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

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.

Download Full-text

Rezafungin versus Caspofungin in a Phase 2, Randomized, Double-Blind Study for the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis- The STRIVE Trial

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciaa1380 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

George R Thompson ◽

Alex Soriano ◽

Athanasios Skoutelis ◽

Jose A Vazquez ◽

Patrick M Honore ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Invasive Candidiasis ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Once Daily ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Intent To Treat ◽

Cure Rates ◽

Treat Population

Abstract Background Rezafungin (RZF) is a novel echinocandin exhibiting distinctive pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. STRIVE was a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial designed to compare the safety and efficacy of RZF once weekly (QWk) to caspofungin (CAS) once daily for treatment of candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis (IC). Methods Adults with systemic signs and mycological confirmation of candidemia and/or IC were randomized to RZF 400 mg QWk (400 mg), RZF 400 mg on week 1 then 200 mg QWk (400/200 mg), or CAS 70 mg as a loading dose followed by 50 mg daily for ≤ 4 weeks. Efficacy assessments included overall cure (resolution of signs of candidemia/IC + mycological eradication) at day 14 (primary endpoint), investigator-assessed clinical response at day 14, and 30-day all-cause mortality (ACM) (secondary endpoints), and time to negative blood culture. Safety was evaluated by adverse events and ACM through follow-up. Results Of 207 patients enrolled, 183 were in the microbiological intent-to-treat population (~21% IC). Overall cure rates were 60.5% (46/76) for RZF 400 mg, 76.1% (35/46) for RZF 400/200 mg, and 67.2% (41/61) for CAS; investigator-assessed clinical cure rates were 69.7% (53/76), 80.4% (37/46), and 70.5% (43/61), respectively. 30-day ACM was 15.8% for RZF 400 mg, 4.4% for RZF 400/200 mg, and 13.1% for CAS. Candidemia was cleared in 19.5 and 22.8 hours in RZF and CAS patients, respectively. No concerning safety trends were observed; ACM through follow-up was 15.2% (21/138) for RZF and 18.8% (13/69) for CAS. Conclusions RZF was safe and efficacious in the treatment of candidemia and/or IC.

Download Full-text

439. Iclaprim Use for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection (ABSSSI) is Not Associated with Hyperkalemia: Phase 3 REVIVE Studies

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz360.512 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. S218-S218

Author(s):

David B Huang ◽

Stephanie S Noviello ◽

Thomas Lodise ◽

James McKinnell ◽

Jamie P Dwyer

Keyword(s):

Renal Impairment ◽

Severe Renal Impairment ◽

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽

Study Drug ◽

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽

Distal Portion ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Two Phase ◽

Double Blind ◽

Converting Enzyme Inhibitors

Abstract Background Trimethoprim inhibits sodium channels in the distal portion of the renal tubule, thereby impairing renal potassium excretion. Trimethoprim has been associated with a greater risk of hyperkalemia compared with other antibiotics (amoxicillin, nitrofurantoin, cefalexin, ciprofloxacin). An analysis of Phase 3 studies was conducted to determine whether iclaprim, under development for ABSSSI and also a selective bacterial dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor like trimethoprim, is associated with hyperkalemia, relative to vancomycin, an antibiotic not associated with hyperkalemia. Methods A post-hoc safety analysis was conducted on pooled results of two Phase 3, double-blind, randomized (1:1), active-controlled trials (REVIVE-1/-2) in patients with ABSSSI. These trials compared iclaprim 80 mg fixed doses with vancomycin 15 mg/kg; both administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5–14 days. Hyperkalemia was defined as serum potassium (K) ≥5.5 mmol/L, if normal at baseline, while on study drug. Hyperkalemia was compared between treatment groups and stratified subgroup comparisons were performed. Results Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were similar between the pooled iclaprim and vancomycin groups (table). Hyperkalemia occurred during treatment in 1.5% (9/592) and 2.5% (15/599) of patients treated with iclaprim and vancomycin, respectively. Of the patients with hyperkalemia, one patient in each treatment group had moderate to severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl] 15–59 mL/minute). Among patients with moderate to severe renal impairment on any RAS, KSD or K supplements, hyperkalemia occurred in 1/16 and 0/16 patients in the iclaprim and vancomycin groups, respectively, and in 2/83 and 0/46 patients with mild to no renal impairment. No patients with hyperkalemia experienced adverse events of palpitations, chest pain, myalgia, muscular weakness or fatigue. Conclusion No differences in hyperkalemia were seen between the iclaprim and vancomycin groups in the Phase 3 REVIVE studies. In general, few cases of hyperkalemia occurred among patients with renal impairment treated with concomitant angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers treated with iclaprim. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Download Full-text

