Lumasiran, an RNAi Therapeutic for Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 1.

BACKGROUND: Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1) is a rare genetic disease caused by hepatic overproduction of oxalate that leads to kidney stones, nephrocalcinosis, kidney failure, and systemic oxalosis. Lumasiran, an investigational RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic agent, reduces hepatic oxalate production by targeting glycolate oxidase. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with PH1 who were 6 years of age or older to receive subcutaneous lumasiran or placebo for 6 months (with doses given at baseline and at months 1, 2, 3, and 6). The primary end point was the percent change in 24-hour urinary oxalate excretion from baseline to month 6 (mean percent change across months 3 through 6). Secondary end points included the percent change in the plasma oxalate level from baseline to month 6 (mean percent change across months 3 through 6) and the percentage of patients with 24-hour urinary oxalate excretion no higher than 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal range at month 6. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients underwent randomization; 26 were assigned to the lumasiran group and 13 to the placebo group. The least-squares mean difference in the change in 24-hour urinary oxalate excretion (lumasiran minus placebo) was -53.5 percentage points (P<0.001), with a reduction in the lumasiran group of 65.4% and an effect seen as early as month 1. The between-group differences for all hierarchically tested secondary end points were significant. The difference in the percent change in the plasma oxalate level (lumasiran minus placebo) was -39.5 percentage points (P<0.001). In the lumasiran group, 84% of patients had 24-hour urinary oxalate excretion no higher than 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal range at month 6, as compared with 0% in the placebo group (P<0.001). Mild, transient injection-site reactions were reported in 38% of lumasiran-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lumasiran reduced urinary oxalate excretion, the cause of progressive kidney failure in PH1. The majority of patients who received lumasiran had normal or near-normal levels after 6 months of treatment. (Funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; ILLUMINATE-A ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03681184.).

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.

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.

Once-daily oral omadacycline versus twice-daily oral linezolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (OASIS-2): a phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Pathogen resistance and safety concerns limit oral antibiotic options for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, versus twice-daily oral linezolid for treatment of ABSSSI. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study, eligible adults with ABSSSI at 33 sites in the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive omadacycline (450 mg orally every 24 h over the first 48 h then 300 mg orally every 24 h) or linezolid (600 mg orally every 12 h) for 7-14 days. Randomisation was done via an interactive response system using a computer-generated schedule, and stratified by type of infection (wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) and receipt (yes or no) of allowed previous antibacterial treatment. Investigators, funders, and patients were masked to treatment assignments. Primary endpoints were early clinical response, 48-72 h after first dose, in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (randomised patients without solely Gram-negative ABSSSI pathogens at baseline), and investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, 7-14 days after the last dose, in the mITT population and clinically evaluable population (ie, mITT patients who had a qualifying infection as per study-entry criteria, received study drug, did not receive a confounding antibiotic, and had an assessment of outcome during the protocol-defined window). The safety population included randomised patients who received any amount of study drug. We set a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877927, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 11, 2016, and June 6, 2017, 861 participants were assessed for eligibility. 735 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 368 received omadacycline and 367 received linezolid. Omadacycline (315 [88%] of 360) was non-inferior to linezolid (297 [83%] of 360) for early clinical response (percentage-point difference 5·0, 95% CI -0·2 to 10·3) in the mITT population. For investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, omadacycline was non-inferior to linezolid in the mITT (303 [84%] of 360 vs 291 [81%] of 360; percentage-point difference 3·3, 95% CI -2·2 to 9·0) and clinically evaluable (278 [98%] of 284 vs 279 [96%] of 292; 2·3, -0·5 to 5·8) populations. Mild to moderate nausea and vomiting were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in omadacycline (111 [30%] of 368 and 62 [17%] of 368, respectively) and linezolid (28 [8%] of 367 and 11 [3%] of 367, respectively) groups. INTERPRETATION: Once-daily oral omadacycline was non-inferior to twice-daily oral linezolid in adults with ABSSSI, and was safe and well tolerated. Oral-only omadacycline represents a new treatment option for ABSSSI, with potential for reduction in hospital admissions and cost savings. FUNDING: Paratek Pharmaceuticals.

Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. twice daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was early clinical response rate at 48 to 72 h. Secondary endpoints included programmatic and investigator-assessed outcomes at end-of-therapy (EOT) and posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visits. Safety was also evaluated. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 75.3% of tedizolid-treated patients and 79.9% of linezolid-treated patients were early responders (treatment difference, -4.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.2, 2.2). After exclusion of patients who never received the study drug (tedizolid, n = 8; linezolid, n = 1; modified ITT), comparable early response rates were observed (tedizolid, 77.4%; linezolid, 80.1%; treatment difference, -2.7%; 95% CI, -9.4, 3.9). Secondary endpoints showed high and similar clinical success rates in the ITT and clinically evaluable (CE) populations at EOT and PTE visits (e.g., CE-PTE for tedizolid, 90.4%; for linezolid, 93.5%). Both drugs were well tolerated, and no death occurred. Eight patients experienced phlebitis with tedizolid while none did with linezolid; hence, drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in a slightly higher proportion in the tedizolid (20.9%) arm than in the linezolid arm (15.8%). The study demonstrated that tedizolid in a primarily Asian population was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for ABSSSI patients. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02066402.).

Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin-Structure Infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections are associated with substantial morbidity and health care costs. Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic that can be administered once daily either orally or intravenously, is active against pathogens that commonly cause such infections, including antibiotic-resistant strains. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive omadacycline (100 mg given intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg given intravenously every 24 hours) or linezolid (600 mg given intravenously every 12 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or oral linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was an early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours, defined as survival with a reduction in lesion size of at least 20% without rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was an investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation 7 to 14 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as survival with resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms of infection to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. For both end points, the noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. RESULTS: In the modified intention-to-treat population, omadacycline (316 patients) was noninferior to linezolid (311 patients) with respect to early clinical response (rate of response, 84.8% and 85.5%, respectively; difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3 to 4.9). Omadacycline also was noninferior to linezolid with respect to investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation in the modified intention-to-treat population (rate of response, 86.1% and 83.6%, respectively; difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.2 to 8.2) and in the clinical per-protocol population (96.3% and 93.5%, respectively; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 6.9). In both groups, the efficacy of the trial drug was similar for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Adverse events were reported in 48.3% of the patients in the omadacycline group and in 45.7% of those in the linezolid group; the most frequent adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal (in 18.0% and 15.8% of the patients in the respective groups). CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and had a similar safety profile. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OASIS-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02378480 .).

Patisiran, an RNAi Therapeutic, for Hereditary Transthyretin Amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Patisiran, an investigational RNA interference therapeutic agent, specifically inhibits hepatic synthesis of transthyretin. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive intravenous patisiran (0.3 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the modified Neuropathy Impairment Score+7 (mNIS+7; range, 0 to 304, with higher scores indicating more impairment) at 18 months. Other assessments included the Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (Norfolk QOL-DN) questionnaire (range, -4 to 136, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life), 10-m walk test (with gait speed measured in meters per second), and modified body-mass index (modified BMI, defined as [weight in kilograms divided by square of height in meters]×albumin level in grams per liter; lower values indicated worse nutritional status). RESULTS: A total of 225 patients underwent randomization (148 to the patisiran group and 77 to the placebo group). The mean (±SD) mNIS+7 at baseline was 80.9±41.5 in the patisiran group and 74.6±37.0 in the placebo group; the least-squares mean (±SE) change from baseline was -6.0±1.7 versus 28.0±2.6 (difference, -34.0 points; P<0.001) at 18 months. The mean (±SD) baseline Norfolk QOL-DN score was 59.6±28.2 in the patisiran group and 55.5±24.3 in the placebo group; the least-squares mean (±SE) change from baseline was -6.7±1.8 versus 14.4±2.7 (difference, -21.1 points; P<0.001) at 18 months. Patisiran also showed an effect on gait speed and modified BMI. At 18 months, the least-squares mean change from baseline in gait speed was 0.08±0.02 m per second with patisiran versus -0.24±0.04 m per second with placebo (difference, 0.31 m per second; P<0.001), and the least-squares mean change from baseline in the modified BMI was -3.7±9.6 versus -119.4±14.5 (difference, 115.7; P<0.001). Approximately 20% of the patients who received patisiran and 10% of those who received placebo had mild or moderate infusion-related reactions; the overall incidence and types of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, patisiran improved multiple clinical manifestations of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. (Funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; APOLLO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01960348 .).

Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.

Iclaprim, a diaminopyrimidine antimicrobial, was compared with vancomycin for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two studies (REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2). Here, the efficacy and tolerability of iclaprim in a pooled analysis of results from both studies was explored. REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2 were phase 3, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, active-controlled, non-inferiority (margin of 10%) trials, each designed to enrol 600 patients with ABSSSI using identical study protocols. Iclaprim 80 mg and vancomycin 15 mg/kg were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction from baseline in lesion size [early clinical response (ECR)] at the early time point (ETP) (48-72 h after starting study drug) in the intent-to-treat population. In REVIVE-1, ECR at the ETP was 80.9% with iclaprim versus 81.0% with vancomycin (treatment difference -0.13%, 95% CI -6.42% to 6.17%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 78.3% with iclaprim versus 76.7% with vancomycin (treatment difference 1.58%, 95% CI -5.10% to 8.26%). The pooled ECR was 79.6% with iclaprim versus 78.8% with vancomycin (treatment difference 0.75%, 95% CI -3.84 to 5.35%). Iclaprim and vancomycin were comparable for the incidence of mostly mild adverse events, except for a higher incidence of elevated serum creatinine with vancomycin (n = 7) compared with iclaprim (n = 0). Iclaprim achieved non-inferiority compared with vancomycin for ECR at the ETP and secondary endpoints with a similar safety profile in two phase 3 studies for treatment of ABSSSI suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. [Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02600611 and NCT02607618.].

A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Followed by Oral Delafloxacin With Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: A Phase 3, Multinational, Double-Blind, Randomized Study.

Background: Delafloxacin is an intravenous (IV)/oral anionic fluoroquinolone with activity against gram-positive (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA]), gram-negative, atypical, and anaerobic organisms. It is approved in the United States for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) caused by designated susceptible gram-positive and gram-negative organisms, and is in development for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Methods: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of 850 adults with ABSSSI compared delafloxacin 300 mg IV every 12 hours for 3 days with a switch to 450 mg oral delafloxacin, to vancomycin 15 mg/kg IV with aztreonam for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was objective response at 48-72 hours. Investigator-assessed response based on resolution of signs and symptoms at follow-up (day 14 ± 1), and late follow-up (day 21-28) were secondary endpoints. Results: In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the objective response was 83.7% in the delafloxacin arm and 80.6% in the comparator arm. Investigator-assessed success was similar at follow-up (87.2% vs 84.4%) and late follow-up (83.5% vs 82.2%). Delafloxacin was comparable to vancomycin + aztreonam in eradication of MRSA at 96.0% vs 97.0% at follow-up. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups was similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation was higher in the vancomycin + aztreonam group (1.2% vs 2.4%). Conclusions: In ABSSSI patients, IV/oral delafloxacin monotherapy was noninferior to IV vancomycin + aztreonam combination therapy for both the objective response and the investigator-assessed response at follow-up and late follow-up. Delafloxacin was well tolerated as monotherapy in treatment of ABSSSIs. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01984684.

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).

Iclaprim 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.).

