliable outcome assessments as endpoints in clinical trials. Improving endpoints can better define patient benefits, allowing more accurate assessment of drug efficacy and more informed benefit-vs-risk decisions; another potential plus is facilitating efficient trial design. Since our first report in 2012, 2 Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium Project Teams have continued to develop outcome assessments for potential uses as endpoints in registrational clinical trials of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. In addition, the teams have initiated similar work in the indications of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This report provides an update on progress to date in these 4 diseases.
Project description:Efficacy endpoints for previous registrational trials of antimicrobials for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) were based on nonstandardized, clinician-based observations and decisions, as well as on patient reports. More quantifiable, reproducible, and externally verifiable endpoints could improve the design of future noninferiority trials. At the request of the Food and Drug Administration, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health convened a broadly representative scientific project team to evaluate potential endpoints for such registrational trials. Review of historical and modern data led to the conclusion that antimicrobial treatment effects are most apparent early in therapy; later outcomes provide important supportive information. Although evidence is incomplete, early response endpoints can anchor noninferiority hypotheses in ABSSSI and CABP registrational trials, thereby allowing evidence-based drug development to continue. Further research is underway to establish which short- and long-term outcomes are well-defined, reliable, and reflective of how patients feel, function, or survive.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>This study is part of the registrational program for intravenously administered (IV) tramadol in the USA and compared the analgesic benefit and tolerability of two doses of IV tramadol (50 mg and 25 mg) to placebo in adult patients undergoing bunionectomy, an orthopedic surgical model.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, three-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, parallel-group trial to evaluate IV tramadol in the management of postoperative pain following bunionectomy. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to IV tramadol 50 mg, 25 mg, or placebo. Primary endpoint was summary of pain intensity differences over 48 h (SPID48). Key secondary endpoints included SPID24, total consumption of rescue analgesia, and patient global assessment of efficacy (PGA). Safety assessments included treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). Assessment of the dose-response was an important objective of the study.<h4>Results</h4>The study established a dose response, with IV tramadol 50 mg demonstrating statistically significant benefit (p?<?0.05) over placebo for primary and all key secondary efficacy endpoints, whereas tramadol 25 mg demonstrated intermediate results between the 50 mg and placebo arms. IV tramadol 50 mg was well tolerated; most common TEAEs were nausea and vomiting; and there were no meaningful differences among treatments for vital signs, ECG, and laboratory assessments. The largest proportion of patients completed tramadol 50 mg (98.6%) compared to tramadol 25 mg (91.8%) and placebo (88.2%).<h4>Conclusion</h4>IV tramadol 50 mg was effective and well tolerated as treatment for postoperative pain following bunionectomy surgery, while IV tramadol 25 mg, although well tolerated, was judged an ineffective dose for the treatment of pain in this setting. IV tramadol 50 mg was further developed in the registrational program for the USA.<h4>Trial registration</h4>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03290378.
Project description:The impact of Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) on the outcome in Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia is controversial. We genotyped S. aureus isolates from patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) enrolled in two registrational multinational clinical trials for the genetic elements carrying pvl and 30 other virulence genes. A total of 287 isolates (173 methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA] and 114 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA] isolates) from patients from 127 centers in 34 countries for whom clinical outcomes of cure or failure were available underwent genotyping. Of these, pvl was detected by PCR and its product confirmed in 23 isolates (8.0%) (MRSA, 18/173 isolates [10.4%]; MSSA, 5/114 isolates [4.4%]). The presence of pvl was not associated with a higher risk for clinical failure (4/23 [17.4%] versus 48/264 [18.2%]; P = 1.00) or mortality. These findings persisted after adjustment for multiple potential confounding variables. No significant associations between clinical outcome and (i) presence of any of the 30 other virulence genes tested, (ii) presence of specific bacterial clone, (iii) levels of alpha-hemolysin, or (iv) delta-hemolysin production were identified. This study suggests that neither pvl presence nor in vitro level of alpha-hemolysin production is the primary determinant of outcome among patients with HAP caused by S. aureus.
Project description:Omadacycline is a semisynthetic tetracycline antibiotic. Phase III clinical trial results have shown that omadacycline has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Similar to most tetracyclines, transient nausea and vomiting and low-magnitude increases in liver aminotransferases were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in phase III studies but were not treatment limiting. Package insert warnings and precautions for omadacycline include tooth discoloration; enamel hypoplasia; inhibition of bone growth following use in late pregnancy, infancy, or childhood up to 8 years of age; an imbalance in mortality (2%, compared with 1% in moxifloxacin-treated patients) was observed in the phase III study in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Omadacycline has no effect on the QT interval, and its affinity for muscarinic M2 receptors resulted in transient heart rate increases following dosing.
Project description:Ceftaroline is a novel cephalosporin with a favorable tolerability profile and broad in vitro activity against many resistant Gram-positive and common Gram-negative organisms. Ceftaroline fosamil is the first cephalosporin to be approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and soft tissue infections, including those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). It is also approved by the FDA for the treatment of adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, including cases caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (with or without concurrent bacteremia), although there are no data at this time to support the use of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of pneumonia caused by MRSA. Ceftaroline fosamil is likewise approved by the European Commission for the treatment of adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections or community-acquired pneumonia. This review summarizes the pharmacokinetic and microbiologic properties of ceftaroline, as well as the safety and efficacy data that led to its approval by the FDA in 2010 and the European Commission in 2012. Future directions to be addressed are also highlighted.
