Perspectives of people living with HIV-1 on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings: results from the CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study.

INTRODUCTION: The CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study evaluated implementation of once-monthly long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine in diverse US healthcare settings. Here, we report patient participant perspectives after 12 months in CUSTOMIZE. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight diverse US HIV clinics that enrolled virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1 (PLHIV) on a stable oral regimen to receive monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. Participants were administered quantitative surveys before injections at months 1 (baseline), 4 and 12. A randomly selected subset of participants was interviewed at baseline and month 12. Data collection at month 12 was completed by October 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). RESULTS: At baseline, 109 and 34 participants completed surveys and interviews, respectively; 87% were male; 35% were Black or African American. All participants who remained in the study at month 12 (n = 102) maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml; two participants withdrew due to injection-related reasons. Mean total scores measuring acceptability and appropriateness of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA were high at baseline (4.5-4.6 out of 5) and month 12 (4.7-4.9). At month 12, 74% of participants reported nothing interfered with receiving LA injections; injection pain or soreness was the most common concern (15%). Time spent in the clinic and coming to the clinic for monthly injections was very or extremely acceptable after 12 months for most participants (93% and 87%, respectively), with 64% reporting having spent ≤30 minutes in the clinic for injection visits. At month 12, 92% of participants preferred LA injections to daily oral tablets (3%); 97% plan to continue LA treatment going forward. In month 12 interviews, 24 (77%) of 31 participants reported the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact their ability to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Once-monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was highly acceptable among PLHIV who were virologically suppressed on a stable antiretroviral regimen and interested in trying LA therapy, with few participants reporting challenges receiving LA injections. Implementation data from CUSTOMIZE suggest that monthly LA injections provide a convenient and appealing treatment option for PLHIV.

Perspectives of healthcare providers on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings from a Hybrid III Implementation-effectiveness study (CUSTOMIZE).

INTRODUCTION: CUSTOMIZE evaluated the implementation of long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine, a novel healthcare provider-administered injectable antiretroviral therapy regimen, in diverse US healthcare settings. Findings from staff-study participants (SSPs) through 12 months of implementation are reported. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month, single-arm, hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight US clinics of five clinic types: private practice (n = 2), federally qualified health centre (n = 2), university (n = 2), AIDS Healthcare Foundation (n = 2) and health maintenance organization (n = 1). Eligible patient participants received monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. At baseline, month 4 and month 12, SSPs (n = 3 each per clinic), including physicians, nurses or injectors, and administrators, completed quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews to assess implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of intervention measures), programme sustainability and SSP perceptions of, attitudes towards, and expectations for cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA. Month 12 data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In surveys, SSPs reported high mean total scores for acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA implementation at baseline (4.43, 4.52 and 4.38 of 5, respectively) and month 12 (4.45, 4.61 and 4.46 of 5, respectively), regardless of clinic type. At month 12, SSPs were positive about the implementation sustainability (mean Program Sustainability Assessment Tool score, 5.83 out of 7). At baseline, SSPs' top concern was patients' ability to maintain monthly appointments (81%); at month 12, 39% had this concern. The proportion of SSPs reporting patient injection pain or soreness as a barrier was consistent at month 12 versus baseline (48% vs. 46%). Most (78%) SSPs reported optimal implementation of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA in their clinics was achieved in 1-3 months. In interviews, SSP-reported strategies for successful implementation included teamwork, using a web-based treatment planner and having a designated person to track appointment scheduling. In month 12 interviews, SSP-reported structural changes needed for implementation included changing clinic hours and purchasing refrigerators. CONCLUSIONS: In CUSTOMIZE, cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was successfully implemented across a range of US healthcare settings. Barriers were mitigated with minor process adjustments.

Dolutegravir/lamivudine as a first-line regimen in a test-and-treat setting for newly diagnosed people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES: Dolutegravir/lamivudine (DTG/3TC) is indicated for treatment-naive and experienced people with HIV; however, questions remain about its utility in a test-and-treat setting because of potential transmitted resistance and baseline hepatitis B virus (HBV) co-infection. We present feasibility and efficacy of DTG/3TC in newly diagnosed individuals in a test-and-treat setting. DESIGN: The single-arm STAT study evaluated DTG/3TC in a US test-and-treat setting. METHODS: Eligible adults initiated DTG/3TC 14 days or less after HIV-1 diagnosis without availability of baseline laboratory results. If baseline testing indicated DTG or 3TC resistance, HBV co-infection, or creatinine clearance less than 30 ml/min per 1.73 m2, participants remained on study with treatment modification. Efficacy endpoints included proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml at Week 24, regardless of antiretroviral regimen, among all participants (intention-to-treat exposed) and those with available HIV-1 RNA data (observed). RESULTS: Of 131 participants enrolled, 8% were female and 50% were non-white. Through Week 24, treatment was modified in eight participants [five with HBV co-infection, one with baseline M184V, one for adverse event (rash), one participant decision]. At Week 24, 78% (102/131) of all participants and 92% (102/111) of those with available data achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml. Incidence of drug-related adverse events was low (7%); no drug-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of using DTG/3TC as a first-line regimen in a test-and-treat setting, with therapy adjustments for baseline resistance or HBV co-infection occurring safely via routine clinical care as needed [ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03945981; see Supplemental Digital Content 1, video abstract (Video abstract summarizing the STAT study design and results), http://links.lww.com/QAD/C189].

