Derazantinib alone and with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR aberrations.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b/2 study assessed the efficacy in terms of objective response rate (ORR) of the FGFR1/2/3 kinase inhibitor derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) and FGFR1-3 genetic aberrations (FGFR1-3GA). METHODS: This multicenter, open-label study comprised 5 substudies. In Substudies 1 and 5, patients with mUC with FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib monotherapy (300 mg QD in Substudy 1, 200 mg BID in Substudy 5). In Substudy 2, patients with any solid tumor received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks plus derazantinib 200 or 300 mg QD. In Substudy 3, patients with mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 200 mg BID plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. In Substudy 4, patients with FGFR inhibitor-resistant mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 300 mg QD monotherapy or derazantinib 300 mg QD plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The ORR for Substudies 1 and 5 combined was 4/49 (8.2%, 95% confidence interval = 2.3% to 19.6%), which was based on 4 partial responses. The ORR in Substudy 4 was 1/7 (14.3%, 95% confidence interval = 0.4% to 57.9%; 1 partial response for derazantinib 300 mg monotherapy, zero for derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg). In Substudy 2, derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg was identified as a recommended dose for Phase 2. Only 2 patients entered Substudy 3. CONCLUSIONS: Derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab was well-tolerated but did not show sufficient efficacy to warrant further development in mUC. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04045613, EudraCT 2019-000359-15.

Ceftobiprole for Treatment of Complicated Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Ceftobiprole is a cephalosporin that may be effective for treating complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial, adults with complicated S. aureus bacteremia were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ceftobiprole at a dose of 500 mg intravenously every 6 hours for 8 days and every 8 hours thereafter, or daptomycin at a dose of 6 to 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 24 hours plus optional aztreonam (at the discretion of the trial-site investigators). The primary outcome, overall treatment success 70 days after randomization (defined as survival, bacteremia clearance, symptom improvement, no new S. aureus bacteremia-related complications, and no receipt of other potentially effective antibiotics), with a noninferiority margin of 15%, was adjudicated by a data review committee whose members were unaware of the trial-group assignments. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 390 patients who underwent randomization, 387 (189 in the ceftobiprole group and 198 in the daptomycin group) had confirmed S. aureus bacteremia and received ceftobiprole or daptomycin (modified intention-to-treat population). A total of 132 of 189 patients (69.8%) in the ceftobiprole group and 136 of 198 patients (68.7%) in the daptomycin group had overall treatment success (adjusted difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.1). Findings appeared to be consistent between the ceftobiprole and daptomycin groups in key subgroups and with respect to secondary outcomes, including mortality (9.0% and 9.1%, respectively; 95% CI, -6.2 to 5.2) and the percentage of patients with microbiologic eradication (82.0% and 77.3%; 95% CI, -2.9 to 13.0). Adverse events were reported in 121 of 191 patients (63.4%) who received ceftobiprole and 117 of 198 patients (59.1%) who received daptomycin; serious adverse events were reported in 36 patients (18.8%) and 45 patients (22.7%), respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events (primarily mild nausea) were more frequent with ceftobiprole. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftobiprole was noninferior to daptomycin with respect to overall treatment success in patients with complicated S. aureus bacteremia. (Funded by Basilea Pharmaceutica International and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ERADICATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03138733.).

A post hoc analysis of two Phase III trials showing the efficacy and tolerability of ceftobiprole in East Asian patients.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in patients from East Asia. Materials & methods: A post hoc analysis was conducted of two randomized, double-blind, Phase III studies in patients with community- or hospital-acquired pneumonia. Results: Findings for East Asian patients were consistent with the overall study populations. A trend toward higher microbiological eradication rates and numerically lower rates of all-cause mortality were reported for ceftobiprole versus comparators (all-cause mortality [intent-to-treat]: community-acquired pneumonia, 1.5 vs 2.8%; hospital-acquired pneumonia excluding ventilator-associated pneumonia, 5.9 vs 11.4%). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusion: This post hoc analysis supports the efficacy and tolerability of ceftobiprole in East Asian patients. ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifiers: NCT00326287, NCT00210964, NCT00229008.

