scholarly journals Ceftobiprole Compared With Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind Trial (TARGET)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Scott Overcash ◽  
Charles Kim ◽  
Richard Keech ◽  
Illia Gumenchuk ◽  
Borislav Ninov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Skin Structure

Abstract Background The 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. Methods TARGET 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. Results In 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. Conclusions TARGET 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 Registration NCT03137173.

scholarly journals A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections in the Phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 625-630
Author(s):  
Stephanie Noviello ◽  
G. Ralph Corey ◽  
Thomas L. Holland ◽  
Thomas Lodise ◽  
William O’Riordan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Wound Infections ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Treatment Difference ◽  
Vancomycin Treatment

Introduction. Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to Gram-positive pathogens. Aim. This analysis evaluates patients with wound infections from two Phase 3 trials of ABSSSI. Methodology. Six-hundred-two patients with wound infections from two Phase 3, double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active controlled trials (REVIVE-1/–2) were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of iclaprim 80 mg compared with vancomycin 15 mg kg–1 administered intravenously every 12 h for 5–14 days. The primary endpoint was to determine whether iclaprim was non-inferior (10 % margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20 % reduction from baseline in lesion size 48–72 h after starting study drug (early clinical response [ECR]). Safety was assessed. Results. In REVIVE-1, ECR was 83.5 % with iclaprim versus 79.7 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 3.77%, 95 % CI −4.50%, 12.04%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 82.7 % with iclaprim versus 76.3 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 6.38%, 95 % CI −3.35%, 16.12%). In the pooled dataset, iclaprim had similar ECR rates compared with vancomycin among wound infection patients (83.2 % vs 78.2 %) with a treatment difference of 5.01 % (95 % CI −1.29%, 11.32%). The safety profile was similar in iclaprim- and vancomycin-treated patients, except for a higher incidence of diarrhea with vancomycin (n=17) compared with iclaprim (n=6) and fatigue with iclaprim (n=17) compared with vancomycin (n=8). Conclusion. Based on early clinical response, iclaprim achieved non-inferiority to vancomycin with a similar safety profile in patients with wound infections suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for wound infections.

scholarly journals Telavancin versus Standard Therapy for Treatment of Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections Caused by Gram-Positive Bacteria: FAST 2 Study

2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 862-867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin E. Stryjewski ◽  
Vivian H. Chu ◽  
William D. O'Riordan ◽  
Brian L. Warren ◽  
Lala M. Dunbar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Standard Therapy Group ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Complicated Skin ◽  
Cure Rates

ABSTRACT Telavancin is a bactericidal lipoglycopeptide with a multifunctional mechanism of action. We conducted a randomized, double blind, active-control phase II trial. Patients ≥18 years of age with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by suspected or confirmed gram-positive organisms were randomized to receive either telavancin at 10 mg/kg intravenously every 24 h (q24h) or standard therapy (antistaphylococcal penicillin at 2 g q6h or vancomycin at 1 g q12h). A total of 195 patients were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication. Clinical success rates were similar in all analysis populations at test of cure. In microbiologically evaluable patients with Staphylococcus aureus at baseline (n = 91), 96% of the telavancin group and 90% of the standard-therapy group were cured. Among patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) at baseline (n = 45), clinical cure rates were also 96% for telavancin and 90% for standard therapy. Microbiologic eradication in patients with S. aureus infection was better with telavancin compared to standard therapy (92% versus 78%, P = 0.07) and significantly better in patients with MRSA (92% versus 68%; P = 0.04). Therapy was discontinued for an adverse event (AE) in 6% and 3% of the patients receiving telavancin and standard therapy, respectively. Except for two cases of rash in the telavancin group, these AEs were similar in type and severity in the two groups. The overall incidences and severities of AEs and laboratory abnormalities were similar between the two groups. These data support the ongoing studies assessing the efficacy and safety of telavancin in the treatment of serious gram-positive infections, particularly involving MRSA.

scholarly journals A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Martin Croce ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez Gonzalez ◽  
Satoshi Fujimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Methods In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, –1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, –7.6%; 97.5% CI: –15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. Conclusions Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02019420.