Project description:Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus, commonly referred as S. aureus, is an important bacterial pathogen frequently involved in hospital- and community-acquired infections in humans, ranging from skin infections to more severe diseases such as pneumonia, bacteraemia, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and disseminated infections. Here, we report the complete closed genome sequence of a community-acquired methicillin-resistant S. aureus strain, USA400-0051, which is a prototype of the USA400 clone.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Concurrent Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) worsens outcomes and increases mortality in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). These challenges highlight the need for alternative treatments. Telavancin (TLV), a bactericidal lipoglycopeptide with high in vitro potency, effectively treats patients with cSSSI and HABP/VABP caused by Gram-positive pathogens, particularly S. aureus. METHODS:This retrospective analysis evaluated patients from the Assessment of Telavancin in Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia studies with baseline, concurrent SAB. Differences in the clinical cure rates at test-of-cure and safety outcomes were compared for TLV vs vancomycin (VAN) treatment groups. RESULTS:A total of 105 patients, 32 cSSSI and 73 HABP/VABP, had baseline, concurrent SAB. The clinical cure rates for all-treated SAB patients in the cSSSI (TLV 57.1% and VAN 54.5%) and HABP/VABP (TLV 54.3% and VAN 47.2%) groups were comparable. For both types of infections, the safety profile of TLV and VAN showed similar incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or AEs leading to discontinuation. One VAN-treated patient died in the cSSSI group, and there were 13 deaths in each treatment arm of the HABP/VABP group. CONCLUSION:This retrospective analysis demonstrated that TLV is clinically comparable in both efficacy and safety to VAN, and, therefore, may be an appropriate therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with HABP/VABP or cSSSI and concurrent SAB. Given the limited sample size in this subgroup, the interpretation of these results is limited. FUNDING:Theravance Biopharma Antibiotics, Inc.
Project description:Background:Delafloxacin is an intravenous (IV)/oral anionic fluoroquinolone with activity against gram-positive (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA]), gram-negative, atypical, and anaerobic organisms. It is approved in the United States for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) caused by designated susceptible gram-positive and gram-negative organisms, and is in development for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Methods:A multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of 850 adults with ABSSSI compared delafloxacin 300 mg IV every 12 hours for 3 days with a switch to 450 mg oral delafloxacin, to vancomycin 15 mg/kg IV with aztreonam for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was objective response at 48-72 hours. Investigator-assessed response based on resolution of signs and symptoms at follow-up (day 14 ± 1), and late follow-up (day 21-28) were secondary endpoints. Results:In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the objective response was 83.7% in the delafloxacin arm and 80.6% in the comparator arm. Investigator-assessed success was similar at follow-up (87.2% vs 84.4%) and late follow-up (83.5% vs 82.2%). Delafloxacin was comparable to vancomycin + aztreonam in eradication of MRSA at 96.0% vs 97.0% at follow-up. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups was similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation was higher in the vancomycin + aztreonam group (1.2% vs 2.4%). Conclusions:In ABSSSI patients, IV/oral delafloxacin monotherapy was noninferior to IV vancomycin + aztreonam combination therapy for both the objective response and the investigator-assessed response at follow-up and late follow-up. Delafloxacin was well tolerated as monotherapy in treatment of ABSSSIs. Clinical Trials Registration:NCT01984684.
Project description:Omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic with activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms, including tetracycline-resistant pathogens, received FDA approval in October 2018 for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). A previously developed population pharmacokinetic (PK) model based on phase 1 intravenous and oral PK data was refined using data from infected patients. Data from 10 phase 1 studies used to develop the previous model were pooled with data from three additional phase 1 studies, a phase 1b uncomplicated urinary tract infection study, one phase 3 CABP study, and two phase 3 ABSSSI studies. The final population PK model was a three-compartment model with first-order absorption using transit compartments to account for absorption delay following oral dosing and first-order elimination. Epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentrations were modeled as a subcompartment of the first peripheral compartment. A food effect on oral bioavailability was included in the model. Sex was the only significant covariate identified, with 15.6% lower clearance for females than males. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics indicated a precise and unbiased fit to the data. The final model, which was robust in its ability to predict plasma and ELF exposures following omadacycline administration, was also able to predict the central tendency and variability in concentration-time profiles using an external phase 3 ABSSSI data set. A population PK model, which described omadacycline PK in healthy subjects and infected patients, was developed and subsequently used to support pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) and PK-PD target attainment assessments.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The aim of this study is to determine whether severe COVID-19 patients harbour a higher risk of ICU-acquired pneumonia.<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective multicentre cohort study comprised all consecutive patients admitted to seven ICUs for severe COVID-19 pneumonia during the first COVID-19 surge in France. Inclusion criteria were laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation for 48 h or more. Control groups were two historical cohorts of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU for bacterial or non-SARS-CoV-2 viral pneumonia. The outcome of interest was the development of ICU-acquired pneumonia. The determinants of ICU-acquired pneumonia were investigated in a multivariate competing risk analysis.<h4>Result</h4>One hundred and seventy-six patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to the ICU between March 1st and 30th June of 2020 were included into the study. Historical control groups comprised 435 patients with bacterial pneumonia and 48 ones with viral pneumonia. ICU-acquired pneumonia occurred in 52% of COVID-19 patients, whereas in 26% and 23% of patients with bacterial or viral pneumonia, respectively (p?<?0.001). Times from initiation of mechanical ventilation to ICU-acquired pneumonia were similar across the three groups. In multivariate analysis, the risk of ICU-acquired pneumonia remained independently associated with underlying COVID-19 (SHR?=?2.18; 95 CI 1.2-3.98, p?=?0.011).<h4>Conclusion</h4>COVID-19 appears an independent risk factor of ICU-acquired pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia. Whether this is driven by immunomodulatory properties by the SARS-CoV-2 or this is related to particular processes of care remains to be investigated.