Bacterial resistance to leucyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor GSK2251052 develops during treatment of complicated urinary tract infections.

GSK2251052, a novel leucyl-tRNA synthetase (LeuRS) inhibitor, was in development for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. In a phase II study (study LRS114688) evaluating the efficacy of GSK2251052 in complicated urinary tract infections, resistance developed very rapidly in 3 of 14 subjects enrolled, with ≥32-fold increases in the GSK2251052 MIC of the infecting pathogen being detected. A fourth subject did not exhibit the development of resistance in the baseline pathogen but posttherapy did present with a different pathogen resistant to GSK2251052. Whole-genome DNA sequencing of Escherichia coli isolates collected longitudinally from two study LRS114688 subjects confirmed that GSK2251052 resistance was due to specific mutations, selected on the first day of therapy, in the LeuRS editing domain. Phylogenetic analysis strongly suggested that resistant Escherichia coli isolates resulted from clonal expansion of baseline susceptible strains. This resistance development likely resulted from the confluence of multiple factors, of which only some can be assessed preclinically. Our study shows the challenges of developing antibiotics and the importance of clinical studies to evaluate their effect on disease pathogenesis. (These studies have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01381549 for the study of complicated urinary tract infections and registration no. NCT01381562 for the study of complicated intra-abdominal infections.).

A randomized, double-blind, comparative study to assess the safety and efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1% versus oral linezolid in the treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions and impetigo due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1% versus oral linezolid in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions (SITLs; excluding abscesses) or impetigo due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, comparative study (NCT00852540). SETTING: Patients recruited from 36 study centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients 2 months or older with SITL (including secondarily infected lacerations or sutured wounds) or impetigo (bullous and nonbullous) suitable for treatment with a topical antibiotic, with a total Skin Infection Rating Scale score of 8 or greater, including a pus/exudate score of 3 or greater. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received retapamulin ointment 1% (plus oral placebo), twice daily for 5 days or oral linezolid (plus placebo ointment) 2 or 3 times daily for 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary end point: clinical response (success/failure) at follow-up in patients with MRSA at baseline (per-protocol population). Secondary efficacy end points: clinical and microbiologic response and outcome at follow-up and end of therapy; therapeutic response at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: The majority of patients had SITL (70.4% [188/267] and 66.4% [91/137] in the retapamulin and linezolid groups, respectively; intent-to-treat clinical population). Clinical success rate at follow-up was significantly lower in the retapamulin versus the linezolid group (63.9% [39/61] vs 90.6% [29/32], respectively; difference in success rate -26.7%; 95% CI, -45.7 to -7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical success rate at follow-up in the per-protocol MRSA population was significantly lower in the retapamulin versus the linezolid group. It could not be determined whether this was related to study design, bacterial virulence, or retapamulin activity.

The safety and efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment versus placebo ointment in the treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions: a randomized, double-blind superiority study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether retapamulin 1% is clinically superior to a placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. DESIGN: The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 5 countries. PATIENTS: The aforementioned patients were all 2 months or older and diagnosed with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. INTERVENTIONS: Study medication was applied twice daily for 5 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point: clinical response (success/failure) at follow-up. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical and microbiological outcomes at end of therapy (on days 7-9); microbiological and therapeutic responses at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 508 patients were recruited for the study; 359 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis population (246 received retapamulin; 113 received the placebo). Secondarily infected abrasions were the most common secondarily infected traumatic lesions present (56.3%), Staphylococcus aureus being the most frequently isolated pathogen at baseline (60.1%); 15.1% infections were methicillin-resistant. At follow-up, patients receiving retapamulin had higher clinical success rates than those receiving the placebo (74.8% vs 66.4%, respectively) in the primary efficacy analysis population; however, the treatment difference was not statistically significant (8.4%; 95% confidence interval, -1.6 to 18.4). The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events, which were typically mild or moderate in severity, was similar between the retapamulin (5.6%, 19/342) and placebo groups (4.8%, 8/165). CONCLUSION: Clinical success rates were higher with retapamulin versus placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions, but the difference between treatment groups was not significant. Retapamulin was well tolerated.