scholarly journals 1364. Efficacy of Omadacycline Against Molecularly Characterized Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Pathogens Causing Infections in the Phase 3 CABP and ABSSSI Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S417-S418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo E Mendes ◽  
Mariana Castanheira ◽  
Eliana S Armstrong ◽  
Judith N Steenbergen ◽  
Robert K Flamm
Keyword(s):  
Efflux Pump ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Treated Patient ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
E Coli

Abstract Background Omadacycline (OMC) is a once-daily agent with IV and oral formulations. One Phase 3 trial for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP; OPTIC) and two Phase 3 trials for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI; OASIS-1 and OASIS-2) were completed. OMC and comparator efficacies were examined for molecularly characterized baseline pathogens. Methods Gram-positive (24) and -negative (17) isolates from the OPTIC (26), OASIS-1 (10) or OASIS-2 (5) trials were selected for characterization. Susceptibility testing and interpretation was performed by CLSI methods. Gram-positive isolates were selected based on tetracycline and/or macrolide, lincosamide, streptograminB (MLSB) phenotypes, and tetracycline-nonsusceptible (NS) Gram-negative isolates were selected. Isolates were subjected to next-generation sequencing followed by screening for known tetracycline and/or MLSB genes. The efficacy endpoint was investigator’s assessment of clinical response at post therapy evaluation (PTE). Results All S. aureus (eight isolates) exhibited a doxycycline-NS phenotype (MIC, 8–16 µg/mL) and OMC MIC values of 0.25–0.5 µg/mL. All S. aureus carried tet(M), except one isolate with tet(K), and one isolate with tet(M) and tet(L). All but one S. pneumoniae (16 isolates; OMC MIC, 0.03–0.06 µg/mL) carried MLSB genes, while tetracycline- and doxycycline-NS isolates (12) had tet(M). E. coli (eight isolates; OMC MIC, 0.5–2 µg/mL), E. cloacae (two isolates; OMC MIC, 2 µg/mL), and K. pneumoniae (six isolates; OMC MIC, 2–16 µg/mL) carried tetracycline efflux-pump genes, tet(A) and/or tet(B), tet(D), and tet(A), respectively. tet genes were not detected in one K. pneumoniae (OMC MIC, 8 µg/mL). Clinical success was noted in 37/41 (90.2%) patients. Two linezolid-treated patients with S. aureus (OMC MIC, 0.25 µg/mL) from OASIS-1 and one OMC-treated patient from OPTIC with E. coli (OMC MIC, 2 µg/mL) had indeterminate PTE responses. One OMC-treated patient from OPTIC with K. pneumoniae (OMC MIC, 8 µg/mL) was a clinical failure at PTE. Conclusion This study expands on OMC efficacy data analysis among patients infected with tetracycline–NS pathogens. These results indicate that OMC in vivo efficacy is not affected by tetracycline and/or MLSB resistance mechanisms. Disclosures R. E. Mendes, Paratek Pharmaceuticals: Research Contractor, Research support. M. Castanheira, Paratek Pharmaceuticals: Research Contractor, Research support. E. S. Armstrong, Paratek Pharmaceuticals: Employee, Salary. J. N. Steenbergen, Paratek Pharmaceuticals: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. R. K. Flamm, Paratek Pharmaceuticals: Scientific Advisor, Speaker honorarium.

