scholarly journals 1230. Clinical and Microbiologic Outcomes by Causative Pathogen in Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (HABP/VABP) Treated with Imipenem/Cilastatin (IMI)/Relebactam (REL) Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam (PIP/TAZ)

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S635-S635
Author(s):  
Maria C Losada ◽  
Alok Maniar ◽  
Jiejun Du ◽  
Michelle L Brown ◽  
Katherine Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Empiric Therapy ◽  
Causative Pathogen ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Mitt Population ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background IMI/REL is a combination of IMI and the novel class A and class C β-lactamase inhibitor REL. Here we present per-pathogen outcomes from a recent phase 3 clinical trial (RESTORE-IMI 2), in which IMI/REL was shown to be non-inferior to piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) for empiric therapy of HABP/VABP, in both primary and key secondary endpoints. Methods Randomized, controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in adults with HABP/VABP. Lower respiratory tract specimens were obtained ≤48 hours prior to screening. Participants (pts) were randomized 1:1 to IMI/REL 500 mg/250 mg or PIP/TAZ 4 g/500 mg, given intravenously every 6 h for 7-14 d. Pts also received empiric linezolid until baseline cultures confirmed absence of MRSA. This analysis evaluated outcomes by causative LRT pathogen in modified intent to treat (MITT) pts (randomized pts with ≥1 dose of study drug, excluding pts with only gram-positive cocci present on baseline Gram stain) who had ≥1 baseline LRT pathogen susceptible (according to CLSI criteria) to both study drugs. Outcomes assessed were microbiologic response at end of therapy (EOT), clinical response at early follow-up (EFU; 7-14 d after EOT), and Day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM). Results Of 531 MITT pts, 51.4% (130 IMI/REL, 143 PIP/TAZ) had ≥1 baseline LRT pathogen susceptible to both study drugs. The most common causative pathogens in this analysis population were Klebsiella spp (30.4% of patients), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (22.3%), Escherichia coli (22.0%), and Haemophilus influenzae (9.2%), consistent with other recent trials in HABP/VABP and with surveillance data. Outcomes by pathogen were generally comparable between IMI/REL and PIP/TAZ (Table). In a separate subgroup analysis of the microbiologic MITT population, in pts with ≥1 ESBL-positive LRT pathogen (45 IMI/REL, 35 PIP/TAZ), microbiologic response at EOT was 82.2% (IMI/REL) vs 68.6%% (PIP/TAZ), clinical response at EFU was 64.4% vs 60.0%, and Day 28 ACM was 20.0% and 22.9%, respectively. In the IMI/REL arm, 8 pts had ≥1 confirmed KPC-positive baseline LRT pathogen; KPC status was not assessed in the PIP/TAZ arm. Conclusion IMI/REL is an efficacious treatment option for HABP/VABP, regardless of causative pathogen. Table. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes in patients who were in the MITT population and had at least 1 baseline LRT pathogen susceptible to both study drugs Disclosures Maria C. Losada, BA, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Jiejun Du, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Michelle L. Brown, BS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Katherine Young, MS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert Tipping, MS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) C. Andrew DeRyke, PharmD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Joan R. Butterton, MD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Amanda Paschke, MD MSCE, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Luke F. Chen, MBBS MPH MBA FRACP FSHEA FIDSA, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

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 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.

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 A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Titov ◽  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Daniel Rodríguez Gonzalez ◽  
Aileen David-Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Severe Renal Impairment ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Mitt Population ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Imipenem combined with the β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Methods This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7–14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7–14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. Results Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, −5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, −3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. Conclusions Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02493764.

scholarly journals RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (9) ◽  
pp. 1799-1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann Motsch ◽  
Cláudia Murta de Oliveira ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
Iftihar Köksal ◽  
Olexiy Lyulko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Infection Type ◽  
Complicated Urinary Tract Infection ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Dose Study ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background The β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. Methods Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5–21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. Results Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, –27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, –46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. Conclusions Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02452047.

