ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is increasing, available CDI treatment options are limited in terms of sustained response after treatment. This phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of surotomycin, a novel bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide, versus oral vancomycin in subjects with CDI. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, international trial, subjects with CDI confirmed by a positive toxin result were randomized to receive surotomycin (250 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg 4 times daily) orally for 10 days. The primary endpoints were clinical response at end of treatment and evaluation of surotomycin safety. The key secondary endpoints were clinical response over time and sustained clinical response through a 30- to 40-day follow-up period. Clostridium difficile infection recurrence during follow-up and time to diarrhea resolution were also analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 570 subjects were randomized and had confirmed CDI; 290 subjects received surotomycin and 280 subjects received vancomycin. Surotomycin clinical cure rates at end of treatment (surotomycin/vancomycin: 79.0%/83.6%; difference of -4.6%; 95% confidence interval, -11.0 to 1.9]), clinical response over time (stratified log-rank test, P = .832), and sustained clinical response at end of trial (Day 40-50) (60.6%/61.4%; difference of -0.8%; 95% CI, -8.8 to 7.1) in the microbiological modified intent to treat population did not meet noninferiority or superiority criteria versus vancomycin. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Surotomycin failed to meet the criteria for noninferiority versus vancomycin for the primary and key secondary endpoints in this trial.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The predominant pathogens causing diabetic foot infections are Gram-positive cocci, many of which are now resistant to commonly prescribed antibiotics. Daptomycin is a new agent that is active against most Gram-positive pathogens. To compare the effectiveness of daptomycin against semi-synthetic penicillins or vancomycin, we analysed the subset of diabetic patients with an infected ulcer enrolled in two randomized, controlled investigator-blind trials of patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections presumptively caused by Gram-positive organisms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a diabetic ulcer infection were prospectively stratified to ensure they were equally represented in the treatment groups, then randomized to either daptomycin [4 mg/kg every 24 h intravenously (iv)] or a pre-selected comparator (vancomycin or a semi-synthetic penicillin) for 7-14 days. RESULTS: Among 133 patients with a diabetic ulcer infection, 103 were clinically evaluable; 47 received daptomycin and 56 received a comparator. Most infections were monomicrobial, and Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant pathogen. Success rates for patients treated with daptomycin or the comparators were not statistically different for clinical (66% versus 70%, respectively; 95% CI, -14.4, 21.8) or microbiological (overall or by pathogen) outcomes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, with most adverse events of mild to moderate severity. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and microbiological efficacy and safety of daptomycin were similar to those of commonly used comparator antibiotics for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Daptomycin should be considered for treating these infections, especially those caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens.
