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 Efficacy of Delafloxacin versus Moxifloxacin against Bacterial Respiratory Pathogens in Adults with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Microbiology Results from the Delafloxacin Phase 3 CABP Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra McCurdy ◽  
Kara Keedy ◽  
Laura Lawrence ◽  
Ashley Nenninger ◽  
Amanda Sheets ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Legionella Pneumophila ◽  
Chlamydia Pneumoniae ◽  
Klebsiella Oxytoca ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Multiple Drug ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Atypical Pathogens

ABSTRACT Delafloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone with activity against Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and atypical pathogens, including fluoroquinolone-nonsusceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The microbiological results of a phase 3 clinical trial in adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) comparing delafloxacin (300 mg intravenously [i.v.] with the option to switch to 450 mg orally every 12 h) to moxifloxacin (400 mg i.v. with the option to switch to 400 mg orally once a day [QD]) were determined. Patients from 4 continents, predominately Europe but also South America and Asia, were enrolled. The microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population included 520 patients, and 60.5% of these patients had a bacterial pathogen identified. Multiple diagnostic methods were employed, including culture, serology, PCR, and urinary antigen tests. Based on baseline MIC90 values, delafloxacin exhibited at least 16-fold greater activity than moxifloxacin for Gram-positive and fastidious Gram-negative pathogens. Delafloxacin retained activity against resistant phenotypes found in Streptococcus pneumoniae (penicillin-, macrolide-, and multiple-drug resistant), Haemophilus species (β-lactamase producing and macrolide nonsusceptible), and S. aureus (MRSA and fluoroquinolone-nonsusceptible methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]). The microbiological success rates were 92.7% for S. pneumoniae (87.5% for penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae [PRSP]), 92.6% for S. aureus (100% for MRSA), 100% for Escherichia coli, 82.4% for Klebsiella pneumoniae, 100% for Klebsiella oxytoca, 100% for Moraxella catarrhalis, 91.7% for Haemophilus influenzae, 88.6% for Haemophilus parainfluenzae, 96.7% for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, 93.1% for Legionella pneumophila, and 100% for Chlamydia pneumoniae. There was little correlation between MICs and outcomes, with a high proportion of favorable outcomes observed across all delafloxacin baseline MIC values. Delafloxacin may be considered a treatment option as monotherapy for CAP in adults, where broad-spectrum coverage including MRSA activity is desirable.

scholarly journals 2230. Analysis of the Microbiological Data from the Delafloxacin (DLX) Phase 3 Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP) Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S761-S762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra McCurdy ◽  
Kara Keedy ◽  
Laura Lawrence ◽  
Amanda Sheets ◽  
Megan Quintas
Keyword(s):  
Legionella Pneumophila ◽  
Chlamydia Pneumoniae ◽  
Oral Treatment ◽  
Phenotypic Characterization ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Microbiological Analysis ◽  
Culture Methods ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Atypical Pathogens

Abstract Background DLX is a novel fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotic with Gram-positive/MRSA, Gram-negative and atypical activity. It offers IV and oral treatment with no QT restrictions. In a Phase 3 study in CABP patients, DLX was non-inferior to moxifloxacin (MOX) in the primary endpoint, early clinical response at 96 ± 24 hours (88.9 vs. 89.0; 95% CI: −4.4, 4.1) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. A detailed microbiological analysis was conducted. Methods CABP pathogens were identified by culture/non-culture methods. Pathogens identified by non-culture methods included Streptococcus pneumoniae (Sp; culture, urinary antigen [UA], nasopharyngeal [NP] swab lytA PCR), Legionella pneumophila (Lp) (culture, UA, serology), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (Mp; culture, serology), and Chlamydia pneumoniae (Cp; serology). All other pathogens were identified using culture only. For Sp cultured from NP, a concomitant lytA PCR value of ≥ 1000 gene copies/mL was required. All isolates underwent susceptibility testing, and a subset of isolates underwent molecular or phenotypic characterization including whole-genome sequencing for FQ resistance mechanisms, PCR for PVL/mecA genes (S. aureus), β-lactamases (Haemophilus/Moraxella spp), and serotyping (Sp). Results Included in submitted image. Conclusion DLX demonstrated potent in vitro and clinical activity against CABP pathogens, including Sp [MRSP, MDRSP, PRSP], MRSA, Haemophilus species, Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, and the atypical pathogens Cp, Mp, and Lp. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 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 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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document