A randomized, blinded, multicenter trial of a gentamicin vancomycin gel (DFA-02) in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: SI is a significant medical problem. DFA-02 is an investigational bioresorbable modified release gel consisting of both gentamicin (16.8 mg/mL) and vancomycin (18.8 mg/mL). A Phase 2a study, where the drug was applied during surgical incision closure, suggested safety and tolerability but was not designed to assess its efficacy. STUDY DESIGN: In a Phase 2b randomized, blinded trial patients undergoing abdominal, primarily colorectal, surgery were randomized (4:1:1) to one of three study arms: DFA-02, matching placebo gel, or standard of care (SOC) involving irrigation of the wound with normal saline. The DFA-02 and placebo gel groups received up to 20 mL of study drug inserted above the fascia during wound closure, and were treated in a double-blind manner; the SOC group was treated in a single-blind manner. The primary endpoint was SSI (adjudicated centrally by a blinded committee) through postoperative day 30. RESULTS: Overall, 445 subjects (intention-to-treat) were randomized at 35 centers with 425 subjects completing the study and being evaluable. There were 67 SSIs (15.8%): 64.2% superficial, 7.5% deep, and 28.4% organ space. The incidence of SSI was not statistically significantly different between the DFA-02 and the placebo gel/SOC arms combined, 42/287 = 14.6% vs 25/138 = 18.1% (p = 0.36), respectively. Rehospitalization within 30 days was also similar between study groups (DFA-02 28.6%, placebo gel 21.4%, SOC 27.3%). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter, blinded, randomized trial with central adjudication, the gentamicin/vancomycin gel was not associated with a significant reduction in SSI. SUMMARY: Patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomized to one of three study arms: DFA-02 gel consisting of both gentamicin and vancomycin, matching placebo gel, or standard of care (SOC). Of 425 patients completing the study at 35 sites the gentamicin/vancomycin gel was not associated with a significant reduction in SSI.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic dose escalation study of a gentamicin vancomycin gel in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous interventions promulgated by the Surgical Care Improve Project (SCIP) and other organizations, surgical site infection (SSI) continues to be a significant medical problem. DFA-02 is a novel bioresorbable modified-release gel consisting of both gentamicin (16.8 mg/mL) and vancomycin (18.8 mg/mL) to be applied during surgical incision closure for the prevention of SSIs. The following double-blind phase 2a trial was designed to test the safety and tolerability of DFA-02. METHODS: At six US sites, the study planned to randomize 40 subjects undergoing colorectal surgery (30 with DFA-02, and eight with placebo gel) in four ascending dose cohorts (10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-mL study drug per wound). Safety was ascertained and serum pharmacokinetics (PK) was determined. RESULTS: Study enrollment was discontinued after the first three dose cohorts (10, 20, and 30 mL) as even very large incisions could not accommodate more than 20 mL of gel, leaving no scientific justification for the 40-mL cohort. DFA-02 was well tolerated and showed no evidence of local tissue reaction or impairment of wound healing. No serious AEs were deemed related to study drug. Systemic exposure to gentamicin and vancomycin remained well below levels considered to be at higher risk for oto- or nephrotoxicity. The maximal gentamicin and vancomycin levels observed were 2.36 and 0.684 µg/mL at 6 h, which were well below the prespecified stopping criteria of 12 and 20 µg/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this small phase 2a study, the study drug was well tolerated and appeared to be free of serious adverse effects. Consistent with these findings, the PK values were consistent with gradual release of the antibiotics from the gel in the surgical site. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01496352.

Esmolol in acute ischemic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: beta-Blockers have been shown to reduce both morbidity and mortality rates in patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, because of potential side effects, their use is limited in patients who might benefit the most from such therapy. It was thought that the use of an ultra-short-acting intravenous beta-blocker might produce similar results with fewer complications in those patients with relative contraindications to beta-blocker therapy. METHODS: Accordingly, we evaluated the use of esmolol in patients with acute coronary syndromes and relative contraindication to beta-blocker therapy in a prospective randomized trial. One hundred eight patients at 21 sites received an infusion of intravenous esmolol or standard therapy on admission and were followed for 6 weeks from the day of admission. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite event consisting of any of the following that occurred during the index hospitalization: death, myocardial (re)infarction, recurrent ischemia, or arrhythmia as well as silent myocardial ischemia assessed by ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. Safety end points including hypotension, bradyarrhythmias, new or worsening congestive heart failure, and bronchospasm were also recorded. RESULTS: Event rates for primary end points were similar in the 2 groups: death (2% in the standard care group vs 4% in the group receiving esmolol), myocardial (re)infarction (4% standard vs 7% esmolol), ischemia (12% vs 13%), arrhythmias (4% vs 2%), and silent ischemia (13% vs 15%). There was a higher incidence of transient hypotension in the group receiving esmolol (2% vs 16%), but all such events were noted to resolve after discontinuation of the esmolol infusion. There were no additional differences in safety end points: bradycardia (2% for those receiving standard care vs 9% receiving esmolol), new congestive heart failure (10% vs 16%), bronchospasm (0% vs 7%), and heart block (2% vs 2%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an ultra-short-acting beta-blocker such as esmolol might offer an alternative to patients with contraindications to standard beta-blocker therapy. Although this trial had limited power to detect safety and efficacy differences between the 2 therapies, it was observed that safety end points, which occurred during esmolol administration, resolved readily when the infusions were decreased or discontinued. Additional testing is needed to substantiate these findings.