Graphie: A network-based visual interface for the UK's primary legislation.

Background: legislation.gov.uk is a platform that enables users to explore and navigate the many sections of the UK's legal corpus through its well-designed searching and browsing features. However, there is room for improvement as it lacks the ability to easily move between related sections or Acts and only presents a text-only rendering of provisions. With Graphie, our novel navigational tool (graphie.quantlaw.co.uk), we aim to address this limitation by presenting alternative visualizations of legal documents using both text and graphs. Methods: The building block of Graphie is Sofia, an offline data pipeline designed to support different data visualizations by parsing and modelling data provided by legislation.gov.uk in open access form. Results: Graphie provides a network representation of the hierarchical structure of an Act of Parliament, which is typically organized in a tree-like fashion according to the content and information contained in each sub-branch. Nodes in Graphie represent sections of an Act (or individual provisions), while links embody the hierarchical connections between them. The legal map provided by Graphie is easily navigable by hovering on nodes, which are also color-coded and numbered to provide easily accessible information about the underlying content. The full textual content of each node is also available on a dedicated hyperlinked canvas. Conclusions: While we focus on the Housing Act 2004 for illustrative purposes, our platform is scalable, versatile, and provides users with a unified toolbox to visualize and explore the UK legal corpus in a fast and user-friendly way.

Maximal modularity and the optimal size of parliaments.

An important question in representative democracies is how to determine the optimal parliament size of a given country. According to an old conjecture, known as the cubic root law, there is a fairly universal power-law relation, with an exponent equal to 1/3, between the size of an elected parliament and the country's population. Empirical data in modern European countries support such universality but are consistent with a larger exponent. In this work, we analyse this intriguing regularity using tools from complex networks theory. We model the population of a democratic country as a random network, drawn from a growth model, where each node is assigned a constituency membership sampled from an available set of size D. We calculate analytically the modularity of the population and find that its functional relation with the number of constituencies is strongly non-monotonic, exhibiting a maximum that depends on the population size. The criterion of maximal modularity allows us to predict that the number of representatives should scale as a power-law in the size of the population, a finding that is qualitatively confirmed by the empirical analysis of real-world data.

Clinical Efficacy of Patients With Secondary Bacteremia Treated With Omadacycline: Results From Phase 3 Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Studies.

In this post hoc analysis of the 63 patients with secondary bacteremia enrolled in the 3 omadacycline phase 3 studies of acute bacterial skin/skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), we determined that omadacycline is a viable therapeutic option for appropriate patients with secondary bacteremia.

Efficacy of Omadacycline Versus Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia by Disease Severity: Results From the OPTIC Study.

BACKGROUND: Severity/mortality risk scores and disease characteristics may assist in deciding whether patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) require outpatient treatment or hospitalization. The phase 3 OPTIC (Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community) study enrolled patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II-IV. Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to moxifloxacin in adults with CABP, at early clinical response (ECR) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE). We assessed efficacy of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in these patients based on disease severity. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) omadacycline (100 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses followed by 100 mg daily [q24h], with optional transition to omadacycline 300 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment) or moxifloxacin IV 400 mg q24h (with optional transition to 400 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment). Total treatment duration was 7-14 days. We compared rates of early clinical success (72-120 hours after first dose) and investigator-assessed clinical success at PTE (5-10 days after last dose) in subgroups based (1) on severity/mortality risk scores (PORT, CURB-65, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, modified ATS, SMART-COP) and (2) on presence of baseline radiographic characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, or bacteremia. RESULTS: Altogether, 774 patients (omadacycline, n = 386; moxifloxacin, n = 388) were randomized. Clinical success rates (ECR/PTE) were similar between treatment groups (across all subgroups). Efficacy across treatment groups was similar in patients with baseline radiographic characteristics or COPD/asthma, but moxifloxacin had higher clinical success rates in patients with bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of omadacycline was similar to that of moxifloxacin, regardless of disease severity/mortality risk and disease characteristics.

