Patient-reported outcomes from the randomized phase 3 CROWN study of first-line lorlatinib versus crizotinib in advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Quality of life (QoL) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is negatively impacted by their disease and treatment side effects. We present detailed patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the phase 3 CROWN study, which compared lorlatinib with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire with Lung Cancer module. A longitudinal, random-intercept, random-slope, mixed-effect model assessed score changes from baseline up to (not including) end of treatment. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline at each cycle were calculated and presented up to cycle 18 (≥ 10-point change considered clinically meaningful). RESULTS: In both lorlatinib (n = 148) and crizotinib (n = 140) arms, there were longitudinal improvements across multiple functioning and symptom scores during treatment compared with pre-treatment. Numerical improvements for most longitudinal functioning scores (physical, role, emotional, social) favored lorlatinib; cognitive functioning favored crizotinib. Numerical improvements favored lorlatinib for several symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea [clinically meaningful improvement], and cough); peripheral neuropathy favored crizotinib. Subgroup analyses showed PROs did not differ by presence/absence of baseline brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving first-line lorlatinib or crizotinib showed improvements and delayed deterioration in QoL, functioning, and several symptoms. Alongside the previously reported significantly longer progression-free survival and higher intracranial response rates for lorlatinib versus crizotinib, these data further support the use of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with/without baseline brain metastases and provide evidence of several QoL improvements with lorlatinib when used in the first-line setting.

The patient's perspective on treatment with dacomitinib: patient-reported outcomes from the Phase III trial ARCHER 1050.

Aim: Patient-reported symptoms, functioning and overall quality of life (QoL) were compared between dacomitinib and gefitinib in ARCHER 1050. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 448) with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its lung-specific module, LC-13. Mean scores over time were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Both treatments showed early improvement in disease-related symptoms that was maintained during treatment. Treatment-related diarrhea and sore mouth decreased following dose reduction with dacomitinib. There were no clinically meaningful changes in functioning and overall QoL in either treatment group. Conclusion: Longer treatment duration, enabled by dose reduction, allowed patients on dacomitinib to improve treatment-related symptoms and maintain functioning and overall QoL for longer than gefitinib.

Relationship between molecular response and quality of life with bosutinib or imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia.

Patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP CML) can be effectively treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and achieve a lifespan similar to the general population. The success of TKIs, however, requires long-term and sometimes lifelong treatment; thus, patient-assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become an increasingly important parameter for treatment selection. Bosutinib is a TKI approved for CP CML in newly diagnosed adults and in those resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. In the Bosutinib Trial in First-Line Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Treatment (BFORE), bosutinib demonstrated a significantly higher major molecular response rate compared with imatinib, with maintenance of HRQoL (measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu) questionnaire), after 12 months of first-line treatment. We examined relationships between molecular response (MR) and HRQoL. MR values were represented by a log-reduction scale (MRLR; a continuous variable). A repeated-measures longitudinal model was used to estimate the relationships between MRLR as a predictor and each FACT-Leu domain as an outcome. Effect sizes were calculated to determine strength of effects and allow comparisons across domains. The majority of FACT-Leu domains (with the exception of social well-being and physical well-being) demonstrated a significant relationship with MRLR (p < 0.05). Our results showed variable impact of clinical improvement on different dimensions of HRQoL. For patients who achieved MR5, emotional well-being and leukemia-specific domains showed the greatest improvement, with medium differences in effect sizes, whereas social well-being and physical well-being had the weakest relationship with MR.