Lay abstract Pneumonia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in East Asia and treatment is complicated by increasing rates of antibiotic resistance in this region. This study analyzed results from two clinical trials that assessed the benefits of the novel antibiotic ceftobiprole in patients from mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. In East Asian patients with either community- or hospital-acquired pneumonia, outcomes following ceftobiprole treatment were similar to those achieved with established antibiotics. There was also an indication that ceftobiprole may improve the rate at which causative bacteria were eradicated and may potentially reduce mortality rates compared with other antibiotics. Ceftobiprole was well tolerated in this population and will be a useful option for the treatment of pneumonia in East Asia.

Efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in patients aged 65 years or older: a post hoc analysis of three Phase III studies.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in patients aged ≥65 years. Materials & methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of three randomized, double-blind, Phase III studies in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, community-acquired pneumonia and hospital-acquired pneumonia. Results: Findings for patients aged ≥65 years (n = 633) were consistent with those for the overall study populations, although a trend toward improved outcomes was reported in some subgroups, for example, patients aged ≥75 years with community-acquired pneumonia were more likely to achieve an early clinical response with ceftobiprole than comparator (treatment difference 16.3% [95% CI:1.8-30.8]). The safety profile was similar between treatment groups in all studies. Conclusion: This analysis further supports the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in older patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections or pneumonia. Clinicaltrials.gov trial identifiers: NCT03137173, NCT00326287, NCT00210964, NCT00229008.

Lay abstract Infections are a common cause of severe disease and death in older patients. Antibiotic treatment may also be complicated by age-related changes within the body. The present study analyzed results from three large clinical trials that assessed the benefits of the novel antibiotic ceftobiprole in the older population. In patients aged over 65 years with skin infections or with pneumonia acquired either in the community or in a hospital setting, ceftobiprole offered similar benefits to established antibiotics. There was also some preliminary evidence that older patients may respond more quickly to ceftobiprole compared with the other antibiotics used in these studies. Overall, ceftobiprole was well tolerated and will be a useful treatment option for infections in older patients. Clinical trial registration: NCT03137173, NCT00326287, NCT00210964, NCT00229008 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

A Phase 3, Randomized, Investigator-blinded Trial Comparing Ceftobiprole With a Standard-of-care Cephalosporin, With or Without Vancomycin, for the Treatment of Pneumonia in Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: The advanced-generation, broad-spectrum, intravenous (IV) cephalosporin, ceftobiprole, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for adults with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) or community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), but its effects in pediatric patients have not been established. METHODS: In this multicenter, investigator-blinded, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients 3 months to <18 years old with HAP or CAP requiring hospitalization were randomized (2:1) to ceftobiprole versus standard-of-care (SoC) IV cephalosporin treatments (ceftazidime or ceftriaxone), with or without vancomycin. After at least 3 days' IV treatment, patients demonstrating clinical improvement could be switched to an oral antibiotic, to complete a minimum of 7 days' treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 138 patients were randomized to ceftobiprole (n = 94) or a SoC cephalosporin (n = 44). Median time to oral switch was 6.0 days in the ceftobiprole group and 8.0 days in the SoC cephalosporin group. While on IV therapy, adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were reported by 20.2% and 8.5% of ceftobiprole-treated patients and 18.2% and 0% of SoC cephalosporin-treated patients. Early clinical response rates at day 4 in the intention-to-treat population were 95.7% and 93.2% (between-group difference, 2.6%; 95% confidence interval, -5.5% to 14.7%) in the ceftobiprole and comparator groups, and clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were 90.4% and 97.7% (between-group difference, -7.3%; 95% confidence interval, -15.7% to 3.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftobiprole was well tolerated and, in this small phase 3 study, demonstrated similar efficacy to SoC cephalosporins in pediatric patients with HAP or CAP requiring hospitalization.

Ceftobiprole Compared With Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind Trial (TARGET).