scholarly journals 700. Safety and Efficacy of Omadacycline in Patients with Diabetes in Phase 3 Clinical Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S316-S317
Author(s):  
Manjunath P Pai ◽  
Mark H Wilcox ◽  
Marla Curran ◽  
Surya Chitra ◽  
Lynne Garrity-Ryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Medical History ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Oral Medication ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Poor Treatment ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background The risk of serious infections and poor treatment outcomes is reported to be higher in patients with diabetes compared with the general population. Omadacycline (OMC) is an intravenous (IV) and oral aminomethylcycline antibiotic approved in the US to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) in adults. Here we assessed safety and efficacy results from OMC Phase 3 studies (ABSSSI: Omadacycline in Acute Skin and skin structure Infections Study [OASIS]-1 and OASIS-2; CABP: Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community study [OPTIC]), by diabetes history. Methods In OASIS-1 (IV to optional oral medication) and OASIS-2 (oral only), patients were randomized to OMC or linezolid (LZD) for 7–14 days. In OPTIC, patients were randomized to IV OMC or moxifloxacin (MOX) for 7–14 days, with optional transition to oral medication. Data from OASIS-1 and OASIS-2 were pooled, and patient subgroups were defined by any medical history of diabetes (type 1, type 2, or unspecified), or no medical history of diabetes. Efficacy outcomes were early clinical response (ECR) and investigator’s assessment of clinical response at post-treatment evaluation (PTE), as defined for each indication. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory measures, and data were pooled across the three studies. Results A total of 2,150 patients were included, of whom 238 (11.1%) had any history of diabetes (n = 105 for ABSSSI, n = 133 for CABP). In the pooled ABSSSI studies and the CABP study, clinical success at ECR and PTE was similar between patients with or without diabetes, and between OMC and the respective comparator (figure). TEAEs and serious TEAEs, respectively, were reported in similar numbers of OMC-, LZD-, and MOX-treated patients with diabetes (41.8–49.3%, 4.5–7.0%) and without (41.2–48.3%, 1.6–6.9%). Rates of nausea and vomiting, respectively, in patients with diabetes were similar across treatment arms: OMC (5.0%, 5.0%), LZD (7.5%, 6.0%), MOX (7.0%, 2.8%). Conclusion Omadacycline efficacy and safety were similar and consistent in patients with or without diabetes. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals TD-1792 versus Vancomycin for Treatment of Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections

2012 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 5476-5483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin E. Stryjewski ◽  
Peter D. Potgieter ◽  
Yu-Ping Li ◽  
Steven L. Barriere ◽  
Allan Churukian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Success ◽  
Study Medication ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Complicated Skin ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Vancomycin Group ◽  
Cure Rates

ABSTRACTTD-1792 is a first-in-class glycopeptide-cephalosporin heterodimer that exhibits bactericidal activity against Gram-positive pathogens. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, active-control, phase II trial in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by suspected or confirmed Gram-positive organisms. Patients 18 to 65 years old were randomized to receive 7 to 14 days of either TD-1792 (2 mg/kg of body weight intravenously [i.v.] every 24 h [q24h]) or vancomycin (1 g i.v. q12h, with dosage regimens adjusted per site-specific procedures). A total of 197 patients were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication. Rates of clinical success at the test-of-cure evaluation were similar in all analysis populations. Among 170 clinically evaluable patients, cure rates were 91.7% and 90.7% in the TD-1792 and vancomycin groups, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI] of −7.9 to 9.7 for the difference). In microbiologically evaluable patients with methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusat baseline (n= 75), cure rates were 94.7% in the TD-1792 group and 91.9% in the vancomycin group. Microbiological eradication of Gram-positive pathogens (n= 126) was achieved in 93.7% and 92.1% of patients in the TD-1792 and vancomycin groups, respectively. Seven patients were discontinued from study medication due to an adverse event (AE): 2 and 5 in the TD-1792 and vancomycin groups, respectively. AEs were of similar types and severities between the two groups, other than pruritus, which was more common in patients who received vancomycin. No patients in the TD-1792 group experienced a serious AE. This study supports further clinical development of TD-1792 in patients with Gram-positive infection.

scholarly journals A Phase-3 Study to Compare Delafloxacin to Moxifloxacin for the Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (DEFINE-CABP)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan P Horcajada ◽  
Robert A Salata ◽  
Rodolfo Álvarez-Sala ◽  
Floarea Mimi Nitu ◽  
Laura Lawrence ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
The United States ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Atypical Pathogens ◽  
Intent To Treat

Abstract Background The clinical and economic burden of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is significant and is anticipated to increase as the population ages and pathogens become more resistant. Delafloxacin is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Delafloxacin’s shape and charge profile uniquely impacts its spectrum of activity and side effect profile. This phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin to moxifloxacin for the treatment of CABP. Methods A randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, multicenter, global Phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin 300 mg BID or moxifloxacin 400 mg QD in adults with CABP. The primary endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) defined as improvement at 96 (± 24) hours after first dose of study drug. Clinical response at test of cure (TOC) and microbiologic response were also assessed. Results In the intent-to-treat analysis population (ITT), ECR rates were 88.9% in the delafloxacin group and 89.0% in the moxifloxacin group. Noninferiority of delafloxacin compared with moxifloxacin was demonstrated. At TOC in the ITT population, the success rates were similar between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events considered at least possibly related to the study drug occurred in 65 subjects (15.2%) in the delafloxacin group and 54 (12.6%) in the moxifloxacin group. Conclusions IV/oral delafloxacin monotherapy is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of adults with CABP, providing coverage for grampositive, gramnegative, and atypical pathogens.