Impact of lorlatinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a phase 1/2 study (NCT01970865) in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- or ROS1-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PRO measures, including global quality of life (QoL), functioning domains and symptoms, were assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the 13-item Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13) module. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline were assessed. Percentages of patients showing improvement, stability or worsening on each scale were reported, with a change of ≥10 points considered clinically meaningful (CM). RESULTS: 255 patients completed baseline and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment. Most patients had CM improvement (42.4 %) or stable (38.0 %) scores for global QoL. Functioning domains with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were role (37.6 %) and emotional (36.9 %); only one domain had more patients showing worsening than improving function (cognitive [24.3 % vs 22.4 %]). Most patients showed improved or stable scores for disease-related symptoms. No QLQ-C30 symptom domains had more patients worsening than improving. Symptoms on the QLQ-C30 scale with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were fatigue (49.4 %) and insomnia (46.3 %). Four QLQ-LC13 domains had more patients worsening than improving (two most affected were peripheral neuropathy [37.3 % vs 13.7 %] and alopecia [19.2 % vs 13.3 %]). Symptoms on the QLQ-LC13 scale with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were cough (42.7 %) and pain in other parts (32.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib treatment showed CM improvement from baseline in global QOL that was maintained over time. Additionally, there were improvements in physical, emotional, social, and role functioning. Improvements were shown in appetite loss and key symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, cough and fatigue; a worsening in peripheral neuropathy was noted.

Patient-reported outcomes in the phase 3 BFORE trial of bosutinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 BFORE trial (NCT02130557), treatment with bosutinib resulted in a significantly higher major molecular response rate at 12 months versus imatinib in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP CML). Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was an exploratory objective. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed CP CML were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily bosutinib 400 mg or imatinib 400 mg as first-line therapy. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu) and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline, every 3 months for the first 24 months of treatment, every 6 months thereafter, and at treatment completion. We report PRO results at month 12 in the mITT population (bosutinib: n = 246; imatinib: n = 241). RESULTS: Mean FACT-Leu combined and subscale scores were similar at baseline in the bosutinib and imatinib arms; at month 12, all scores demonstrated improvement or maintenance of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in both treatment arms. Repeated-measures mixed-effects models showed no significant difference between bosutinib and imatinib for any FACT-Leu score. Functional health status, as measured by EQ-5D, also demonstrated improvement or maintenance with bosutinib and imatinib at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: Similar improvements in PROs compared with baseline were seen after 12 months of treatment with first-line bosutinib or imatinib in the BFORE trial. Newly diagnosed patients with CP CML receiving bosutinib or imatinib can preserve or improve HRQoL during treatment, although clinical efficacy was superior with bosutinib.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes from an open-label safety and efficacy study of bosutinib in Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia patients resistant or intolerant to prior therapy.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is important because of the requirement for long-term treatment. This study assessed HRQOL in bosutinib-treated patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML and resistance or intolerance to 1 (chronic-phase second-line [CP2L]) or more (chronic-phase third-line [CP3L]) tyrosine kinase inhibitors who had 264 weeks or more of follow-up (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00261846). METHODS: Patient-reported HRQOL was assessed with the EuroQol 5-Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu). RESULTS: In total, 284 and 119 patients composed the CP2L and CP3L cohorts, respectively. At treatment completion, more than 50% of the patients in the CP2L and CP3L cohorts completed the EQ-5D and FACT-Leu assessments. The EQ-5D and EQ-5D visual analog scale scores were stable in both cohorts throughout treatment. The mean FACT-Leu scores were generally