Efficacy of Delafloxacin versus Moxifloxacin against Bacterial Respiratory Pathogens in Adults with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Microbiology Results from the Delafloxacin Phase 3 CABP Trial.

Delafloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone with activity against Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and atypical pathogens, including fluoroquinolone-nonsusceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The microbiological results of a phase 3 clinical trial in adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) comparing delafloxacin (300 mg intravenously [i.v.] with the option to switch to 450 mg orally every 12 h) to moxifloxacin (400 mg i.v. with the option to switch to 400 mg orally once a day [QD]) were determined. Patients from 4 continents, predominately Europe but also South America and Asia, were enrolled. The microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population included 520 patients, and 60.5% of these patients had a bacterial pathogen identified. Multiple diagnostic methods were employed, including culture, serology, PCR, and urinary antigen tests. Based on baseline MIC90 values, delafloxacin exhibited at least 16-fold greater activity than moxifloxacin for Gram-positive and fastidious Gram-negative pathogens. Delafloxacin retained activity against resistant phenotypes found in Streptococcus pneumoniae (penicillin-, macrolide-, and multiple-drug resistant), Haemophilus species (ß-lactamase producing and macrolide nonsusceptible), and S. aureus (MRSA and fluoroquinolone-nonsusceptible methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]). The microbiological success rates were 92.7% for S. pneumoniae (87.5% for penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae [PRSP]), 92.6% for S. aureus (100% for MRSA), 100% for Escherichia coli, 82.4% for Klebsiella pneumoniae, 100% for Klebsiella oxytoca, 100% for Moraxella catarrhalis, 91.7% for Haemophilus influenzae, 88.6% for Haemophilus parainfluenzae, 96.7% for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, 93.1% for Legionella pneumophila, and 100% for Chlamydia pneumoniae There was little correlation between MICs and outcomes, with a high proportion of favorable outcomes observed across all delafloxacin baseline MIC values. Delafloxacin may be considered a treatment option as monotherapy for CAP in adults, where broad-spectrum coverage including MRSA activity is desirable.

SOLITAIRE-IV: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous-to-Oral Solithromycin to Intravenous-to-Oral Moxifloxacin for Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Solithromycin, a novel macrolide antibiotic with both intravenous and oral formulations dosed once daily, has completed 2 global phase 3 trials for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. METHODS: A total of 863 adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team [PORT] class II-IV) were randomized 1:1 to receive either intravenous-to-oral solithromycin or moxifloxacin for 7 once-daily doses. All patients received 400 mg intravenously on day 1 and were permitted to switch to oral dosing when clinically indicated. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (10% margin) of solithromycin to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response (ECR) assessed 3 days after first dose in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary endpoints included demonstrating noninferiority in ECR in the microbiological ITT population (micro-ITT) and determination of investigator-assessed success rates at the short-term follow-up (SFU) visit 5-10 days posttherapy. RESULTS: In the ITT population, 79.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.7% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, -0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to 5.2). In the micro-ITT population, 80.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.1% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, 1.26; 95% CI, -8.1 to 10.6). In the ITT population, 84.6% of solithromycin patients and 88.6% of moxifloxacin patients achieved clinical success at SFU based on investigator assessment. Mostly mild/moderate infusion events led to higher incidence of adverse events overall in the solithromycin group. Other adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous-to-oral solithromycin was noninferior to intravenous-to-oral moxifloxacin. Solithromycin has potential to provide an intravenous and oral option for monotherapy for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01968733.

Efficacy and safety of oral solithromycin versus oral moxifloxacin for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: a global, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial (SOLITAIRE-ORAL).

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and treatment recommendations, each with specific limitations, vary globally. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of solithromycin, a novel macrolide, with moxifloxacin for treatment of CABP. METHODS: We did this global, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin America, Europe, and South Africa. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with clinically and radiographically confirmed pneumonia of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based central block randomisation procedure (block size of four), to receive either oral solithromycin (800 mg on day 1, 400 mg on days 2-5, placebo on days 6-7) or oral moxifloxacin (400 mg on days 1-7). Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, PORT risk class (II vs III or IV), and medical history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study sponsor, investigators, staff, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was early clinical response, defined as an improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, chest pain, sputum production, dyspnoea) with no worsening in any symptom at 72 h after the first dose of study drug, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT-01756339. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2013, and Sept 24, 2014, we randomly assigned 860 patients to receive solithromycin (n=426) or moxifloxacin (n=434). Patients were followed up to days 28-35 after first dose. Solithromycin was non-inferior to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response: 333 (78·2%) patients had an early clinical response in the solithromycin group versus 338 (77·9%) patients in the moxifloxacin group (difference 0·29, 95% CI -5·5 to 6·1). Both drugs had a similar safety profile. 43 (10%) of 155 treatment-emergent adverse events in the solithromycin group and 54 (13%) of 154 such events in the moxifloxacin group were deemed to be related to study drug. The most common adverse events, mostly of mild severity, were gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhoea (18 [4%] patients in the solithromycin group vs 28 [6%] patients in the moxifloxacin group), nausea (15 [4%] vs 17 [4%] patients) and vomiting (ten [2%] patients in each group); and nervous system disorders, including headache (19 [4%] vs 11 [3%] patients) and dizziness (nine [2%] vs seven [2%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Oral solithromycin was non-inferior to oral moxifloxacin for treatment of patients with CABP, showing the potential to restore macrolide monotherapy for this indication. FUNDING: Cempra.

Expression of latent human immunodeficiency type 1 is induced by novel and selective histone deacetylase inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: A family of histone deacetylases (HDACs) mediates chromatin remodeling, and repression of gene expression. Deacetylation of histones within the HIV-1 long terminal repeat (LTR) by HDACs plays a key role in the maintenance of latency, whereas acetylation of histones about the LTR is linked to proviral expression and escape of HIV from latency. Global HDAC inhibition may adversely affect host gene expression, leading to cellular toxicities. Potent inhibitors selective for HDACs that maintain LTR repression could be ideal antilatency therapeutics. METHODS: We investigated the ability of selective HDAC inhibitors to de-repress the HIV-1 LTR in both a cell line model of latency and in resting CD4 T cells isolated from patients who were aviremic on antiretroviral therapy (ART). RESULTS: We found that inhibition of class I HDACs increased acetylation of histones at the LTR, but that LTR chromatin was unaffected by class II HDAC inhibitors. In a latently infected cell line, inhibitors selective for class I HDACs were more efficient activators of the LTR than inhibitors that target class II HDACs. Class I HDAC inhibitors were strikingly efficient inducers of virus outgrowth from resting CD4 T cells of aviremic patients, whereas HIV was rarely recovered from patient's cells exposed to class II HDAC inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Further development of selective HDAC inhibitors as part of a clinical strategy to target persistent HIV infection is warranted.