Omadacycline vs moxifloxacin in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a major clinical burden worldwide. In the phase III OPTIC study (NCT02531438) in CABP, omadacycline was found to be non-inferior to moxifloxacin for investigator-assessed clinical response (IACR) at post-treatment evaluation (PTE, 5-10 days after last dose). This article reports the efficacy findings, as specified in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline 100 mg intravenously (every 12 h for two doses, then every 24 h) with optional transition to 300 mg orally after 3 days, or moxifloxacin 400 mg intravenously (every 24 h) with optional transition to 400 mg orally after 3 days. The total treatment duration was 7-14 days. The primary endpoint for EMA efficacy analysis was IACR at PTE in patients with Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV. RESULTS: In total, 660 patients were randomized as PORT risk class III and IV. Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin at PTE. The clinical success rates were 88.4% and 85.2%, respectively [intent-to-treat population; difference 3.3; 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -2.7 to 9.3], and 92.5% and 90.5%, respectively (clinically evaluable population; difference 2.0; 97.5% CI 3.2-7.4). Clinical success rates with omadacycline and moxifloxacin were similar against identified pathogens and across key subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin for IACR at PTE, with high clinical success across pathogen types and patient subgroups.

The Effect of Verapamil, a P-gp Inhibitor, on the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Omadacycline in Healthy Adults: A Phase I, Open-Label, Single-Sequence Study.

BACKGROUND: Omadacycline is a semisynthetic aminomethylcycline antibacterial derived from the tetracycline class. It is approved in the USA to treat adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: This phase I, open-label study evaluated the effect of a potential drug-drug interaction of verapamil-a known P-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibitor-with omadacycline on the pharmacokinetic profile of omadacycline in healthy adults. The safety and tolerability of omadacycline taken alone and in combination with verapamil were also evaluated. METHODS: A single oral dose of 240 mg verapamil extended release (ER) was given 2 h prior to a single oral dose of 300 mg omadacycline. RESULTS: Ten (83.3%) of the 12 participants enrolled in the study completed the study, and all enrolled participants were included in the safety and pharmacokinetic populations. An increase of 14-25% in systemic exposure to omadacycline was seen when administered following a single oral dose of 240 mg verapamil ER compared with omadacycline alone, as measured by the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to 24 h after dosing (AUC0-24), from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t), from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf), and by maximum (peak) observed plasma concentration (Cmax). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by one participant (nausea and headache). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, if given with a known P-gp inhibitor, dose adjustment of oral omadacycline is not warranted based on small increases in absorption and systemic exposure. No safety signals were identified.

Investigation of genetically regulated gene expression and response to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis highlights an association between IL18RAP expression and treatment response.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to investigate whether there was any association between genetically regulated gene expression (as predicted using various reference panels) and anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatment response (change in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) using 3158 European ancestry patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The genetically regulated portion of gene expression was estimated in the full cohort of 3158 subjects (as well as within a subcohort consisting of 1575 UK patients) using the PrediXcan software package with three different reference panels. Estimated expression was tested for association with anti-TNF treatment response. As a replication/validation experiment, we also investigated the correlation between change in ESR with measured gene expression at the Interleukin 18 Receptor Accessory Protein (IL18RAP) gene in whole blood and synovial tissue, using an independent replication data set of patients receiving conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, with directly measured (via RNA sequencing) gene expression. RESULTS: We found that predicted expression of IL18RAP showed a consistent signal of association with treatment response across the reference panels. In our independent replication data set, IL18RAP expression in whole blood showed correlation with the change in ESR between baseline and follow-up (r=-0.35, p=0.0091). Change in ESR was also correlated with the expression of IL18RAP in synovial tissue (r=-0.28, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that IL18RAP expression is worthy of further investigation as a potential predictor of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis that is not specific to a particular drug type.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses for Omadacycline Using Phase 1 and 3 Data.

Omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic with activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms, including tetracycline-resistant pathogens, received FDA approval in October 2018 for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). A previously developed population pharmacokinetic (PK) model based on phase 1 intravenous and oral PK data was refined using data from infected patients. Data from 10 phase 1 studies used to develop the previous model were pooled with data from three additional phase 1 studies, a phase 1b uncomplicated urinary tract infection study, one phase 3 CABP study, and two phase 3 ABSSSI studies. The final population PK model was a three-compartment model with first-order absorption using transit compartments to account for absorption delay following oral dosing and first-order elimination. Epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentrations were modeled as a subcompartment of the first peripheral compartment. A food effect on oral bioavailability was included in the model. Sex was the only significant covariate identified, with 15.6% lower clearance for females than males. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics indicated a precise and unbiased fit to the data. The final model, which was robust in its ability to predict plasma and ELF exposures following omadacycline administration, was also able to predict the central tendency and variability in concentration-time profiles using an external phase 3 ABSSSI data set. A population PK model, which described omadacycline PK in healthy subjects and infected patients, was developed and subsequently used to support pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) and PK-PD target attainment assessments.