stable over time but were lower in magnitude in the CP3L cohort versus the CP2L cohort. The FACT-Leu scale scores of a subset of patients with chronic diarrhea (CP2L, n = 101; CP3L, n = 30) were similar to the scores of the larger cohorts. Minimally important differences (MIDs) from baseline for the FACT-Leu scale scores were observed for the following: emotional well-being (EWB), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Total, FACT-Leu Total, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Trial Outcome Index (FACT-TOI) in the CP2L cohort and FACT-Leu Total in the CP3L cohort. Among patients with chronic diarrhea, MIDs were observed for EWB, FACT-G Total, FACT-Leu Total, and FACT-TOI in the CP2L cohort and for EWB, FACT-G Total, and FACT-Leu Total in the CP3L cohort. CONCLUSIONS: HRQOL was maintained with long-term bosutinib treatment for patients with CP2L and CP3L CML. Cancer 2018;124:587-95. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Final results of the large-scale multinational trial PROFILE 1005: efficacy and safety of crizotinib in previously treated patients with advanced/metastatic ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib is a potent, orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report final results from PROFILE 1005, the largest clinical trial to date for an ALK inhibitor in ALK-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROFILE 1005 (NCT00932451) was a multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; 3 week continuous treatment cycles) in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC after failure of ≥1 lines of systemic treatment for locally advanced/metastatic disease. Patients' tumour ALK status was initially determined by a central laboratory until a protocol amendment permitted enrolment of patients based on locally determined ALK status. Co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours V.1.1 and adverse events (AEs). Cancer-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also assessed using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and its lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. RESULTS: 1069 patients were enrolled; 1066 received crizotinib. The as-treated population comprised 908 and 158 patients, in whom tumour positive ALK-status was determined centrally (± locally) or locally only, respectively. At baseline, a majority of patients were <65 years (84%), 66% were never smokers and 46% were Asian. Derived investigator-assessed ORR was 54% (95% CI 51 to 57) and 41% (95% CI 33 to 49) in the central-testing and local-testing subgroups, respectively. The most common treatment-related AEs in the overall population (any grade) were vision disorder (58%), nausea (51%), diarrhoea (47%) and vomiting (47%). PRO scores demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in lung cancer symptoms and global quality of life. CONCLUSION: The efficacy, safety and PRO profiles of crizotinib in this cohort of 1066 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC are consistent with previous reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Phase 2 trial (NCT00932451); Results.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life with Sunitinib Versus Placebo for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results From an International Phase III Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a pivotal phase III trial of sunitinib versus placebo in patients with progressive, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NCT00428597). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received sunitinib 37.5 mg (n = 86) or placebo (n = 85) on a continuous daily-dosing schedule until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events (AEs), or death. Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 at baseline, Day 1 of every 4-week cycle, and end of treatment or withdrawal. Changes ≥10 points on each scale or item were deemed clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Sunitinib had anti-tumor effects and improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo. The study was terminated early for this reason and because of more serious AEs and deaths with placebo. Baseline HRQoL scores were well balanced between study arms, and were generally maintained over time in both groups. In the first 10 cycles, there were no significant differences between groups in global HRQoL, cognitive, emotional, physical, role, and social functioning domains, or symptom scales, except for worsening diarrhea with sunitinib (p < 0.0001 vs. placebo). Insomnia also worsened with sunitinib (p = 0.0372 vs. placebo), but the difference was not clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: With the exception of diarrhea (a recognized side effect), sunitinib had no impact on global HRQoL, functional domains, or symptom scales during the progression-free period. Hence, in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, sunitinib provided a benefit in PFS without adversely affecting HRQoL.

