Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir is an orally administered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (Mpro) inhibitor with potent pan-human-coronavirus activity in vitro. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in which symptomatic, unvaccinated, nonhospitalized adults at high risk for progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir (a pharmacokinetic enhancer) or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause through day 28, viral load, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 2246 patients underwent randomization; 1120 patients received nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (nirmatrelvir group) and 1126 received placebo (placebo group). In the planned interim analysis of patients treated within 3 days after symptom onset (modified intention-to treat population, comprising 774 of the 1361 patients in the full analysis population), the incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death by day 28 was lower in the nirmatrelvir group than in the placebo group by 6.32 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.04 to -3.59; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 89.1%); the incidence was 0.77% (3 of 389 patients) in the nirmatrelvir group, with 0 deaths, as compared with 7.01% (27 of 385 patients) in the placebo group, with 7 deaths. Efficacy was maintained in the final analysis involving the 1379 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a difference of -5.81 percentage points (95% CI, -7.78 to -3.84; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 88.9%). All 13 deaths occurred in the placebo group. The viral load was lower with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo at day 5 of treatment, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.868 log10 copies per milliliter when treatment was initiated within 3 days after the onset of symptoms. The incidence of adverse events that emerged during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (any adverse event, 22.6% with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir vs. 23.9% with placebo; serious adverse events, 1.6% vs. 6.6%; and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drugs or placebo, 2.1% vs. 4.2%). Dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 0.3%) and diarrhea (3.1% vs. 1.6%) occurred more frequently with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of symptomatic Covid-19 with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir resulted in a risk of progression to severe Covid-19 that was 89% lower than the risk with placebo, without evident safety concerns. (Supported by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04960202.).

Moving Beyond Mortality: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) are frequently caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Patient-centered endpoints in clinical trials are needed to develop new antibiotics for HABP/VABP. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a paradigm for the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials based on a patient-centered, benefit-risk evaluation. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee created an infectious diseases DOOR endpoint customized for HABP/VABP, incorporating infectious complications, serious adverse events, and mortality. We applied this to 2 previously completed, large randomized controlled trials for HABP/VABP. ZEPHyR compared vancomycin to linezolid and VITAL compared linezolid to tedizolid. For each trial, we evaluated the DOOR distribution and probability, including DOOR component and partial credit analyses. We also applied DOOR in subgroup analyses. RESULTS: In both trials, the HABP/VABP DOOR demonstrated similar overall clinical outcomes between treatment groups. In ZEPHyR, the probability that a participant treated with linezolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with vancomycin was 50.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.1%--55.3%). In VITAL, the probability that a participant treated with tedizolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with linezolid was 48.7% (95% CI, 44.8%-52.6%). The DOOR component analysis revealed that participants treated with tedizolid had a less desirable outcome than those treated with linezolid when considering clinical response alone. However, participants with decreased renal function had improved overall outcomes with tedizolid. CONCLUSIONS: The HABP/VABP DOOR provided more granular information about clinical outcomes than is typically presented in clinical trials. HABP/VABP trials would benefit from prospectively using DOOR.

Daily COVID-19 symptom assessment over 28 days - findings from a daily direct-to-patient registry of COVID-19 positive patients.

In January 2021, 999 COVID-19 positive adults in the US enrolled in an online, direct-to-patient registry to describe daily symptom severity and progression over 28 days. The most commonly reported and persistent symptoms were fatigue, headache, decreased sense of taste, decreased sense of smell, and cough. Fast resolving symptoms included gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) and those related to fever and chills. While more than half (56%) of patients reported overall symptom improvement during the 28-day study period, 60% of patients were still reporting at least 1 COVID-19 symptom at the end of 28 days. Risk factors for experiencing symptoms for longer duration included at least one of the following: older age (> 60 years), higher BMI, lung disease, and receiving medication for hypertension. The study demonstrates the value of patient-reported data to provide important and timely insights to COVID-19 disease and symptom progression and the potential of using real-world data to inform clinical trial design and endpoints.

