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 .).

Omadacycline: development of a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic for treating drug-resistant bacterial infections.

Omadacycline is a first-in-class aminomethylcycline antibiotic that circumvents common tetracycline resistance mechanisms. In vitro omadacycline has potent activity against Gram-positive aerobic bacteria including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, penicillin-resistant and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. It is also active against common Gram-negative aerobes, some anaerobes and atypical bacteria including Legionella spp. and Chlamydia spp. Ongoing Phase III clinical trials with omadacycline are investigating once daily doses of 100 mg intravenously followed by once-daily doses of 300 mg orally for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. This paper provides an overview of the microbiology, nonclinical evaluations, clinical pharmacology and initial clinical experience with omadacycline.

The efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: analysis of pooled clinical trial data.

This pooled analysis includes 2 phase 3, double-blind trials designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tigecycline, versus that of imipenem-cilastatin, in 1642 adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Patients were randomized to receive either tigecycline (initial dose of 100 mg, followed by 50 mg intravenously every 12 h) or imipenem-cilastatin (500/500 mg intravenously every 6 h) for 5-14 days. The primary end point was the clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (12-42 days after therapy) in the co-primary end point microbiologically evaluable and microbiological modified intent-to-treat populations. For the microbiologically evaluable group, clinical cure rates were 86.1% (441/512) for tigecycline, versus 86.2% (442/513) for imipenem-cilastatin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -4.5% to 4.4%; P < .0001 for noninferiority). Clinical cure rates in the microbiological modified intent-to-treat population were 80.2% (506/631) for tigecycline, versus 81.5% (514/631) for imipenem-cilastatin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -5.8% to 3.2%; P < .0001 for noninferiority). Nausea (24.4% tigecycline, 19.0% imipenem-cilastatin [P = .01]), vomiting (19.2% tigecycline, 14.3% imipenem-cilastatin [P = .008]), and diarrhea (13.8% tigecycline, 13.2% imipenem-cilastatin [P = .719]) were the most frequently reported adverse events. This pooled analysis demonstrates that tigecycline was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: Results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of tigecycline monotherapy, a first-in-class, expanded broad spectrum glycylcycline, with the combination of vancomycin and aztreonam (V + A) in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI). METHODS: A phase 3, double-blind study conducted in 8 countries enrolled adults with cSSSI who required intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy for > or =5 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either tigecycline or V + A for up to 14 days. Primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure visit. Secondary endpoints included microbiologic efficacy and in vitro susceptibility to tigecycline of bacteria that cause cSSSI. Safety was assessed by physical examination, laboratory analyses, and adverse event reporting. RESULTS: A total of 596 patients were screened for enrollment, 573 were analyzed for safety, 537 were included in the clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) population, 397 were clinically evaluable (CE), and 228 were microbiologically evaluable (ME). At test-of-cure, cure rates were similar between tigecycline and V + A groups in the CE population (82.9% versus 82.3%, respectively) and in the c-mITT population (75.5% versus 76.9%, respectively). Microbiologic eradication rates (subject level) at test-of-cure in the ME population were also similar between tigecycline and V + A. Frequency of adverse events was similar between groups, although patients receiving tigecycline had higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and anorexia, while increased ALT/SGPT, pruritus, and rash occurred significantly more often in V + A-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the efficacy of tigecycline monotherapy for the treatment of patients with cSSSI is statistically noninferior to the combination of V + A.