Value of Propensity Score Matching for Equalizing Comparator Groups in Observational Database Studies: A Case Study in Anti-infectives.

PURPOSE: Propensity score methodologies can reduce bias and confounding in nonrandomized studies, including pharmaceutical comparative effectiveness studies. An observational case study was developed to demonstrate the impact of propensity score adjustments on outcomes (ie, discharge status) of patients hospitalized for complicated intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: Two cohorts were examined: intensive care unit (ICU) (vs non-ICU) patients and tigecycline-treated patients (vs patients receiving other antibiotics). Discharge status was captured before propensity scoring. FINDINGS: The impact of propensity scoring on discharge outcome was greater when comparing ICU patients versus non-ICU patients than when comparing tigecycline recipients versus nonrecipients. IMPLICATIONS: Propensity scoring should be examined carefully to optimize its effects. Moreover, propensity scoring only addresses bias and confounding in nonrandomized studies that are attributable to variables contained within the dataset (ie, so called "observables") and not to other variables that may influence the relationship between outcomes and other independent variables.

Health-related quality of life during bosutinib (SKI-606) therapy in patients with advanced chronic myeloid leukemia after imatinib failure.

OBJECTIVES: The tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) bosutinib has demonstrated activity in patients with advanced phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), but effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remain unexplored. This study evaluated HRQoL in advanced CML patients receiving bosutinib in an ongoing phase 2 study following resistance or intolerance to prior imatinib therapy. METHODS: This analysis included data from 76 accelerated-phase (AP) and 64 blast-phase (BP) patients resistant/intolerant to prior imatinib with or without prior exposure to other TKIs. Patient-reported HRQoL assessments completed at baseline; weeks 4, 8, and 12; every 12 weeks thereafter; and at treatment completion included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu); general health status was assessed using the 5-item EuroQol (EQ-5D) instrument and a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: HRQoL at baseline was somewhat worse in BP versus AP CML patients. There was a significant improvement in the mean FACT-Leu Total scale at weeks 24, 36, and 48 in AP CML patients and at weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 96 in BP CML patients compared with baseline. EQ-5D Utility scores were stable throughout treatment in AP CML patients but significantly improved versus baseline in BP CML patients at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 36. Mean VAS scores were significantly improved at weeks 8, 36, and 48 in AP CML patients and at weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 96 in BP CML patients. The lack of a comparison group limits attribution of improvements in HRQoL specifically to bosutinib treatment; potential bias due to non-ignorable dropout may limit the ability to generalize these findings to situations where durations of therapy exceed the 96-week follow-up duration of the present study. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that bosutinib therapy is associated with improved HRQoL in advanced phase CML patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00261846.

Evaluation of Tigecycline Efficacy and Post-Discharge Outcomes in a Clinical Practice Population with Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The utility of tigecycline as compared with other antibiotic therapies in the treatment of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) and the short- and long-term outcomes of a large cohort of severely ill patients were examined. We provide the first published data on post-discharge events for these patients. METHODS: Retrospective data for the cIAI cohort were obtained from a large clinical database. Patients aged ≥18 y were selected for inclusion based on hospitalization with a relevant diagnosis code and procedure code, and guideline-compliant antimicrobial therapy. Propensity scoring was used to reduce treatment-selection bias introduced by the use of observational data. Tigecycline patients were placed into quintiles based on propensity score and were matched 1:3. RESULTS: The final model based on propensity score matching included 2,424 patients: Tigecycline (n = 606) and other antibiotic therapy (n = 1,818). Treatment was successful in 426 (70.3%) tigecycline-treated patients and in 1,294 (71.2%) patients receiving other antibiotics. Similar treatment success occurred across all infection sites. Among survivors, treatment failure was associated with a greater need for all-cause re-hospitalization at 30 d and 180 d. No differences in cIAI-related re-hospitalization and discharge status were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Using propensity scores to match populations, similar outcomes were demonstrated between treatment with tigecycline and other antibiotics as expressed by treatment success, the need for re-admission, similar 30-d discharge status, and the need for re-admission at 180 d.

Patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in PROFILE 1007: a randomized trial of crizotinib compared with chemotherapy in previously treated patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective of the current post hoc analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes between crizotinib (N = 172) and chemotherapy subgroups (pemetrexed [N = 99] and docetaxel [N = 72]) in previously treated patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, in PROFILE 1007 study (Pfizer; NCT0093283). METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, day 1 of each cycle, and end of treatment. General health status was measured using the EuroQol-5D visual analog scale and health utility index scores were assessed using the EuroQol-5D descriptive system. Functioning, lung cancer symptoms, and global quality of life (QOL) were assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-LC13 lung cancer module. Repeated measures mixed-effects analyses compared overall scores and change from baseline scores, controlling for baseline scores. RESULTS: The overall mean EQ-5D health utility index scores (95% CI) on treatment were significantly greater (p < 0.05) for crizotinib (0.82 [0.79-0.85]) than for chemotherapy (0.73 [0.70-0.77]; 0.74 [0.70-0.79] for pemetrexed and 0.66 [0.58-0.74] for docetaxel). A significantly greater improvement from baseline was observed with crizotinib versus pemetrexed and versus docetaxel treatment groups for general health status, physical functioning, global QOL, dyspnea, fatigue, and pain. Improvement rates for fatigue, cough, pain, dyspnea, and global QOL were significantly greater on crizotinib compared with pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Worsening rates for diarrhea and constipation were higher with crizotinib. CONCLUSION: The benefits of crizotinib in improving symptoms and QOL are demonstrated regardless of whether the comparator is pemetrexed or docetaxel.