Treatment outcomes of secondary bacteraemia in patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil: pooled results from six phase III clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory pooled analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil and comparators across six phase III clinical trials in adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) and secondary bacteraemia. METHODS: In each trial, FOCUS 1 and 2 (CAP), Asia CAP trial, CANVAS 1 and 2 (cSSTI) and COVERS (cSSTI), patients were randomised to ceftaroline fosamil [600 mg q12h by 1-h i.v. infusion, except in COVERS (600 mg q8h by 2-h i.v. infusion), adjusted for renal function] or comparator. Efficacy assessments included clinical and microbiological responses at test-of-cure visit [microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population]. Safety outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The pooled mMITT population comprised 1976 patients, of whom 138 had baseline bacteraemia (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 72; comparator, n = 66). Predominant baseline blood pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 29), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 19) and other streptococci (n = 12). Clinical cure rates in bacteraemic patients were 55/72 (76.4%) and 51/66 (77.3%) for ceftaroline fosamil and comparators, respectively, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 822/966 (85.1%) and 717/872 (82.2%). Favourable microbiological response rates in bacteraemic patients were 56/72 (77.8%) for ceftaroline fosamil and 54/66 (81.8%) for comparators, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 825/966 (85.4%) and 719/872 (82.5%). Adverse events in bacteraemic patients were consistent with the known ceftaroline fosamil safety profile or the underlying indications. CONCLUSION: These pooled clinical and microbiological efficacy data demonstrate generally favourable outcomes for ceftaroline fosamil in patients with CAP or cSSTI and secondary bacteraemia. [Trial Registration: NCT00621504, NCT00509106; NCT01371838; NCT00424190, NCT00423657; NCT01499277].

The use of extrapolation based on modeling and simulation to support high-dose regimens of ceftaroline fosamil in pediatric patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections.

A model-informed drug development approach was used to select ceftaroline fosamil high-dose regimens for pediatric patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus with a ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 2 or 4 mg/L. Steady-state ceftaroline concentrations were simulated using a population pharmacokinetics (PK) model for ceftaroline fosamil and ceftaroline including data from 304 pediatric subjects and 944 adults. Probability of target attainment (PTA) for various simulated pediatric high-dose regimens and renal function categories were calculated based on patients achieving 35% fT>MIC (S. aureus PK/pharmacodynamic target for 2-log10 bacterial killing). For extrapolation of efficacy, simulated exposures and PTA were compared to adults with normal renal function receiving high-dose ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg 2-h infusions every 8 h). For safety, predicted ceftaroline exposures were compared with observed pediatric and adult data. Predicted ceftaroline exposures for the approved pediatric high-dose regimens (12, 10, or 8 mg/kg by 2-h infusions every 8 h for patients aged >2 to <18 years with normal/mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment, respectively; 10 mg/kg by 2-h infusions every 8 h for patients aged ≥2 months to <2 years with normal renal function/mild impairment) were well matched to adults with normal renal function. Median predicted maximum concentration at steady state (Cmax,ss ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 24 h at steady state pediatric to adult ratios were 0.907-1.33 and 0.940-1.41, respectively. PTAs (>99% and ≥81% for MICs of 2 and 4 mg/L, respectively) matched or exceeded the adult predictions. Simulated Cmax,ss values were below the maximum observed data in other indications, including a high-dose pediatric pneumonia trial, which reported no adverse events related to high exposure.

Population Analysis of Anidulafungin in Infants to Older Adults With Confirmed or Suspected Invasive Candidiasis.

In a pooled population analysis, we investigated the pharmacokinetics of i.v. anidulafungin in four studies across a full range of adult and pediatric ages in patients with confirmed, suspected, or at high risk of invasive candidiasis (IC). Relationships between anidulafungin exposure and key efficacy end points (global response of success and all-cause mortality) and safety end points (all-cause hepatic or gastrointestinal adverse events) in all patients and separately in pediatric patients and the appropriate dosing regimen for IC treatment in pediatric patients were evaluated. Pediatric patients received a 3.0 mg/kg (maximum 200 mg) i.v. loading dose and 1.5 mg/kg (maximum 100 mg) daily thereafter. Adults received a 200 mg i.v. loading dose and 100 mg daily thereafter. Estimated systemic anidulafungin exposures were similar across age groups (neonates to adults) at the weight-based doses studied in pediatric patients. No clear associations were identified between anidulafungin exposure and efficacy or safety end points.

Safety, Efficacy and Pharmacokinetics of Anidulafungin in Patients 1 Month to <2 Years of Age With Invasive Candidiasis, Including Candidemia.

Nineteen patients 1 month to <2 years of age with (n = 16) or at high risk of (n = 3) invasive candidiasis received anidulafungin for 5-35 days (3 mg/kg day 1, 1.5 mg/kg daily thereafter) followed by optional fluconazole (NCT00761267). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild/moderate, and no treatment-related deaths occurred. End of intravenous therapy global response success rate was 68.8%. Pharmacokinetics were similar to adult patients.