Ceftolozane/tazobactam probability of target attainment and outcomes in participants with augmented renal clearance from the randomized phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial

Critical Care ◽

10.1186/s13054-021-03773-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Andrew F. Shorr ◽

Christopher J. Bruno ◽

Zufei Zhang ◽

Erin Jensen ◽

Wei Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Function ◽

Normal Renal Function ◽

Clinical Cure ◽

Bacterial Pneumonia ◽

Target Attainment ◽

Augmented Renal Clearance ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Epithelial Lining Fluid ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Cure Rates

Abstract Background The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial evaluated the efficacy of 3 g of ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) versus 1 g of meropenem infused every 8 h for 8 to 14 days for treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). We assessed the probability of target attainment and compared efficacy outcomes from ASPECT-NP in participants with augmented renal clearance (ARC) versus those with normal renal function. Methods Baseline renal function was categorized as normal renal function (creatinine clearance 80–130 mL/min) or ARC (creatinine clearance > 130 mL/min). Population pharmacokinetic models informed Monte Carlo simulations to assess probability of target attainment in plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid. Outcomes included 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure and per-participant microbiologic cure rates at the test-of-cure visit. Results A > 99% and > 80% probability of target attainment was demonstrated for ceftolozane and tazobactam, respectively, in simulated plasma and epithelial lining fluid. Within treatment arms, 28-day all-cause mortality rates in participants with normal renal function (C/T, n = 131; meropenem, n = 123) and ARC (C/T, n = 96; meropenem, n = 113) were comparable (data comparisons presented as rate; treatment difference [95% CI]) (C/T: normal renal function, 17.6%; ARC, 17.7%; 0.2 [− 9.6 to 10.6]; meropenem: normal renal function, 20.3%; ARC, 17.7%; − 2.6 [− 12.6 to 7.5]). Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure were also comparable across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 57.3%; ARC, 59.4%; − 2.1 [− 14.8 to 10.8]; meropenem: normal renal function, 59.3%; ARC, 57.5%; 1.8 [− 10.6 to 14.2]). Per-participant microbiologic cure rates at test-of-cure were consistent across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 72.2% [n/N = 70/97]; ARC, 71.4% [n/N = 55/77]; 0.7 [− 12.4 to 14.2]; meropenem: normal renal function, 75.0% [n/N = 66/88]; ARC, 70.0% [n/N = 49/70]; 5.0 [− 8.7 to 19.0]). Conclusions C/T and meropenem resulted in 28-day all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiologic cure rates that were comparable between participants with ARC or normal renal function. In conjunction with high probability of target attainment, these results confirm that C/T (3 g) every 8 h is appropriate in patients with HABP/VABP and ARC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02070757, registered February 25, 2014; EudraCT: 2012-002862-11.

Download Full-text

110. A Phase 3, Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Plus Metronidazole Versus Meropenem in Chinese Participants With Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab466.110 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S67-S68

Author(s):

Yihong Sun ◽

Jia Fan ◽

Gang Chen ◽

Xiaofei Chen ◽

Xiaoling Du ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Cure ◽

Additional Treatment ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Study Drug Administration ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Abdominal Infections