Genome-Wide Analysis of Left Ventricular Image-Derived Phenotypes Identifies Fourteen Loci Associated With Cardiac Morphogenesis and Heart Failure Development.

BACKGROUND: The genetic basis of left ventricular (LV) image-derived phenotypes, which play a vital role in the diagnosis, management, and risk stratification of cardiovascular diseases, is unclear at present. METHODS: The LV parameters were measured from the cardiovascular magnetic resonance studies of the UK Biobank. Genotyping was done using Affymetrix arrays, augmented by imputation. We performed genome-wide association studies of 6 LV traits-LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV stroke volume, LV ejection fraction, LV mass, and LV mass to end-diastolic volume ratio. The replication analysis was performed in the MESA study (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). We identified the candidate genes at genome-wide significant loci based on the evidence from extensive bioinformatic analyses. Polygenic risk scores were constructed from the summary statistics of LV genome-wide association studies to predict the heart failure events. RESULTS: The study comprised 16 923 European UK Biobank participants (mean age 62.5 years; 45.8% men) without prevalent myocardial infarction or heart failure. We discovered 14 genome-wide significant loci (3 loci each for LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, and LV mass to end-diastolic volume ratio; 4 loci for LV ejection fraction, and 1 locus for LV mass) at a stringent P<1×10-8. Three loci were replicated at Bonferroni significance and 7 loci at nominal significance (P<0.05 with concordant direction of effect) in the MESA study (n=4383). Follow-up bioinformatic analyses identified 28 candidate genes that were enriched in the cardiac developmental pathways and regulation of the LV contractile mechanism. Eight genes (TTN, BAG3, GRK5, HSPB7, MTSS1, ALPK3, NMB, and MMP11) supported by at least 2 independent lines of in silico evidence were implicated in the cardiac morphogenesis and heart failure development. The polygenic risk scores of LV phenotypes were predictive of heart failure in a holdout UK Biobank sample of 3106 cases and 224 134 controls (odds ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.26 - 1.58, for the top quintile versus the bottom quintile of the LV end-systolic volume risk score). CONCLUSIONS: We report 14 genetic loci and indicate several candidate genes that not only enhance our understanding of the genetic architecture of prognostically important LV phenotypes but also shed light on potential novel therapeutic targets for LV remodeling.

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.

An Integrated Safety Summary of Omadacycline, a Novel Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic.

Omadacycline is a semisynthetic tetracycline antibiotic. Phase III clinical trial results have shown that omadacycline has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Similar to most tetracyclines, transient nausea and vomiting and low-magnitude increases in liver aminotransferases were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in phase III studies but were not treatment limiting. Package insert warnings and precautions for omadacycline include tooth discoloration; enamel hypoplasia; inhibition of bone growth following use in late pregnancy, infancy, or childhood up to 8 years of age; an imbalance in mortality (2%, compared with 1% in moxifloxacin-treated patients) was observed in the phase III study in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Omadacycline has no effect on the QT interval, and its affinity for muscarinic M2 receptors resulted in transient heart rate increases following dosing.

Early Clinical Response in Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: From Clinical Endpoint to Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Early clinical response (ECR) is a new endpoint to determine whether a drug should be approved for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the United States. The Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community (OPTIC) phase III study demonstrated noninferiority of omadacycline to moxifloxacin using this endpoint. This study describes the performance of the ECR endpoint and clinical stability relative to a posttreatment evaluation (PTE) of clinical success. METHODS: ECR was defined as symptom improvement 72-120 hours after the first dose of study drug (ECR window), no use of rescue antibiotics, and patient survival. Clinical success at PTE was an investigator assessment of success. Clinical stability was defined based on vital sign stabilization, described in the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America community-acquired pneumonia treatment guidelines. RESULTS: During the ECR window, ECR was achieved in 81.1% and 82.7% of omadacycline and moxifloxacin patients, respectively. Similar numbers of patients achieved clinical stability in each treatment group (omadacycline 74.6%, moxifloxacin 77.6%). The proportion of patients with improved symptoms who were considered clinically stable increased across the ECR window (69.2-77.6% for omadacycline; 68.0-79.7% for moxifloxacin). There was high concordance (>70%) and high positive predictive value (>90%) of ECR and clinical stability with overall clinical success at PTE. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin, based on a new ECR endpoint. Clinical stability was similarly high when measured in the same time frame as ECR. Both ECR and clinical stability showed high concordance and high positive predictive value with clinical success at PTE. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02531438.

Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

BACKGROUND: Within the last decade, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a frequent cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options are being investigated for these infections. METHODS: We report an integrated analysis of 2 randomized, controlled studies involving omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline, and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study 1 (OASIS-1) initiated patients on intravenous omadacycline or linezolid, with the option to transition to an oral formulation after day 3. OASIS-2 was an oral-only study of omadacycline versus linezolid. RESULTS: In total, 691 patients received omadacycline and 689 patients received linezolid. Infection types included wound infection in 46.8% of patients, cellulitis/erysipelas in 30.5%, and major abscess in 22.7%. Pathogens were identified in 73.2% of patients. S. aureus was detected in 74.7% and MRSA in 32.4% of patients in whom a pathogen was identified. Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid using the Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint of early clinical response (86.2% vs 83.9%; difference 2.3, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 6.2) and using the European Medicines Agency primary endpoint of investigator-assessed clinical response at the posttreatment evaluation. Clinical responses were similar across different infection types and infections caused by different pathogens. Treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly described as mild or moderate, were reported by 51.1% of patients receiving omadacycline and 41.2% of those receiving linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was effective and safe in ABSSSI. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02378480 and NCT02877927.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Positive-Controlled Crossover Study of the Effects of Omadacycline on QT/QTc Intervals in Healthy Subjects.

Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline, is an antibiotic that is approved in the United States for once-daily intravenous (i.v.) and oral use for treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In this thorough QT study, the effects of a therapeutic (100 mg i.v.) dose and a supratherapeutic (300 mg i.v.) dose of omadacycline on the electrocardiogram were studied, with placebo and moxifloxacin as negative and positive controls. Omadacycline at these doses had no effect on the QTc interval. The largest mean placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcS (ΔQTcS) were 1.7 ms (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 3.30) and 2.6 ms (90% CI, 0.55 to 4.67), observed at 20 min and 2 h after the start of the infusion of 100 mg and 300 mg, respectively. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated with moxifloxacin, which caused clear prolongation of QTcS, with the largest mean placebo-corrected ΔQTcS of 9.8 ms at 1.5 and 2 h. With a linear exposure-response model, the estimated slope of the concentration-change-from-baseline QTcF (ΔQTcF) relationship was very shallow: 0.0007 ms per ng/ml (90% CI, 0.0000 to 0.0014). The possibility of an effect on placebo-corrected ΔQTcS exceeding 10 ms can be excluded at omadacycline concentrations in plasma of up to ∼8 µg/ml. Omadacycline had no effect on cardiac conduction (PR and QRS intervals) but caused an increase in heart rate of 16.8 beats per min at 35 min after the 100-mg dose and 21.6 beats per min at 50 min after the 300-mg dose.

Genome-wide association study identifies loci for arterial stiffness index in 127,121 UK Biobank participants.

Arterial stiffness index (ASI) is a non-invasive measure of arterial stiffness using infra-red finger sensors (photoplethysmography). It is a well-suited measure for large populations as it is relatively inexpensive to perform, and data can be acquired within seconds. These features raise interest in using ASI as a tool to estimate cardiovascular disease risk as prior work demonstrates increased arterial stiffness is associated with elevated systolic blood pressure, and ASI is predictive of cardiovascular disease and mortality. We conducted genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for ASI in 127,121 UK Biobank participants of European-ancestry. Our primary analyses identified variants at four loci reaching genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-8): TEX41 (rs1006923; P = 5.3 × 10-12), FOXO1 (rs7331212; P = 2.2 × 10-11), C1orf21 (rs1930290, P = 1.1 × 10-8) and MRVI1 (rs10840457, P = 3.4 × 10-8). Gene-based testing revealed three significant genes, the most significant gene was COL4A2 (P = 1.41 × 10-8) encoding type IV collagen. Other candidate genes at associated loci were also involved in smooth muscle tone regulation. Our findings provide new information for understanding the development of arterial stiffness.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Clinical Outcomes of Omadacycline in Women with Cystitis: Results from a Phase 1b Study.

Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, is approved as once-daily intravenous (i.v.) and oral (p.o.) monotherapy for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and it is under development for treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI). This is a phase 1b, randomized, open-label study of omadacycline in women with cystitis (defined as UTI symptoms and a positive urine leukocyte esterase test). Patients received omadacycline for 5 days (group 1: 200 mg intravenously on day 1, then 300 mg orally every 24 h [q24h]; group 2: 300 mg orally every 12 h [q12h] on day 1, then 300 mg orally q24h; group 3: 450 mg orally q12h on day 1, then 450 mg orally q24h). Blood and urine samples were collected over 5 days. Investigator-assessed clinical response was determined at end of treatment (EOT; day 6) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE; 5 to 9 days after last dosing). A total of 31 women were treated. At steady state (day 5), the range of mean omadacycline urine concentrations over 24 h across the groups was 17.94 to 48.12 µg/ml. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (including nausea [60% to 73%] and vomiting [20% to 40%]) and were generally mild and transient. Investigator-determined clinical success was observed in 94% and 84% of patients at EOT and PTE, respectively, with similar results across groups. A favorable microbiological response at PTE was observed in 78% of patients who had a baseline pathogen. Omadacycline is partially excreted in urine and appears to be safe and well tolerated. These preliminary results indicate that omadacycline warrants further evaluation in larger controlled UTI studies.

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 .).

Omadacycline for Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Omadacycline, a new once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic agent that can be administered intravenously or orally, reaches high concentrations in pulmonary tissues and is active against common pathogens that cause community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (Pneumonia Severity Index risk class II, III, or IV) to receive omadacycline (100 mg intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg intravenously every 24 hours), or moxifloxacin (400 mg intravenously every 24 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours), respectively, was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was early clinical response, defined as survival with improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, sputum production, pleuritic chest pain, and dyspnea) and no worsening of symptoms at 72 to 120 hours, without receipt of rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was investigator-assessed clinical response at a post-treatment evaluation 5 to 10 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. A noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points was used. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 386 patients in the omadacycline group and 388 patients in the moxifloxacin group. Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for early clinical response (81.1% and 82.7%, respectively; difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 3.8), and the rates of investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation were 87.6% and 85.1%, respectively (difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 7.4). Adverse events that emerged after treatment initiation were reported in 41.1% of the patients in the omadacycline group and 48.5% of the patients in the moxifloxacin group; the most frequent events were gastrointestinal (10.2% and 18.0%, respectively), and the largest difference was for diarrhea (1.0% and 8.0%). Twelve deaths (8 in the omadacycline group and 4 in the moxifloxacin group) occurred during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OPTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02531438 .).

Publisher Correction: Genetic analysis of over 1 million people identifies 535 new loci associated with blood pressure traits.

In the version of this article originally published, the name of author Martin H. de Borst was coded incorrectly in the XML. The error has now been corrected in the HTML version of the paper.

Prediction of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis patients using genome-wide SNP data.

Although a number of treatments are available for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), each of them shows a significant nonresponse rate in patients. Therefore, predicting a priori the likelihood of treatment response would be of great patient benefit. Here, we conducted a comparison of a variety of statistical methods for predicting three measures of treatment response, between baseline and 3 or 6 months, using genome-wide SNP data from RA patients available from the MAximising Therapeutic Utility in Rheumatoid Arthritis (MATURA) consortium. Two different treatments and 11 different statistical methods were evaluated. We used 10-fold cross validation to assess predictive performance, with nested 10-fold cross validation used to tune the model hyperparameters when required. Overall, we found that SNPs added very little prediction information to that obtained using clinical characteristics only, such as baseline trait value. This observation can be explained by the lack of strong genetic effects and the relatively small sample sizes available; in analysis of simulated and real data, with larger effects and/or larger sample sizes, prediction performance was much improved. Overall, methods that were consistent with the genetic architecture of the trait were able to achieve better predictive ability than methods that were not. For treatment response in RA, methods that assumed a complex underlying genetic architecture achieved slightly better prediction performance than methods that assumed a simplified genetic architecture.