Phase 2 Study of the Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Neonates and Very Young Infants With Late-onset Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: With increasing antimicrobial resistance, antibiotic treatment options for neonatal late-onset sepsis (LOS) are becoming limited. Primary objective of this study was assessment of the safety of ceftaroline fosamil in LOS. METHODS: Eligible neonates and very young infants 7 to <60 days of age with LOS were enrolled in this phase 2, open-label, multicenter study (NCT02424734) and received ceftaroline fosamil 4 or 6 mg/kg every 8 hours by 1-hour intravenous infusion plus intravenous ampicillin and optional aminoglycoside for 48 hours-14 days. Safety was assessed through the final study visit (21-35 days after the last study therapy dose). Efficacy, assessed as clinical and microbiologic response, was evaluated at end-of-treatment and test-of-cure. Pharmacokinetic samples were collected via sparse-sampling protocol. RESULTS: Eleven patients [54.5% male, median (range) age 24 (12-53) days] were enrolled and received ceftaroline fosamil for a median (range) duration of 8 (3-15) days. Ten adverse events (AEs) occurred in 5 (45.5%) patients (safety population); most frequent AE was diarrhea (n = 2). All except 1 AE (diarrhea) were nontreatment-related. Predominant baseline pathogen was Escherichia coli. No patients were clinical failures at end-of-treatment/test-of-cure. Observed sparse steady-state pharmacokinetics data (19 samples) were comparable to previous pediatric data and generally within 90% model prediction intervals; neonatal probability of target attainment was >95% based on established pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets. CONCLUSIONS: Safety in neonates and very young infants was consistent with the known ceftaroline fosamil safety profile. These results support the use of ceftaroline fosamil (6 mg/kg every 8 hours) as a potential treatment option for LOS.

A Prospective, Open-label Study to Assess the Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Anidulafungin in the Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis in Children 2 to <18 Years of Age.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with an echinocandin is recommended as first-line therapy for patients with invasive candidiasis (ICC) including candidemia. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of anidulafungin in children with ICC. METHODS: Eligible patients with ICC 2 to <18 years old were enrolled into this prospective, open-label, noncomparative, international study (NCT00761267) and received anidulafungin for 10-35 days (3 mg/kg on day 1, 1.5 mg/kg daily thereafter). Safety was assessed through week 6 follow-up. Efficacy, measured by global response (based on clinical and microbiologic responses), was assessed at end of intravenous treatment (EOIVT), end of treatment, weeks 2 and 6 follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (n = 19, 2 to <5 years; n = 30, 5 to <18 years) received ≥1 dose of anidulafungin (median 11 days; range 1-35 days) and were assessed for safety. Among 48 patients with a Candida species isolated, C. albicans (37.5%), C. parapsilosis (25.0%), C. tropicalis (14.6%) and C. lusitaniae (10.4%) were the most frequent Candida spp. All patients reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event, with diarrhea (22.4%), vomiting (24.5%) and pyrexia (18.4%) being most frequent. Five patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, of which 4 discontinuations were considered related to anidulafungin. All-cause mortality was 8.2% (4/49) by EOIVT and 14.3% (7/49) by week 6 follow-up. None of 7 deaths during the study period were considered treatment related. Global response success rate was 70.8% at EOIVT. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of anidulafungin as a treatment option for ICC in children 2 to <18 years old at the studied dose.

Efficacy of tigecycline versus ceftriaxone plus metronidazole for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: results from a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, open-label, multi-center trial compared tigecycline (TGC), a broad-spectrum glycylcycline, with ceftriaxone-metronidazole (CTX/MET) for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI). METHODS: Eligible subjects were randomized to receive TGC 100 mg followed by 50 mg q 12 h or CTX 2 g qd plus MET 1-2 g daily for 4-14 days. Subjects were stratified by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score ≤10 or >10 and could not receive oral therapy. The primary endpoint was clinical response in the clinically evaluable (CE) population at the test of cure (TOC) assessment 8-44 days after the last drug dose. RESULTS: Clinical responses in the CE population were 81.8% (162/198) vs. 79.4% (150/189) for TGC and CTX/MET, respectively; a weighted estimate of the difference of 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] -6.4, 9.6). In the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population, microbiological eradication rates were 82.4% (98/119) for TGC vs. 79.6% (86/108) for CTX/MET: a difference of 2.7 (95% CI -7.9, 13.3). Common adverse events were nausea (21.6% TGC vs. 21.3% CTX/MET) and vomiting (17.7% TGC vs. 13.2% CTX/MET). Discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 7.8% for TGC and 6.4% for CTX/MET. CONCLUSIONS: Tigecycline was effective in the treatment of cIAI and was non-inferior to CTX/MET for the treatment of cIAI in hospitalized adults. Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT00230971.