Safety and efficacy of WC2031 versus vibramycin for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have raised concern about efficacy of azithromycin for Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Research investigating new antibiotic regimens for chlamydia has been sparse, especially regimens that may reduce adherence difficulties with the recommended twice-daily doxycycline regimen. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, multicenter trial with the objective of evaluating the safety and efficacy of WC2031 (doxycycline hyclate delayed-release 200-mg tablet) orally once daily for 7 days versus Vibramycin (doxycycline hyclate capsule) 100 mg orally twice daily for 7 days for treatment of uncomplicated urogenital chlamydia. Men and nonpregnant women aged 19-45 years with a urogenital chlamydial diagnosis or a sexual partner with chlamydia were eligible. The primary outcome was microbial cure by nucleic acid amplification testing at day 28. Noninferiority of WC2031 was inferred if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in cure rates was >-10%. RESULTS: A total of 495 subjects were randomized. The modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population with evaluable efficacy consisted of 323 subjects. Baseline patient characteristics did not differ between the mITT groups. Microbial cure rates for WC2031 were 95.5% (95% CI, 92.3-98.8) versus 95.2% (95% CI, 92.0-98.4) for Vibramycin (95% CI for the difference in cure rates, -4.3% to 4.9%). Types of adverse events were comparable. Nausea and vomiting occurred less frequently with WC2031 than with Vibramycin (13% vs 21% and 8% vs 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: WC2031 was noninferior to Vibramycin for uncomplicated urogenital chlamydia treatment, better tolerated, and demonstrated comparable safety. WC2031 could improve treatment adherence over twice-daily Vibramycin. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01113931.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase 3a, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 56. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (8.3% [67.7 mmol/mol] at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER [ETD] -0.62% [95% CI -0.80, -0.44] [-6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86)]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg [95% CI -4.58, -2.98]; P < 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.