BACKGROUND: The development of novel broad-spectrum antibiotics, with efficacy against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, has the potential to enhance treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation intravenous cephalosporin with broad in vitro activity against gram-positive (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and gram-negative pathogens. METHODS: TARGET was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 noninferiority study that compared ceftobiprole with vancomycin plus aztreonam. The Food and Drug Administration-defined primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response 48-72 hours after treatment initiation in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and the European Medicines Agency-defined primary endpoint was investigator-assessed clinical success at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Noninferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in success rates (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin/aztreonam) >-10%. Safety was assessed through adverse event and laboratory data collection. RESULTS: In total, 679 patients were randomized to ceftobiprole (n = 335) or vancomycin/aztreonam (n = 344). Early clinical success rates were 91.3% and 88.1% in the ceftobiprole and vancomycin/aztreonam groups, respectively, and noninferiority was demonstrated (adjusted difference: 3.3%; 95% CI: -1.2, 7.8). Investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit was similar between the 2 groups, and noninferiority was demonstrated for both the ITT (90.1% vs 89.0%) and clinically evaluable (97.9% vs 95.2%) populations. Both treatment groups displayed similar microbiological success and safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: TARGET demonstrated that ceftobiprole is noninferior to vancomycin/aztreonam in the treatment of ABSSSIs, in terms of early clinical response and investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03137173.

Ceftobiprole versus daptomycin in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a novel protocol for a double-blind, Phase III trial.

Although Staphylococcus aureus is a common cause of bacteremia, treatment options are limited. The need for new therapies is particularly urgent for methicillin-resistant S. aureus bacteremia (SAB). Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation, broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant S. aureus. This is a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, two-part study to establish the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole compared with daptomycin in the treatment of SAB, including infective endocarditis. Anticipated enrollment is 390 hospitalized adult patients, aged ≥18 years, with confirmed or suspected complicated SAB. The primary end point is overall success rate. Target completion of the study is in the second half of 2021. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03138733.

Early improvement in severely ill patients with pneumonia treated with ceftobiprole: a retrospective analysis of two major trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pneumonia who are elderly or severely ill are at a particularly high risk of mortality. This post hoc retrospective analysis of data from two Phase III studies evaluated early improvement outcomes in subgroups of high-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP, excluding ventilator-associated pneumonia [VAP]). METHODS: One study included hospitalised CAP patients randomised to ceftobiprole or ceftriaxone ± linezolid treatment. The other study included HAP patients, who were randomised to ceftobiprole or ceftazidime plus linezolid treatment. The primary outcome was rate of early clinical response (Day 3 in CAP and Day 4 in HAP patients). Additional outcome measures included clinical cure at a test-of-cure visit, 30-day all-cause mortality and safety. RESULTS: The overall high-risk group comprised 398 CAP patients and 307 HAP patients with risk factors present at baseline. The rate of early response was numerically higher in ceftobiprole-treated patients vs comparator-treated patients in the following high-risk groups: CAP patients aged ≥75 years (16.3% difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 30.8); CAP patients with COPD (20.1% difference, 95% CI: 8.8, 31.1); all high-risk HAP patients (12.5% difference, 95% CI: 3.5, 21.4); HAP patients with >10 baseline comorbidities (15.3% difference, 95% CI: 0.3, 30.4). CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies show that ceftobiprole is an efficacious therapy for patients with pneumonia who are at high risk of poor outcomes. This post hoc analysis provides preliminary evidence that ceftobiprole treatment may have advantages over other antibiotics in terms of achieving early improvement in high-risk patients with HAP (excluding VAP) and in some subgroups of high-risk CAP patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00210964 : registered September 21, 2005; NCT00229008 : registered September 29, 2005; NCT00326287 : registered May 16, 2006.

