Sulopenem for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections Including Pyelonephritis: A Phase 3, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sulopenem is a thiopenem antibiotic being developed for the treatment of multidrug-resistant infections. The availability of both intravenous (IV) and oral formulations will facilitate earlier hospital discharge. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with pyuria, bacteriuria, and signs and symptoms of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) were randomized to 5 days of IV sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid or 5 days of IV ertapenem followed by oral ciprofloxacin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, depending on uropathogen susceptibility. The primary end point was overall combined clinical and microbiologic response at the test-of-cure visit (day 21). RESULTS: Of 1392 treated patients, 444 and 440 treated with sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, had a positive baseline urine culture and were eligible for the primary efficacy analyses. Extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing organisms were identified in 26.6% of patients and fluoroquinolone-nonsusceptible pathogens in 38.6%. For the primary end point, noninferiority of sulopenem to the comparator regimen was not demonstrated, 67.8% vs 73.9% (difference, -6.1%; 95% confidence interval, -12.0 to -.1%). The difference was driven by a lower rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the subgroup of ertapenem-treated patients who stepped down to ciprofloxacin. No substantial difference in overall response was observed at any other time point. Both IV and oral formulations of sulopenem were well-tolerated and compared favorably to the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem-etzadroxil/probenecid was not noninferior to ertapenem followed by oral step-down therapy for the treatment of cUTIs, driven by a lower rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in those who received ciprofloxacin. Both formulations of sulopenem were well-tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03357614.

Sulopenem or Ciprofloxacin for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Phase 3, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) caused by resistant pathogens. Sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid (sulopenem) is an oral thiopenem antibiotic active against multidrug-resistant pathogens that cause uUTIs. METHODS: Patients with uUTI were randomized to 5 days of sulopenem or 3 days of ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as both clinical and microbiologic response at day 12. In patients with ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible baseline pathogens, sulopenem was compared for superiority over ciprofloxacin; in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, the agents were compared for noninferiority. Using prespecified hierarchical statistical testing, the primary endpoint was tested in the combined population if either superiority or noninferiority was declared in the nonsusceptible or susceptible population, respectively. RESULTS: In the nonsusceptible population, sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin, 62.6% vs 36.0% (difference, 26.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.1 to 7.4; P <.001). In the susceptible population, sulopenem was not noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 66.8% vs 78.6% (difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -18.0 to 5.6). The difference was driven by a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) post-treatment in patients on sulopenem. In the combined analysis, sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 65.6% vs 67.9% (difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 3.3). Diarrhea occurred more frequently with sulopenem (12.4% vs 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin in the treatment of uUTIs. Sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin in patients with uUTIs due to ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible pathogens. Sulopenem was not noninferior in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, driven largely by a lower rate of ASB in those who received ciprofloxacin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03354598.

Lefamulin efficacy and safety in a pooled phase 3 clinical trial population with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and common clinical comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Lefamulin, a first-in-class pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was noninferior to moxifloxacin in the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 intravenous-to-oral switch study and the LEAP 2 oral-only study. Using pooled LEAP 1/2 data, we examined lefamulin efficacy/safety overall and within subgroups of patients presenting with comorbidities typical in CABP management. METHODS: In LEAP 1, adults with CABP were randomized to receive intravenous lefamulin (150 mg every 12 h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch if predefined improvement criteria were met. In LEAP 2, adults with CABP were randomized to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 h) for 5 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days. Both studies assessed early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after first study drug dose and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test-of-cure (5‒10 days after last dose). Pooled analyses of the overall population used a 10% noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Lefamulin (n = 646) was noninferior to moxifloxacin (n = 643) for ECR (89.3% vs 90.5%, respectively; difference - 1.1%; 95% CI - 4.4 to 2.2); IACR success rates at test-of-cure were similarly high (≥ 85.0%). High efficacy with both lefamulin and moxifloxacin was also demonstrated across all well-represented patient subgroups, including those with advanced age, diabetes mellitus, a history of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmia) or chronic lung diseases (e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), elevated liver enzymes, or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Lefamulin may provide a valuable intravenous/oral monotherapy alternative to fluoroquinolones or macrolides for empiric treatment of patients with CABP, including cases of patients at risk for poor outcomes due to age or various comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov LEAP 1 (NCT02559310; Registration Date: 24/09/2015) and LEAP 2 (NCT02813694; Registration Date: 27/06/2016).

Omadacycline vs moxifloxacin in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a major clinical burden worldwide. In the phase III OPTIC study (NCT02531438) in CABP, omadacycline was found to be non-inferior to moxifloxacin for investigator-assessed clinical response (IACR) at post-treatment evaluation (PTE, 5-10 days after last dose). This article reports the efficacy findings, as specified in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline 100 mg intravenously (every 12 h for two doses, then every 24 h) with optional transition to 300 mg orally after 3 days, or moxifloxacin 400 mg intravenously (every 24 h) with optional transition to 400 mg orally after 3 days. The total treatment duration was 7-14 days. The primary endpoint for EMA efficacy analysis was IACR at PTE in patients with Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV. RESULTS: In total, 660 patients were randomized as PORT risk class III and IV. Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin at PTE. The clinical success rates were 88.4% and 85.2%, respectively [intent-to-treat population; difference 3.3; 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -2.7 to 9.3], and 92.5% and 90.5%, respectively (clinically evaluable population; difference 2.0; 97.5% CI 3.2-7.4). Clinical success rates with omadacycline and moxifloxacin were similar against identified pathogens and across key subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin for IACR at PTE, with high clinical success across pathogen types and patient subgroups.

Fosfomycin for Injection (ZTI-01) Versus Piperacillin-tazobactam for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Including Acute Pyelonephritis: ZEUS, A Phase 2/3 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: ZTI-01 (fosfomycin for injection) is an epoxide antibiotic with a differentiated mechanism of action (MOA) inhibiting an early step in bacterial cell wall synthesis. ZTI-01 has broad in vitro spectrum of activity, including multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, and is being developed for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) and acute pyelonephritis (AP) in the United States. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed cUTI/AP were randomized 1:1 to 6 g ZTI-01 q8h or 4.5 g intravenous (IV) piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) q8h for a fixed 7-day course (no oral switch); patients with concomitant bacteremia could receive up to 14 days. RESULTS: Of 465 randomized patients, 233 and 231 were treated with ZTI-01 and PIP-TAZ, respectively. In the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (m-MITT) population, ZTI-01 met the primary objective of noninferiority compared with PIP-TAZ with overall success rates of 64.7% (119/184 patients) vs 54.5% (97/178 patients), respectively; treatment difference was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.4, 20.8). Clinical cure rates at test of cure (TOC, day 19-21) were high and similar between treatments (90.8% [167/184] vs 91.6% [163/178], respectively). In post hoc analysis using unique pathogens typed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, overall success rates at TOC in m-MITT were 69.0% (127/184) for ZTI-01 versus 57.3% (102/178) for PIP-TAZ (difference 11.7% 95% CI: 1.3, 22.1). ZTI-01 was well tolerated. Most treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS: ZTI-01 was effective for treatment of cUTI including AP and offers a new IV therapeutic option with a differentiated MOA for patients with serious Gram-negative infections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02753946.

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 .).

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.