scholarly journals Phase II Clinical Study of BC-3781, a Pleuromutilin Antibiotic, in Treatment of Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 2087-2094 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. T. Prince ◽  
Z. Ivezic-Schoenfeld ◽  
C. Lell ◽  
K. J. Tack ◽  
R. Novak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Success ◽  
Clinical Success Rate ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Clinical Response Rate ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Vancomycin Group

ABSTRACTThis study investigated the potential of the novel systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic BC-3781 to treat patients with an acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by a Gram-positive pathogen. Patients were randomized to intravenous BC-3781 100 mg, BC-3781 150 mg, or vancomycin 1 g every 12 h. Response to treatment was assessed daily and at test of cure (TOC). The primary endpoint was the clinical success rate at TOC in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) analysis populations. Baseline characteristics, including the frequency of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA), were comparable between the different treatment groups. Of 210 patients randomized, 186 (88.6%) patients completed the study. Clinical success at TOC in the CE population occurred in 54 (90.0%) patients in the BC-3781 100-mg group, 48 (88.9%) in the BC-3781 150-mg group, and 47 (92.2%) in the vancomycin group. At day 3, the clinical response rate was similar across the three treatment groups. Six patients discontinued study medication following an adverse event. The incidence rate for drug-related adverse events was lower for patients receiving BC-3781 (34.3% and 39.4% in the 100-mg and 150-mg groups, respectively) than those receiving vancomycin (53.0%). When BC-3781 was used to treat ABSSSIs caused by a Gram-positive pathogen, including MRSA, clinical success rates were comparable to those of the comparator, vancomycin. BC-3781 was generally well tolerated. These results provide the first proof of concept for the systemic use of a pleuromutilin antibiotic for the treatment of ABSSSIs.

scholarly journals 2841. A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate (TZD) and Linezolid (LZD) for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive (G+) Nosocomial Pneumonia

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S67-S67
Author(s):  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Martin Croce ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez Gonzalez ◽  
Satoshi Fujimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are frequently caused by G+ cocci; TZD has potent in vitro activity against these pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The VITAL study compared the efficacy and safety of TZD vs. LZD for the treatment of ventilated patients with G+ HAP/VAP. Methods Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, global, phase 3 study in mechanically ventilated adult patients with presumed G+ HAP/VAP (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02019420). Patients were stratified by region, age, and trauma/nontrauma, then randomized 1:1 to intravenous (IV) TZD 200 mg once daily for 7 days or IV LZD 600 mg every 12 h for 10 d (patients with concurrent G+ bacteremia received 14 d of treatment). The primary efficacy endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) in the intent to treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients; noninferiority [NI] margin, 10%). Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; NI margin, 12.5%). Results In total, 726 patients were randomized (TZD n = 366; LZD n = 360). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the ITT (table). Noninferiority was not demonstrated for TZD vs. LZD for investigator-assessed clinical success at TOC in the ITT. Stratification factors, analysis population, baseline clinical/laboratory signs of HAP/VAP, G+ only vs. mixed G+/gram-negative (G–) HAP/VAP, adjunctive G– therapy, MRSA vs. methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and HAP vs. VAP were evaluated, and no single factor accounted for the observed imbalance in clinical response between treatment arms. Greater than 90% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Anemia, hypokalemia, and diarrhea were the most frequently reported (TEAEs) in both arms. Types and incidence rates of TEAEs overall, and of drug-related TEAEs specifically, were comparable between TZD and LZD. Conclusion TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the treatment of ventilated G+ HAP/VAP. However, TZD was not noninferior to LZD based on the investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC. Both drugs were similarly well tolerated and TEAEs were well balanced between groups, with no new safety signals identified. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document