Topical retapamulin in the management of infected traumatic skin lesions.

Retapamulin is a novel semisynthetic pleuromutilin antibiotic specifically designed for use as a topical agent. The unique mode of action by which retapamulin selectively inhibits bacterial protein synthesis differentiates it from other nonpleuromutilin antibacterial agents that target the ribosome or ribosomal factors, minimizing the potential for target-specific cross-resistance with other antibacterial classes in current use. In vitro studies show that retapamulin has high potency against the Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, and coagulase-negative staphylococci) commonly found in skin and skin-structure infections (SSSIs), including S. aureus strains with resistance to agents such as macrolides, fusidic acid, or mupirocin, and other less common organisms associated with SSSIs, anaerobes, and common respiratory tract pathogens. Clinical studies have shown that twice-daily topical retapamulin for 5 days is comparable to 10 days of oral cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions. A 1% concentration of retapamulin ointment has been approved for clinical use as an easily applied treatment with a short, convenient dosing regimen for impetigo. Given the novel mode of action, low potential for cross-resistance with established antibacterial agents, and high in vitro potency against many bacterial pathogens commonly recovered from SSSIs, retapamulin is a valuable enhancement over existing therapeutic options.

Molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolates from global clinical trials.

Determining the genetic characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus is important for better understanding of the global and dynamic epidemiology of this organism as we witness the emergence and spread of virulent and antibiotic-resistant clones. We genotyped 292 S. aureus isolates (105 methicillin resistant and 187 methicillin susceptible) using a combination of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, multilocus sequence typing, and SCCmec typing. In addition, S. aureus isolates were tested for the presence of the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes. Isolates were recovered from patients with uncomplicated skin infections in 10 different countries during five phase III global clinical trials of retapamulin, a new topical antibiotic agent. The most common methicillin-resistant clone had multilocus sequence type 8, pulsed-field type USA300, and SCCmec type IV and possessed the PVL genes. This clone was isolated exclusively in the United States. The most common PVL-positive, methicillin-susceptible clone had multilocus sequence type 121 and pulsed-field type USA1200. This clone was found primarily in South Africa and the Russian Federation. Other clones were found at lower frequencies and were limited in their geographic distribution. Overall, considerable genetic diversity was observed within multilocus sequence type clonal complexes and pulsed-field types.

Direct economic effect following mupirocin therapy failure among patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections in a large population-based cohort.

The goal of the study was to derive initial costs associated with failure of initial mupirocin therapy among patients diagnosed with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections (uSSSIs). A retrospective observational analysis of medical, pharmacy, and enrollment records was conducted using data from the National Managed Care Benchmark Database. Patients were classified as failing treatment with mupirocin if they either filled a second antibiotic commonly used to treat uSSSIs five to 30 days after their index mupirocin prescription fill or experienced a uSSSI-related hospitalization within 30 days after the index mupirocin prescription fill. Among 12,650 failure episodes, 11,867 (93.8%) required a second antibiotic contributing a mean cost of $62 per prescription. Approximately 4,782 (37.8%) had an associated outpatient encounter resulting in a mean cost of $221 per encounter. Nine percent of failures required a hospitalization with a mean cost of $6,597 per hospitalization. These medical, hospital, and pharmacy costs translated into an expected cost of $735.45 per mupirocin failure among patients with uSSSIs. The management of uSSSIs is costly in terms of health care resource use and direct health care expenditures when initial therapy with mupirocin fails.

Retapamulin ointment twice daily for 5 days vs oral cephalexin twice daily for 10 days for empiric treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions of the skin.

INTRODUCTION: Retapamulin is a novel, topical antibacterial of the pleuromutilin class in development for the treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions of the skin. METHODS: The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of topical retapamulin ointment, 1% for 5 days twice daily was evaluated in 2 identical, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter studies vs oral cephalexin, 500 mg twice daily for 10 days, in 1904 patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. RESULTS: Clinical success rates were 89.5% in protocol-adherent patients receiving retapamulin compared with 91.9% for cephalexin (treatment difference, -2.5% [95% confidence interval, -5.4% to 0.5%]). In patients with Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes at baseline, clinical success was 89.2% (365/409) for retapamulin and 92.6% (63/68) for cephalexin. Safety and tolerability were similar between treatments. Noncompliance (defined as using or taking <80% of doses) was recorded in 8.0% (51/636) of patients taking cephalexin compared with 0.39% (5/1268) of patients receiving retapamulin. CONCLUSIONS: Retapamulin offers a novel, effective, and convenient topical treatment for secondarily infected traumatic lesions.