Abstract Background In China, the prevalence of infections due to multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria is high and additional treatment options for complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) are needed. This study compared the efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) + metronidazole (MTZ) versus meropenem (MEM) + placebo (pbo) for the treatment of cIAI in adult Chinese participants. Methods This was a phase 3, double-blind study conducted at 21 centers in China (NCT03830333). Participants aged 18-75 years with cIAI requiring surgical intervention within 24 hours of study drug administration were stratified by site of infection and randomized 1:1 to receive 1.5 g C/T (1 g ceftolozane and 0.5 g tazobactam) + 0.5 g MTZ administered intravenously (IV) every 8 hours (q8h) or 1 g MEM + pbo administered IV q8h for 4-14 days. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at test of cure (TOC) in the clinically evaluable (CE) population. Secondary endpoints included rates of clinical cure, per-participant microbiologic response, per-pathogen microbiologic response, and adverse events (AE). Non-inferiority for clinical cure at TOC in the CE population was confirmed if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-treatment difference in the clinical cure rate was larger than −12.5%. Results A total of 134 participants were randomized to each treatment group. Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between treatment groups (Table 1). The median (range) age in the ITT population was 50 (18-75) years and 61% were men. The most frequent sites of infection were the appendix (C/T + MTZ, 50.0%; MEM + pbo, 49.3%) and gallbladder (C/T + MTZ, 27.6%; MEM + pbo, 29.1%). Overall, the most frequently isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (61.4%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (17.3%); few anaerobes were isolated (Table 1). C/T + MTZ was non-inferior to MEM + pbo for clinical cure in the CE population (C/T + MTZ, 95.2%; MEM + pbo, 93.1%; difference, 2.1% [95% CI, −4.7% to 8.8%]). Results for key secondary endpoints were comparable between treatment groups (Table 2). Rates of AEs were generally similar between treatment groups (Table 3). Conclusion C/T + MTZ was non-inferior to MEM + pbo in the treatment of adult Chinese participants with cIAI and demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Disclosures Xiaofei Chen, n/a, MSD, China (Employee) Xiaoling Du, n/a, MSD, China (Employee) Ye Wang, n/a, MSD, China (Employee) Hui Wang, n/a, MSD, China (Employee) Fang Sun, n/a, MSD, China (Employee) Matthew G. Johnson, MD, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (Employee) Mekki Bensaci, PhD, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (Employee) Jennifer A. Huntington, PharmD, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (Employee) Christopher Bruno, MD, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (Employee)

Download Full-text

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)

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1415 ◽

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)

Download Full-text

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

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz514 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

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

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz359.146 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

IGNITE4: Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Multicenter, Prospective Trial of Eravacycline vs Meropenem in the Treatment of Complicated Intraabdominal Infections

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciy1029 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 69 (6) ◽

pp. 921-929 ◽

Cited By ~ 40

Author(s):

Joseph S Solomkin ◽

Janis Gardovskis ◽

Kenneth Lawrence ◽

Philippe Montravers ◽

Angie Sway ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Cure ◽

Prospective Trial ◽

Multidrug Resistant ◽

Primary Objective ◽

Resistant Bacteria ◽

Double Blind ◽

Evaluable Population ◽

Intent To Treat ◽

Cure Rates ◽

Intraabdominal Infections

Abstract Background Increasing antimicrobial resistance among pathogens that cause complicated intraabdominal infections (cIAIs) supports the development of new antimicrobials. Eravacycline, a novel member of the fluorocycline family, is active against multidrug-resistant bacteria including extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Methods IGNITE4 was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Hospitalized patients with cIAI received either eravacycline 1 mg/kg every 12 hours or meropenem 1 g every 8 hours intravenously for 4–14 days. The primary objective was to demonstrate statistical noninferiority (NI) in clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit (25–31 days from start of therapy) in the microbiological intent-to-treat population using a NI margin of 12.5%. Microbiological outcomes and safety were also evaluated. Results Eravacycline was noninferior to meropenem in the primary endpoint (177/195 [90.8%] vs 187/205 [91.2%]; difference, –0.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –6.3 to 5.3), exceeding the prespecified margin. Secondary endpoints included clinical cure rates in the modified ITT population (231/250 [92.4%] vs 228/249 [91.6%]; difference, 0.8; 95% CI, –4.1, 5.8) and the clinically evaluable population (218/225 [96.9%] vs 222/231 [96.1%]; (difference, 0.8; 95% CI –2.9, 4.5). In patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, clinical cure rates were 87.5% (14/16) and 84.6% (11/13) in the eravacycline and meropenem groups, respectively. Eravacycline had relatively low rates of adverse events for a drug of this class, with less than 5%, 4%, and 3% of patients experiencing nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, respectively. Conclusions Treatment with eravacycline was noninferior to meropenem in adult patients with cIAI, including infections caused by resistant pathogens. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01844856.

Download Full-text