Sulopenem for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections Including Pyelonephritis: A Phase 3, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sulopenem is a thiopenem antibiotic being developed for the treatment of multidrug-resistant infections. The availability of both intravenous (IV) and oral formulations will facilitate earlier hospital discharge. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with pyuria, bacteriuria, and signs and symptoms of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) were randomized to 5 days of IV sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid or 5 days of IV ertapenem followed by oral ciprofloxacin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, depending on uropathogen susceptibility. The primary end point was overall combined clinical and microbiologic response at the test-of-cure visit (day 21). RESULTS: Of 1392 treated patients, 444 and 440 treated with sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, had a positive baseline urine culture and were eligible for the primary efficacy analyses. Extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing organisms were identified in 26.6% of patients and fluoroquinolone-nonsusceptible pathogens in 38.6%. For the primary end point, noninferiority of sulopenem to the comparator regimen was not demonstrated, 67.8% vs 73.9% (difference, -6.1%; 95% confidence interval, -12.0 to -.1%). The difference was driven by a lower rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the subgroup of ertapenem-treated patients who stepped down to ciprofloxacin. No substantial difference in overall response was observed at any other time point. Both IV and oral formulations of sulopenem were well-tolerated and compared favorably to the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem-etzadroxil/probenecid was not noninferior to ertapenem followed by oral step-down therapy for the treatment of cUTIs, driven by a lower rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in those who received ciprofloxacin. Both formulations of sulopenem were well-tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03357614.

Sulopenem or Ciprofloxacin for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Phase 3, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) caused by resistant pathogens. Sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid (sulopenem) is an oral thiopenem antibiotic active against multidrug-resistant pathogens that cause uUTIs. METHODS: Patients with uUTI were randomized to 5 days of sulopenem or 3 days of ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as both clinical and microbiologic response at day 12. In patients with ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible baseline pathogens, sulopenem was compared for superiority over ciprofloxacin; in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, the agents were compared for noninferiority. Using prespecified hierarchical statistical testing, the primary endpoint was tested in the combined population if either superiority or noninferiority was declared in the nonsusceptible or susceptible population, respectively. RESULTS: In the nonsusceptible population, sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin, 62.6% vs 36.0% (difference, 26.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.1 to 7.4; P <.001). In the susceptible population, sulopenem was not noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 66.8% vs 78.6% (difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -18.0 to 5.6). The difference was driven by a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) post-treatment in patients on sulopenem. In the combined analysis, sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 65.6% vs 67.9% (difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 3.3). Diarrhea occurred more frequently with sulopenem (12.4% vs 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin in the treatment of uUTIs. Sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin in patients with uUTIs due to ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible pathogens. Sulopenem was not noninferior in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, driven largely by a lower rate of ASB in those who received ciprofloxacin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03354598.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Single-Dose Versus Weekly Dalbavancin for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) are a cause of significant morbidity and therapy can be a burden to the healthcare system. New antibiotics that simplify treatment and avoid hospitalization are needed. This study compared the safety and efficacy of a single intravenous infusion of 1500 mg of dalbavancin to the 2-dose regimen. METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind trial in patients aged >18 years with ABSSSIs. Patients were randomized to dalbavancin 1500 mg either as a single intravenous (IV) infusion or 1000 mg IV on day 1 followed 1 week later by 500 mg IV. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction in the area of erythema at 48-72 hours in the intent-to-treat population. Noninferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the outcomes was greater than -10%. Clinical outcome was also assessed at days 14 and 28. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-eight patients were randomized. Demographic characteristics were similar on each regimen, although there were more patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at baseline on the 2-dose regimen (36/210 [17.1%] vs 61/220 [27.7%]). Dalbavancin delivered as a single dose was noninferior to a 2-dose regimen (81.4% vs 84.2%; difference, -2.9% [95% CI, -8.5% to 2.8%]). Clinical outcomes were also similar at day 14 (84.0% vs 84.8%), day 28 (84.5% vs 85.1%), and day 14 in clinically evaluable patients with MRSA in a baseline culture (92.9% vs 95.3%) in the single- and 2-dose regimens, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 20.1% of the single-dose patients and 19.9% on the 2-dose regimen. CONCLUSIONS: A single 1500-mg infusion of dalbavancin is noninferior to a 2-dose regimen, has a similar safety profile, and removes logistical constraints related to delivery of the second dose. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02127970.