scholarly journals 1460. Imipenem/Cilastatin (IMI)/Relebactam (REL) in Hospital-Acquired/Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (HABP/VABP): Subgroup Analyses of Critically Ill Patients in the RESTORE-IMI 2 Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S732-S732
Author(s):  
Luke F Chen ◽  
Maria C Losada ◽  
Kathryn A Mahoney ◽  
Jiejun Du ◽  
Michelle L Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Severe Renal Impairment ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Apache Ii ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Mitt Population

Abstract Background HABP/VABP are serious infections associated with high mortality. Critically ill patients (pts) are at particularly high risk of adverse clinical outcomes. In the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, IMI/REL was non-inferior to PIP/TAZ in primary and key secondary endpoints. We evaluated outcomes specifically in critically ill pts, according to several definitions, from that trial. Methods Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial in adult pts with HABP/VABP. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens were obtained ≤48 hours prior to screening. Pts were randomized 1:1 to IMI/REL 500 mg/250 mg or PIP/TAZ 4 g/500 mg, given IV every 6 h for 7-14 d. The primary endpoint was Day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) and the key secondary endpoint was clinical response at early follow-up (EFU; 7-14 d after completing therapy) in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (randomized pts with ≥1 dose of study drug, excluding pts with only gram-positive cocci present on baseline Gram stain). This analysis assessed efficacy outcomes specifically in pts in the ICU and in pts with APACHE II score ≥15, both prespecified subgroups. In post-hoc analyses, outcomes were also specifically assessed in the subgroups of pts with moderate/severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min) and pts who received vasopressors. Results Of MITT pts (n=531) at baseline, 66.1% (175 IMI/REL, 176 PIP/TAZ) were in the ICU, 47.5% (125 IMI/REL, 127 PIP/TAZ) had APACHE-II score ≥15, and 24.7% (71 IMI/REL, 60 PIP/TAZ) had moderate/severe renal impairment. Further, 20.9% (54 IMI/REL, 57 PIP/TAZ) received vasopressors within 72 h of first dose of study drug and/or during the study. In each subgroup, baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and causative LRT pathogens (mostly Enterobacterales, P. aeruginosa, and A. calcoaceticus-baumannii complex) were generally comparable between treatment arms. In pts with APACHE-II score ≥15, Day 28 ACM and clinical response rates with IMI/REL were favorable compared to PIP/TAZ (Table). Day 28 ACM was also favorable with IMI/REL in patients receiving vasopressors. Remaining outcomes were similar between treatment arms. Conclusion IMI/REL is an efficacious treatment option for critically ill pts with HABP/VABP. Table. Primary and key secondary efficacy outcomes by subgroup (MITT population) Disclosures Luke F. Chen, MBBS MPH MBA FRACP FSHEA FIDSA, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Maria C. Losada, BA, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Kathryn A. Mahoney, PharmD, Merck (Employee, Shareholder) Jiejun Du, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Michelle L. Brown, BS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert Tipping, MS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Katherine Young, MS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) C. Andrew DeRyke, PharmD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Joan R. Butterton, MD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Amanda Paschke, MD MSCE, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

scholarly journals 2227. Outcomes in Patients with Renal Impairment from a Phase 3 Clinical Trial for Ceftolozane–Tazobactam (C/T) Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia (ASPECT-NP)

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S760-S761
Author(s):  
Jennifer A Huntington ◽  
Brian Yu ◽  
Linping Li ◽  
Erin Jensen ◽  
Christopher Bruno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Nosocomial Pneumonia ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Cure Rates