Variability and exposure-response relationships of isavuconazole plasma concentrations in the Phase 3 SECURE trial of patients with invasive mould diseases.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis evaluated the variability of isavuconazole plasma concentrations between subjects and between sampling times, and assessed their relationship to outcomes for subjects with invasive fungal disease (IFD) in the SECURE trial. METHODS: Isavuconazole-treated subjects received 372 mg of isavuconazonium sulphate (corresponding to 200 mg of isavuconazole) three times daily for 2 days, then once daily. Plasma samples were collected after day 4 and analysis sets were constructed as follows: analysis set 1 included all samples from subjects with proven/probable/possible IFD who received ≥1 dose of isavuconazole; analysis set 2 included samples from subjects in analysis set 1 who had provided >1 sample; and analysis set 3 included samples from subjects in analysis set 1 with proven/probable invasive aspergillosis. Assessments included overall distributions of plasma concentrations and variability between samples (analysis sets 1 and 2) as well as relationships to outcomes [all-cause mortality (day 42), overall response (end of treatment) and treatment-emergent adverse events; analysis sets 1 and 3]. RESULTS: Analysis sets 1, 2 and 3 included samples from 160, 97 and 98 subjects, respectively. Trough concentrations for each were distributed similarly [mean (SD): 3406.6 (1511.5), 3495.6 (1503.3) and 3368.1 (1523.2) ng/mL, respectively]. The mean coefficient of variation between samples in analysis set 2 was 23.2%; differences between concentrations in first samples and subsequent samples were <2-fold for 85/97 subjects. In quartiles of subject data, no concentration-dependent relationships were observed for efficacy or safety. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma concentrations of isavuconazole were reasonably consistent between subjects and sampling times, and were not associated with differences in outcomes.

Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease in a phase III trial comparing isavuconazole vs voriconazole.

Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease (IMD; 2008 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group [EORTC/MSG] criteria) needed further assessment. The Phase III SECURE trial compared isavuconazole vs voriconazole for treatment of IMD. This post hoc analysis assessed all-cause mortality (ACM) through day 42 (primary endpoint) and day 84, overall and clinical success at end of treatment (EOT), and drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in subgroups with proven/probable or possible IMD. Of 516 randomised patients, 304 (58.9%) had proven/probable IMD and 164 (31.8%) had possible IMD as per EORTC/MSG criteria; 48 did not have IMD. Across treatment groups, day 42 and day 84 ACM were numerically lower for possible vs proven/probable IMD (day 42: 17.1% vs 21.1%; P = 0.3, day 84: 26.2% vs 32.6%; P = 0.15). Overall and clinical success at EOT were significantly higher for possible IMD compared with proven/probable IMD (48.2% vs 36.2%; P = 0.01, 75.0% vs 63.1%; P = 0.01 respectively). Fewer drug-related TEAEs were reported with isavuconazole compared with voriconazole in patients with either proven/probable or possible IMD. Compared with patients with proven/probable IMD, those with possible IMD demonstrated higher overall and clinical success rates, supporting early initiation of antifungal treatment.

A phase 3 randomized double-blind comparison of ceftobiprole medocaril versus ceftazidime plus linezolid for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Ceftobiprole, the active moiety of ceftobiprole medocaril, is a novel broad-spectrum cephalosporin, with bactericidal activity against a wide range of gram-positive bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant strains) and penicillin- and ceftriaxone-resistant pneumococci, and gram-negative bacteria, including Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study of 781 patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including 210 with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Treatment was intravenous ceftobiprole 500 mg every 8 hours, or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 hours plus linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours; primary outcome was clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit. RESULTS: Overall cure rates for ceftobiprole vs ceftazidime/linezolid were 49.9% vs 52.8% (intent-to-treat [ITT], 95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -10.0 to 4.1) and 69.3% vs 71.3% (clinically evaluable [CE], 95% CI, -10.0 to 6.1). Cure rates in HAP (excluding VAP) patients were 59.6% vs 58.8% (ITT, 95% CI, -7.3 to 8.8), and 77.8% vs 76.2% (CE, 95% CI, -6.9 to 10.0). Cure rates in VAP patients were 23.1% vs 36.8% (ITT, 95% CI, -26.0 to -1.5) and 37.7% vs 55.9% (CE, 95% CI, -36.4 to 0). Microbiological eradication rates in HAP (excluding VAP) patients were, respectively, 62.9% vs 67.5% (microbiologically evaluable [ME], 95% CI, -16.7 to 7.6), and in VAP patients 30.4% vs 50.0% (ME, 95% CI, -38.8 to -0.4). Treatment-related adverse events were comparable for ceftobiprole (24.9%) and ceftazidime/linezolid (25.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftobiprole is a safe and effective bactericidal antibiotic for the empiric treatment of HAP (excluding VAP). Further investigations are needed before recommending the use of ceftobiprole in VAP patients. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00210964, NCT00229008.