Single Intravenous Dose of Oritavancin for Treatment of Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Caused by Gram-Positive Bacteria: Summary of Safety Analysis from the Phase 3 SOLO Studies.

Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with bactericidal activity against Gram-positive organisms. Its rapid concentration-dependent bactericidal activity and long elimination half-life allow single-dose treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). SOLO I and SOLO II were randomized, double-blind studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single 1,200-mg intravenous (i.v.) dose of oritavancin versus twice-daily i.v. vancomycin for 7 to 10 days in ABSSSI patients. Safety data from both studies were pooled for safety analysis. The database comprised pooled safety data for 976 oritavancin-treated patients and 983 vancomycin-treated patients. The incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar for oritavancin (55.3, 5.8, and 3.7%, respectively) and vancomycin (56.9, 5.9, and 4.2%, respectively). The median time to onset (3.8 days versus 3.1 days, respectively) and the duration (3.0 days for both groups) of adverse events were also similar between the two groups. The most frequently reported events were nausea, headache, and vomiting. Greater than 90% of all events were mild or moderate in severity. There were slightly more infections and infestations, abscesses or cellulitis, and hepatic and cardiac adverse events in the oritavancin group; however, more than 80% of these events were mild or moderate. Subgroup analyses did not identify clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of adverse events attributed to oritavancin. A single 1,200-mg dose of oritavancin was well tolerated and had a safety profile similar to that of twice-daily vancomycin. The long elimination half-life of oritavancin compared to that of vancomycin did not result in a clinically meaningful delay to the onset or prolongation of adverse events. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01252719 and NCT01252732.).

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim Vs Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed to be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens: REVIVE-1.

Background: Our objective in this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim compared with vancomycin for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Methods: REVIVE-1 was a phase 3, 600-patient, double-blinded, randomized (1:1), active-controlled trial among patients with ABSSSI that compared the safety and efficacy of iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose with vancomycin 15 mg/kg, both administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint of this study was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size (early clinical response [ECR]) compared with baseline among patients randomized to iclaprim or vancomycin at the early time point (ETP), 48 to 72 hours after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Results: ECR among patients who received iclaprim and vancomycin at the ETP was 80.9% (241 of 298) of patients receiving iclaprim compared with 81.0% (243 of 300) of those receiving vancomycin (treatment difference, -0.13%; 95% confidence interval, -6.42%-6.17%). Iclaprim was well tolerated in the study, with most adverse events categorized as mild. Conclusions: Iclaprim achieved noninferiority (10% margin) at ETP compared with vancomycin and was well tolerated in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of ABSSSI. Based on these results, iclaprim appears to be an efficacious and safe treatment for ABSSSI suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02600611.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Gepotidacin (GSK2140944) in the Treatment of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Gram-Positive Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

Gepotidacin is a novel, first-in-class, triazaacenaphthylene antibacterial agent which has in vitro activity against causative pathogens of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). This phase 2, randomized, 2-part, multicenter, dose-ranging, response-adaptive study with optional intravenous-oral switch evaluated the efficacy and safety of gepotidacin for the treatment of Gram-positive ABSSSIs in 122 adult patients in the United States. The study had a double-blind phase (part 1; intravenous [750 mg or 1,000 mg every 12 h {q12h}]) and an open-label phase (part 2; intravenous [750 mg q12h, 1,000 mg q12h, or 1,000 q8h]). The primary endpoint was a composite of efficacy and safety which consisted of the early cure rate and the withdrawal rate due to drug-related adverse events and utilized a clinical utility index for dose selection. At the early efficacy visit (48 to 72 h after the first dose), the 750-mg q12h and 1,000-mg q8h groups met prespecified success criteria for clinical utility in terms of efficacy and safety; however, the 1,000-mg q12h group did not meet these criteria due to observed lower efficacy rates. The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (20%) and diarrhea (13%). These encouraging phase 2 results demonstrate the potential for gepotidacin to meet the medical need for novel antibacterial agents to treat ABSSSIs due to drug-resistant pathogens through a unique mechanism of action. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02045797.).