Abstract Background ASPECT-NP, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study, evaluated C/T (at double the approved dose for other indications) vs. meropenem (MEM) in adults with ventilated nosocomial pneumonia. We compared safety and efficacy outcomes from this trial among patients with and without renal impairment (RI). Methods Patients were stratified by age and diagnosis and were randomized 1:1 to intravenous (IV) C/T 3 g every 8 h or IV MEM 1 g every 8 h. Study drug was administered for 8–14 days; doses were adjusted for moderate and severe RI. Eligible patients were mechanically ventilated; those on renal replacement therapy or with creatinine clearance (CrCL) < 15 mL/minute were excluded. Key efficacy endpoints included clinical cure rates at the test of cure (TOC) visit in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations and Day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) in the ITT population. In this analysis, patients were stratified based on renal function for outcome comparisons: normal renal function (CrCL ≥ 80 mL/minute); mild RI (CrCL > 50 to < 80 mL/minute); moderate RI (CrCL ≥ 30 to ≤ 50 mL/minute); and severe RI (CrCL ≥ 15 to < 30 mL/minute). Results A total of 726 patients were enrolled (C/T, N = 362; MEM, N = 364). Clinical cure rates at the TOC visit (CE and ITT populations) were robust across CrCL subgroups in both treatment arms and were similar based on 95% confidence intervals for treatment differences that included 0 (table). Day 28 ACM rates for patients with moderate and severe RI were numerically higher than those with mild RI in the MEM treatment arm. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar in both treatment arms and across CrCL subgroups, with rates generally increasing with increasing RI severity. Rates of treatment-related TEAEs were low across treatment arms and CrCL subgroups with no treatment-related deaths reported. Conclusion Similar clinical cure and Day 28 ACM rates at the TOC visit were found across treatment groups for all CrCL subgroups, consistent with the overall primary and key secondary efficacy results for the ASPECT-NP study. Both drugs were well-tolerated. The results of this analysis indicate that the use of dose-adjusted C/T is appropriate in patients with nosocomial pneumonia and moderate or severe RI. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Primary Outcomes From a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Trial of Surotomycin in Subjects With Clostridium difficile Infection

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Boix ◽  
Richard N. Fedorak ◽  
Kathleen M. Mullane ◽  
Yves Pesant ◽  
Uschi Stoutenburgh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clostridium Difficile Infection ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background Although the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is increasing, available CDI treatment options are limited in terms of sustained response after treatment. This phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of surotomycin, a novel bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide, versus oral vancomycin in subjects with CDI. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, international trial, subjects with CDI confirmed by a positive toxin result were randomized to receive surotomycin (250 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg 4 times daily) orally for 10 days. The primary endpoints were clinical response at end of treatment and evaluation of surotomycin safety. The key secondary endpoints were clinical response over time and sustained clinical response through a 30- to 40-day follow-up period. Clostridium difficile infection recurrence during follow-up and time to diarrhea resolution were also analyzed. Results In total, 570 subjects were randomized and had confirmed CDI; 290 subjects received surotomycin and 280 subjects received vancomycin. Surotomycin clinical cure rates at end of treatment (surotomycin/vancomycin: 79.0%/83.6%; difference of −4.6%; 95% confidence interval, −11.0 to 1.9]), clinical response over time (stratified log-rank test, P = .832), and sustained clinical response at end of trial (Day 40–50) (60.6%/61.4%; difference of −0.8%; 95% CI, −8.8 to 7.1) in the microbiological modified intent to treat population did not meet noninferiority or superiority criteria versus vancomycin. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Conclusions Surotomycin failed to meet the criteria for noninferiority versus vancomycin for the primary and key secondary endpoints in this trial.

scholarly journals OP23 Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab SC in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: Results of the VISIBLE 2 study

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S020-S021
Author(s):  
S Vermeire ◽  
W Sandborn ◽  
F Baert ◽  
S Danese ◽  
T Kobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crohn’S Disease ◽  
Crohn's Disease ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Remission ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind

Abstract Background Vedolizumab (VDZ) is a gut-selective, humanised, monoclonal α 4β 7 integrin antibody for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn’s disease (CD). VDZ is currently an intravenous (IV) therapy; a subcutaneous (SC) formulation is under development to provide patients with an alternative route of administration for maintenance treatment for UC and CD. Here we present the first data from the phase 3 study of VDZ SC maintenance treatment in CD. Methods VISIBLE 2 (NCT02611817; EudraCT 2015-000481-58) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase 3 trial of VDZ SC as maintenance treatment in adults with moderately to severely active CD. Patients (n = 644) received open-label VDZ 300mg IV induction therapy at Weeks 0 and 2. At Week 6, clinical responders (defined as patients with a ≥70-point decrease in CD Activity Index [CDAI] from baseline) were randomly assigned to receive vedolizumab SC (108 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W]), or placebo (Q2W) for up to 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at Week 52 (defined as CDAI score ≤150). Rank-ordered secondary endpoints were enhanced clinical response at Week 52 (a drop of ≥100 in CDAI score), corticosteroid (CS)-free clinical remission at Week 52, and clinical remission at Week 52 in anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve patients. Finally, VDZ immunogenicity and predefined adverse events of special interest were assessed. Results Patients who responded to VDZ IV induction at Week 6 (n = 409) were randomised to VDZ SC (n = 275) or PBO (n = 134) maintenance and received at least 1 dose of study drug; 61% and 53%, respectively, were previously exposed to anti-TNF therapy. At Week 52, 48.0% of patients on VDZ SC vs. 34.3% on PBO were in clinical remission (p = 0.008, Figure). Enhanced clinical response at Week 52 was reached by 52.0% vs. 44.8% of patients on VDZ SC vs. PBO, respectively (p = 0.167). Among patients on concomitant CS at baseline (VDZ SC, n = 95; PBO, n = 44), 45.3% receiving VDZ SC vs. 18.2% receiving PBO achieved CS-free clinical remission at Week 52. Of anti-TNF-naïve patients (VDZ SC, n = 107; PBO, n = 63), 48.6% vs. 42.9% were in clinical remission at Week 52 in the VDZ SC and PBO arms, respectively. Injection-site reactions were reported for &lt;3% of patients treated with VDZ SC. Serious infections, malignancy, and liver injury were ≤5% for both arms. Anti-VDZ antibodies were detected in 7 (2.5%) patients treated with VDZ SC arm; 4 of 7 patients developed neutralising antibodies. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion Among VDZ IV induction responders, significantly more patients on maintenance VDZ SC than PBO achieved clinical remission at Week 52. The safety findings with VDZ SC remain in line with the known safety profile of VDZ IV in patients with CD.

scholarly journals 1338. 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 Vs. Vancomycin for trEatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S409-S409
Author(s):  
David Huang ◽  
G Ralph Corey ◽  
Thomas L Holland ◽  
Thomas P Lodise ◽  
William O’Rirodan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Board Member ◽  
Early Time ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Wound Infections ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind

Abstract Background The objective of this evaluation was to provide an analysis of pooled efficacy data from two parallel Phase 3 trials of iclaprim, a diaminopyrimidine dihydrofolate reducatase inhibitor, compared with vancomycin for the treatment of patients with wound infections including surgical site infections (SSI). Methods A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections was conducted from two parallel Phase 3, double-blind, randomized (1:1), active-controlled, multinational, multicenter trials (REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2), which included a total of 602 patients with wound infections. The data were analyzed separately and then pooled to determine the efficacy of iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose compared with vancomycin 15 mg/kg. Both drugs were administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5 to 14 days according to the investigator assessment of clinical response. The primary endpoint of these studies was to determine whether iclaprim was noninferior (NI; 10% margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20% reduction in lesion size (early clinical response [ECR] at 48 to 72 hours after initiation of the study drug (early time point [ETP]), compared with baseline in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results Iclaprim had similar ECR rates at ETP compared with vancomycin among the subset of patients with wound infections (see table). The median treatment duration for both iclaprim and vancomycin was 7 days (range 5–14 days). Conclusion In this post-hoc analysis of the REVIVE studies, iclaprim achieved NI to vancomycin in both studies, based on ECR at ETP, in the subgroup of patients with wound infections. These results suggest that iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for patients with wound infections, including SSI, suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens. Disclosures D. Huang, Motif BioSciences: Employee, Salary. G. R. Corey, Motif BioSciences: Board Member, Consulting fee. T. L. Holland, Basilea: Consultant, Consulting fee. Motif Bio: Consultant and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Theravance: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Genentech: Consultant, Consulting fee. T. P. Lodise Jr., Motif BioSciences: Board Member, Consulting fee. W. O’Rirodan, Motif BioSciences: Board Member, Consulting fee. M. Wilcox, Motif BioSciences: Board Member, Consulting fee. T. M. File Jr., Motif BioSciences: Board Member, Consulting fee. M. Dryden, Motif BioSciences: Board Member, Consulting fee. B. Balser, Motif BioSciences: Consultant, Consulting fee. E. Desplats, Motif BioSciences: Consultant, Consulting fee.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document