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 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, 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 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 Effect of a rescue or recurrence dose of lasmiditan on efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine: Findings from the Phase 3 trials (SAMURAI and SPARTAN)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Shen Loo ◽  
Brian Plato ◽  
Ira Turner ◽  
Michael Case ◽  
Joel Raskin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Treatment ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Rescue Treatment ◽  
Patient Pain ◽  
Bothersome Symptom ◽  
Severe Migraine ◽  
Headache Recurrence

Abstract Background We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. Methods SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50mg (SPARTAN only), 100mg, 200mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 hours (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2h and took a second dose 2-24h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. Results The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p>0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p>0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p=0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p=0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. Conclusions A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo.

scholarly journals Lefamulin in Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Caused by Atypical Respiratory Pathogens: Pooled Results from Two Phase 3 Trials

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1489
Author(s):  
Susanne Paukner ◽  
David Mariano ◽  
Anita F. Das ◽  
Gregory J. Moran ◽  
Christian Sandrock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Legionella Pneumophila ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Chlamydia Pneumoniae ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Diagnostic Modality ◽  
Risk Class ◽  
Atypical Pathogens

Lefamulin was the first systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia based on two phase 3 trials (Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia [LEAP]-1 and LEAP-2). This pooled analysis evaluated lefamulin efficacy and safety in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by atypical pathogens (Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and Chlamydia pneumoniae). In LEAP-1, participants received intravenous lefamulin 150 mg every 12 h for 5–7 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch. In LEAP-2, participants received oral lefamulin 600 mg every 12 h for 5 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days. Primary outcomes were early clinical response at 96 ± 24 h after first dose and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5–10 days after last dose). Atypical pathogens were identified in 25.0% (91/364) of lefamulin-treated patients and 25.2% (87/345) of moxifloxacin-treated patients; most were identified by ≥1 standard diagnostic modality (M. pneumoniae 71.2% [52/73]; L. pneumophila 96.9% [63/65]; C. pneumoniae 79.3% [46/58]); the most common standard diagnostic modality was serology. In terms of disease severity, more than 90% of patients had CURB-65 (confusion of new onset, blood urea nitrogen > 19 mg/dL, respiratory rate ≥ 30 breaths/min, blood pressure <90 mm Hg systolic or ≤60 mm Hg diastolic, and age ≥ 65 years) scores of 0–2; approximately 50% of patients had PORT (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team) risk class of III, and the remaining patients were more likely to have PORT risk class of II or IV versus V. In patients with atypical pathogens, early clinical response (lefamulin 84.4–96.6%; moxifloxacin 90.3–96.8%) and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (lefamulin 74.1–89.7%; moxifloxacin 74.2–97.1%) were high and similar between arms. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in the lefamulin (34.1% [31/91]) and moxifloxacin (32.2% [28/87]) groups. Limitations to this analysis include its post hoc nature, the small numbers of patients infected with atypical pathogens, the possibility of PCR-based diagnostic methods to identify non-etiologically relevant pathogens, and the possibility that these findings may not be generalizable to all patients. Lefamulin as short-course empiric monotherapy, including 5-day oral therapy, was well tolerated in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and demonstrated high clinical response rates against atypical pathogens.

scholarly journals Effect of a rescue or recurrence dose of lasmiditan on efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine: Findings from the Phase 3 trials (SAMURAI and SPARTAN)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Shen Loo ◽  
Brian Plato ◽  
Ira Turner ◽  
Michael Case ◽  
Joel Raskin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Treatment ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Rescue Treatment ◽  
Patient Pain ◽  
Bothersome Symptom ◽  
Severe Migraine ◽  
Headache Recurrence

Abstract Background We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. Methods SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50mg (SPARTAN only), 100mg, 200mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 hours (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2h and took a second dose 2-24h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. Results The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p>0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p>0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p=0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p=0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. Conclusions A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of switching from rituximab to biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatoid arthritis: 72-week data from a randomized Phase 3 trial

Rheumatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (12) ◽  
pp. 2193-2202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Cheol Shim ◽  
Ljubinka Božić-Majstorović ◽  
Alfredo Berrocal Kasay ◽  
Elias Chalouhi El-Khouri ◽  
Fedra Irazoque-Palazuelos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Drug Infusion ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Extension Period

Abstract Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar after a single switch, during a multinational, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial involving patients with RA. Methods Patients received 48 weeks’ treatment with CT-P10 or United States- or European Union-sourced reference rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX, respectively). Patients entering the extension period (weeks 48–72) remained on CT-P10 (CT-P10/CT-P10; n = 122) or US-RTX (US-RTX/US-RTX; n = 64), or switched to CT-P10 from US-RTX (US-RTX/CT-P10; n = 62) or EU-RTX (EU-RTX/CT-P10; n = 47) for an additional course. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, and quality of life-related parameters. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Results At week 72, similar improvements were observed by disease activity parameters including DAS28 and ACR response rate in the four extension period treatment groups. Quality of life improvements at week 72 vs baseline were similarly shown during the extension period in all groups. Newly developed anti-drug antibodies were detected in two patients following study drug infusion in the extension period. Similar pharmacodynamic and safety profiles were observed across groups. Conclusion Long-term use of CT-P10 up to 72 weeks was effective and well tolerated. Furthermore, switching from reference rituximab to CT-P10 in RA was well tolerated and did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety. Trail registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02149121.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document