Pooled analysis of single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens, including a large patient subset with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with bactericidal activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The phase 3 studies SOLO I and SOLO II demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety of a single dose of oritavancin compared with 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs). The present analysis assessed clinical responses by pathogen at 48-72 h and at study days 14-24 in SOLO patients within the pooled data set. Of the 1959 patients in the pooled SOLO studies, 1067 had at least one baseline Gram-positive pathogen and 405 had MRSA. Clinical response rates were similar for oritavancin- and vancomycin-treated patients by pathogen, including Staphylococcus aureus with or without the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (pvl) gene and from different clonal complexes, and were similar for pathogens within each treatment group. Oritavancin exhibited potent in vitro activity against all baseline pathogens, with MIC90 values (minimum inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of the isolates) of 0.12 µg/mL for Staphylococcus aureus, 0.25 µg/mL for Streptococcus pyogenes and 0.06 µg/mL for Enterococcus faecalis. Whereas both oritavancin and vancomycin achieved similarly high rates of clinical response by pathogen, including methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus, oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin to treat ABSSSIs.

Potent Antiviral Activities of the Direct-Acting Antivirals ABT-493 and ABT-530 with Three-Day Monotherapy for Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 Infection.

ABT-493 is a hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural (NS) protein 3/4A protease inhibitor, and ABT-530 is an HCV NS5A inhibitor. These direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) demonstrated potent antiviral activity against major HCV genotypes and high barriers to resistance in vitro. In this open-label dose-ranging trial, antiviral activity and safety were assessed during 3 days of monotherapy with ABT-493 or ABT-530 in treatment-naive adults with HCV genotype 1 infection, with or without compensated cirrhosis. The presence of baseline resistance-associated variants (RAVs) was also evaluated. The mean maximal decreases in HCV RNA levels from baseline were approximately 4 log10 IU/ml for all ABT-493 doses ranging from 100 mg to 700 mg and for ABT-530 doses of ≥ 40 mg. There were no meaningful differences in viral load declines for patients with versus without compensated cirrhosis. Twenty-four (50%) of the baseline samples from patients treated with ABT-493 had RAVs to NS3/4A protease inhibitors. Among 40 patients treated with ABT-530, 6 (15%) carried baseline RAVs to NS5A inhibitors. Viral load declines in patients with single baseline NS5A RAVs were similar to those in patients without RAVs. One patient harbored baseline RAVs at 3 NS5A positions and appeared to have a slightly less robust viral load decline on day 3 of monotherapy. No serious or grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events and no clinically relevant laboratory abnormalities were observed with either compound. ABT-493 and ABT-530 demonstrated potent antiviral activity and acceptable safety during 3-day monotherapy in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection, with or without compensated cirrhosis. Based on these results, phase II studies assessing the combination of these DAAs for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in patients with or without compensated cirrhosis have been initiated. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01995071.).

A randomized phase 2 study comparing two doses of delafloxacin with tigecycline in adults with complicated skin and skin-structure infections.

BACKGROUND: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial was done to compare two doses of delafloxacin with tigecycline in patients with various complicated skin and skin-structure infections (wound infections following surgery, trauma, burns, or animal/insect bites, abscesses, and cellulitis). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive delafloxacin 300mg intravenous (IV) every 12h, delafloxacin 450mg IV every 12h, or tigecycline 100mg IV×1, followed by 50mg IV every 12h; randomization was stratified by infection type. Duration of therapy was 5-14 days. The primary efficacy analysis, performed on the clinically evaluable (CE) population at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (14-21 days after the final dose of study drug), compared clinical response rates in the delafloxacin and tigecycline arms. Clinical response rates in the two delafloxacin arms were also compared. RESULTS: Among CE patients, clinical cure rates at TOC visit were similar in the delafloxacin and tigecycline arms (94.3%, 92.5%, and 91.2%, respectively in delafloxacin 300-mg, delafloxacin 450-mg, and tigecycline arms). Overall, the most frequent adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; the 300-mg delafloxacin arm was the best-tolerated regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Delafloxacin was similarly effective as tigecycline for a variety of complicated skin and skin-structure infections and was well tolerated. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT 0719810).

