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 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 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 Telavancin for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections, aPost HocAnalysis of the Phase 3 ATLAS Trials in Light of the 2013 FDA Guidance

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (10) ◽  
pp. 6170-6174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Pushkin ◽  
Steven L. Barriere ◽  
Whedy Wang ◽  
G. Ralph Corey ◽  
Martin E. Stryjewski
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Lesion Size ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Fda Guidance ◽  
Complicated Skin ◽  
Clinical Responses ◽  
Cure Rates ◽  
Post Hoc

ABSTRACTTwo phase 3 ATLAS trials demonstrated noninferiority of telavancin compared with vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections. Data from these trials were retrospectively evaluated according to 2013 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Thispost hocanalysis included patients with lesion sizes of ≥75 cm2and excluded patients with ulcers or burns (updated all-treated population;n= 1,127). Updated day 3 (early) clinical response was defined as a ≥20% reduction in lesion size from baseline and no rescue antibiotic. Updated test-of-cure (TOC) clinical response was defined as a ≥90% reduction in lesion size, no increase in lesion size since day 3, and no requirement for additional antibiotics or significant surgical procedures. Day 3 (early) clinical responses were achieved in 62.6% and 61.0% of patients receiving telavancin and vancomycin, respectively (difference, 1.7%, with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of −4.0% to 7.4%). Updated TOC visit cure rates were similar for telavancin (68.0%) and vancomycin (63.3%), with a difference of 4.8% (95% CI, −0.7% to 10.3%). Adopting current FDA guidance, this analysis corroborates previous noninferiority findings of the ATLAS trials of telavancin compared with vancomycin.

scholarly journals 263Gastrointestinal Safety Profile of Tedizolid: Pooled Results from Two Phase 3 Trials in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S112-S112
Author(s):  
Edward Fang ◽  
Carisa De Anda ◽  
Sonia Minassian ◽  
Shawn Flanagan ◽  
Philippe Prokocimer
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Skin Structure

scholarly journals In Vitro Activity of Iclaprim against Isolates in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials (REVIVE-1 and -2) for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Noviello ◽  
Sophie Magnet ◽  
Stephen Hawser ◽  
David B. Huang
Keyword(s):  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
In Vitro Activity ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Streptococcus Anginosus ◽  
Antibacterial Susceptibility

ABSTRACT Iclaprim, a selective bacterial dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor, and other antibiotics were tested against Gram-positive isolates from two phase 3 studies of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) (REVIVE-1 and -2). Seven hundred ninety baseline isolates, including Staphylococcus aureus, β-hemolytic streptococci, and Streptococcus anginosus group, underwent antibacterial susceptibility testing. Iclaprim had an MIC90 of 0.12 μg/ml for S. aureus (0.12 μg/ml for methicillin susceptible, 0.25 μg/ml for methicillin resistant), 0.25 μg/ml for β-hemolytic streptococci, and 0.008 μg/ml for S. anginosus group. Iclaprim demonstrated potent activity against these Gram-positive ABSSSI isolates.

scholarly journals Tedizolid and Linezolid for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections of the Lower Extremity versus Non–Lower-Extremity Infections

2017 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren S. Joseph ◽  
Darren Culshaw ◽  
Steven Anuskiewicz ◽  
Carisa De Anda ◽  
Philippe Prokocimer
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Therapy Evaluation ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Post Therapy

Background: Tedizolid phosphate, the prodrug of the oxazolidinone tedizolid, has been approved in a number of countries, including the United States, those in the European Union, and Canada, for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Two phase 3 trials demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of tedizolid (200 mg once daily for 6 days) to linezolid (600 mg twice daily for 10 days) in patients with ABSSSI. Because of the challenges of treating lower-extremity ABSSSI, the efficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid for treating lower-extremity versus non–lower-extremity infections were compared. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from patients with lower-extremity infections enrolled in two phase 3 studies, ESTABLISH-1 (NCT01170221) and ESTABLISH-2 (NCT01421511), comparing tedizolid to linezolid in patients with ABSSSI. Results: Lower-extremity ABSSSI were present in 40.7% of tedizolid-treated and 42.2% of linezolid-treated patients. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was present in 34.7% of all patients with a baseline causative pathogen. Early clinical responses at 48 to 72 hours and investigator-assessed responses at the post-therapy evaluation were similar between tedizolid and linezolid, regardless of ABSSSI type. With both treatments, the early clinical response was slightly higher in patients with non–lower-extremity infection than in those with lower-extremity ABSSSI (tedizolid, 84.8% versus 77.0%; linezolid, 81.4% versus 76.6%, respectively); however, by the post-therapy evaluation visit, response rates were similar (tedizolid, 87.1% versus 86.3%; linezolid, 86.6% versus 87.2%, respectively). Gastrointestinal adverse events and low platelet counts were observed more frequently with linezolid treatment. Conclusions: Post-therapy evaluations showed that the clinical response of lower-extremity ABSSSI to tedizolid and linezolid was comparable to that of ABSSSI in other locations. A short 6-day course of once-daily tedizolid was as effective as a 10-day course of twice-daily linezolid in treating patients with lower-extremity ABSSSI.

scholarly journals CANVAS 1 and 2: Analysis of Clinical Response at Day 3 in Two Phase 3 Trials of Ceftaroline Fosamil versus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam in Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

2012 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
pp. 2231-2236 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. David Friedland ◽  
Tanya O'Neal ◽  
Donald Biek ◽  
Paul B. Eckburg ◽  
Douglas R. Rank ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Ceftaroline Fosamil ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Complicated Skin

ABSTRACTScientific and regulatory interest in assessing clinical endpoints after 48 to 72 h of treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) has increased. Historical, pre-antibiotic-era data suggest that a treatment effect relative to untreated controls can be discerned in this time interval. Ceftaroline fosamil, a broad-spectrum bactericidal cephalosporin with activity against Gram-positive organisms, including methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA), and Gram-negative organisms was efficacious in two phase 3 trials of complicated skin infections (CANVAS 1 and 2) using clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit. To assess an early clinical response in the CANVAS trials, a retrospective analysis using a day 3 clinical endpoint was conducted. Adults with ABSSSI received intravenous ceftaroline fosamil at 600 mg every 12 h (q12h) or vancomycin at 1 g plus aztreonam at 1 g (V/A) q12h for 5 to 14 days. Clinical response at day 3, defined as cessation of infection spread and absence of fever, was analyzed in patients with a lesion size of ≥75 cm2and either deep and/or extensive cellulitis, major abscess, or an infected wound. Day 3 integrated CANVAS clinical response rates were 74.0% (296/400) for ceftaroline and 66.2% (263/397) for V/A (difference, 7.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3% to 14.0%). In the individual studies, absolute treatment differences of 9.4% (CANVAS 1) and 5.9% (CANVAS 2) favoring ceftaroline were observed. For ABSSSI due to MRSA, response rates were 81.7% and 77.4% in the ceftaroline and V/A groups, respectively. In this retrospective analysis, ceftaroline fosamil monotherapy had a numerically higher clinical response than V/A at day 3 in the treatment of ABSSSI.

scholarly journals A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim versus Vancomycin for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed To Be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens (REVIVE-2 Study)

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Holland ◽  
William O'Riordan ◽  
Alison McManus ◽  
Elliot Shin ◽  
Ali Borghei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Lesion Size ◽  
Skin Infections ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Safe Treatment

ABSTRACTIclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine antibiotic that may be an effective and safe treatment for serious skin infections. The safety and effectiveness of iclaprim were assessed in a global phase 3, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial. Six hundred thirteen adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens were randomized to iclaprim (80 mg) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg of body weight), both of which were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5 to 14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size compared with that at the baseline at 48 to 72 h after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Among patients randomized to iclaprim, 78.3% (231 of 295) met this primary endpoint, whereas 76.7% (234 of 305) of those receiving vancomycin met this primary endpoint (difference, 1.58%; 95% confidence interval, −5.10% to 8.26%). This met the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin. Iclaprim was well tolerated, with most adverse events being categorized as mild. In conclusion, iclaprim was noninferior to vancomycin in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. On the basis of these results, iclaprim may be an efficacious and safe treatment for skin infections suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens. (This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02607618.)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document