Single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with rapid bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and long half-life allow for single-dose treatment. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) received either a single intravenous 1200-mg dose of oritavancin or 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin. Three efficacy endpoints were tested for noninferiority: (1) primary composite endpoint at 48-72 hours (cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no rescue antibiotic); (2) investigator-assessed clinical cure 7-14 days after end of treatment; and (3) ≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48-72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 503 and 502 patients comprised the modified intent-to-treat population for oritavancin and vancomycin, respectively. All 3 efficacy endpoints met the 10% noninferiority margin: the primary composite endpoint (80.1% vs 82.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 2.0), investigator-assessed clinical cure (82.7% vs 80.5%; 95% CI, -2.6 to 7.0), and proportion of patients attaining ≥20% reduction in lesion area (85.9% vs 85.3%; 95% CI, -3.7 to 5.0) for oritavancin vs vancomycin, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the frequency of adverse events, were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single 1200-mg dose of oritavancin was noninferior to 7-10 days of vancomycin in treating ABSSSIs caused by gram-positive pathogens, and was well tolerated. Oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to multidose therapies for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01252732.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of GSK1322322 in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

GSK1322322 represents a new class of antibiotics that targets an essential bacterial enzyme required for protein maturation, peptide deformylase. This multicenter, randomized, phase IIa study compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of GSK1322322 at 1,500 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with that of linezolid at 600 mg b.i.d. in patients suspected of having Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The primary endpoint was assessment of the safety of GSK1322322, and a key secondary endpoint was the number of subjects with a ≥20% decrease in lesion area from the baseline at 48 and 72 h after treatment initiation. GSK1322322 administration was associated with mild-to-moderate drug-related adverse events, most commonly, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and headache. Adverse events (86% versus 74%) and withdrawals (28% versus 11%) were more frequent in the GSK1322322-treated group. Treatment with GSK1322322 and linezolid was associated with ≥20% decreases from the baseline in the lesion area in 73% (36/49) and 92% (24/26) of the patients, respectively, at the 48-h assessment and in 96% (44/46) and 100% (25/25) of the patients, respectively, at the 72-h assessment. Reductions in exudate/pus, pain, and skin infection scores were comparable between the GSK1322322 and linezolid treatments. The clinical success rates within the intent-to-treat population and the per-protocol population that completed this study were 67 and 91%, respectively, in the GSK1322322-treated group and 89 and 100%, respectively, in the linezolid-treated group. These results will be used to guide dose selection in future studies with GSK1322322 to optimize its tolerability and efficacy in patients with ABSSSIs. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01209078 and at http://www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com [PDF113414].).

A randomized Phase 2 trial of telavancin versus standard therapy in patients with uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: the ASSURE study.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is a common infection associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Telavancin is a bactericidal lipoglycopeptide active against Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, Phase 2 trial in patients with uncomplicated S. aureus bacteremia. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either telavancin or standard therapy (vancomycin or anti-staphylococcal penicillin) for 14 days. Continuation criteria were set to avoid complicated S. aureus bacteremia. The primary end point was clinical cure at 84 days. RESULTS: In total, 60 patients were randomized and 58 received ≥1 study medication dose (all-treated), 31 patients fulfilled inclusion/exclusion and continuation criteria (all-treated target [ATT]) (telavancin 15, standard therapy 16), and 17 patients were clinically evaluable (CE) (telavancin 8, standard therapy 9). Mean age (ATT) was 60 years. Intravenous catheters were the most common source of S. aureus bacteremia and ~50% of patients had MRSA. A similar proportion of CE patients were cured in the telavancin (88%) and standard therapy (89%) groups. All patients with MRSA bacteremia were cured and one patient with MSSA bacteremia failed study treatment in each group. Although adverse events (AEs) were more common in the telavancin ATT group (90% vs. 72%), AEs leading to drug discontinuation were similar (7%) in both treatment arms. Potentially clinically significant increases in serum creatinine (≥1.5 mg/dl and at least 50% greater than baseline) were more common in the telavancin group (20% vs. 7%). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that telavancin may have utility for treatment of uncomplicated S. aureus bacteremia; additional studies are warranted. (Telavancin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia (ASSURE); NCT00062647).

Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and prolonged half-life allow for single-dose treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial in which adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections received either a single intravenous dose of 1200 mg of oritavancin or a regimen of intravenous vancomycin twice daily for 7 to 10 days. Three efficacy end points were tested for noninferiority. The primary composite end point was defined as cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no need for administration of a rescue antibiotic 48 to 72 hours after administration of oritavancin. Secondary end points were clinical cure 7 to 14 days after the end of treatment, as determined by a study investigator, and a reduction in lesion size of 20% or more 48 to 72 hours after administration of oritavancin. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 475 patients who received oritavancin and 479 patients who received vancomycin. All three efficacy end points met the prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for oritavancin versus vancomycin: primary end point, 82.3% versus 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -1.6 to 8.4 percentage points); investigator-assessed clinical cure, 79.6% versus 80.0% (95% CI for the difference, -5.5 to 4.7 percentage points); and proportion of patients with a reduction in lesion area of 20% or more, 86.9% versus 82.9% (95% CI for the difference, -0.5 to 8.6 percentage points). Efficacy outcomes measured according to type of pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, were similar in the two treatment groups. The overall frequency of adverse events was also similar, although nausea was more common among those treated with oritavancin. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of oritavancin was noninferior to twice-daily vancomycin administered for 7 to 10 days for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive pathogens. (Funded by the Medicines Company; SOLO I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252719.).

A randomized, double-blind, multiple-dose study of the pan-genotypic NS5A inhibitor samatasvir in patients infected with hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, 3 or 4.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Samatasvir is a pan-genotypic inhibitor of the hepatitis C (HCV) non-structural protein 5A (NS5A). This study evaluated the antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics and safety of samatasvir monotherapy in treatment-naïve subjects infected with HCV genotype 1-4. METHODS: Thirty-four genotype 1 and thirty genotype 2, 3 or 4 subjects were randomized to receive for 3days placebo or samatasvir 25-100mg per day. Plasma samples for HCV RNA, pharmacokinetics and sequencing were collected up to day 10. RESULTS: Samatasvir achieved potent antiviral activity across genotypes: mean maximum reductions from baseline were 3.2-3.6 (genotype 1a), 3.0-4.3 (genotype 1b), 3.2-3.4 (genotype 3), and 3.6-3.9 (genotype 4) log10/ml respectively; no viral rebound was observed during the 3-day treatment period. For genotype 2 HCV, samatasvir was active in subjects with NS5A L31 polymorphism at baseline (individual range 2.5-4.1 log10/ml), but showed minimal activity in those with baseline M31 polymorphism. Samatasvir exhibited a long plasma half-life of approximately 20h which supports once daily dosing. Samatasvir was well tolerated in all subjects with no safety-related discontinuations or serious adverse events. The most common adverse events included constipation, nausea and headache and occurred at similar frequency in active and placebo subjects. All events were mild or moderate in intensity. There were no patterns or dose dependence of adverse events, vital signs, laboratory parameters or electrocardiograms. CONCLUSIONS: Samatasvir 25-100mg monotherapy for 3days was well tolerated and induced a rapid and profound reduction in plasma HCV RNA in subjects infected with HCV genotype 1-4. Samatasvir is being evaluated in combination with other direct-acting antiviral agents in subjects with HCV infection.