First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib as compared with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 343 patients with advanced ALK-positive nonsquamous NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily or to receive intravenous chemotherapy (pemetrexed, 500 mg per square meter of body-surface area, plus either cisplatin, 75 mg per square meter, or carboplatin, target area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Crossover to crizotinib treatment after disease progression was permitted for patients receiving chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent radiologic review. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib than with chemotherapy (median, 10.9 months vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.60; P<0.001). Objective response rates were 74% and 45%, respectively (P<0.001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (hazard ratio for death with crizotinib, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.26; P=0.36); the probability of 1-year survival was 84% with crizotinib and 79% with chemotherapy. The most common adverse events with crizotinib were vision disorders, diarrhea, nausea, and edema, and the most common events with chemotherapy were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and decreased appetite. As compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib was associated with greater reduction in lung cancer symptoms and greater improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib was superior to standard first-line pemetrexed-plus-platinum chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by Pfizer; PROFILE 1014 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01154140.).

Health-related quality of life in chronic myeloid leukemia.

The increased survival associated with treatments for CML emphasize the importance of understanding the HRQOL of newly diagnosed and previously treated CML patients with all phases of disease. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia results from a phase 3 and a phase 2 trial are reported for over 900 1st, 2nd, 3rd line CP, AP, and BP patients. Physical Well-being and Leukemia symptoms were worse for patients in later lines of therapy. Individuals with AP and BP CML had poorer HRQOL than individuals with CP CML. HRQOL of CML patients was predominantly consistent with the longitudinal clinical trajectory of the disease.

Clinical efficacy of oral linezolid compared with intravenous vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a retrospective, propensity score-matched, case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid is 100% bioavailable in oral and intravenous formulations. In a recent prospective, randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial in adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), linezolid achieved clinical and microbiologic success comparable to appropriately dosed intravenous vancomycin. Although patients were randomly assigned to receive linezolid or vancomycin, the protocol allowed patients to start therapy using oral or intravenous linezolid on the basis of investigator discretion and patient ability to tolerate oral medication. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of linezolid when administered orally in adults with cSSTI caused by MRSA. In this retrospective analysis, we examined data collected from the aforementioned trial to compare outcomes in patients who received either oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin therapy. METHODS: This study analyzed outcomes in patients who received treatment for 7 to 14 days with either oral linezolid (600 mg q12h; n = 95) or intravenous vancomycin (15 mg/kg q12h, adjusted for creatinine clearance and trough concentration; n = 210). By design, these groups were not randomized. Propensity score matching on baseline variables was used to balance these groups by identifying a comparable group of patients who received vancomycin therapy and comparing them with patients who received oral linezolid therapy. Clinical and microbiologic success rates at the end of treatment and the end of the study (EOS) were then directly compared between the groups using matched-pair logistic regression. The tolerability of the 2 treatments (within this matched group) was also described. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients with well-matched baseline characteristics were included in each treatment group. At EOS, the odds ratio for clinical success of oral linezolid therapy vs intravenous vancomycin therapy was 4.0 (95% CI, 1.3-12.0; P = 0.01), and the odds ratio for microbiologic success at EOS was 2.7 (95% CI, 1.2-5.7; P = 0.01). Overall rates of adverse events in each group were consistent with reported safety profiles for each drug. CONCLUSION: A favorable clinical cure rate was achieved with oral linezolid therapy when compared with intravenous vancomycin therapy in propensity score-matched patients with cSSTI proved to be caused by MRSA. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00087490.

Linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Post hoc analyses of clinical trial data suggested that linezolid may be more effective than vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia. This study prospectively assessed efficacy and safety of linezolid, compared with a dose-optimized vancomycin regimen, for treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial involving hospitalized adult patients with hospital-acquired or healthcare-associated MRSA pneumonia. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 hours) for 7-14 days. Vancomycin dose was adjusted on the basis of trough levels. The primary end point was clinical outcome at end of study (EOS) in evaluable per-protocol (PP) patients. Prespecified secondary end points included response in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population at end of treatment (EOT) and EOS and microbiologic response in the PP and mITT populations at EOT and EOS. Survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1184 patients treated, 448 (linezolid, n = 224; vancomycin, n = 224) were included in the mITT and 348 (linezolid, n = 172; vancomycin, n = 176) in the PP population. In the PP population, 95 (57.6%) of 165 linezolid-treated patients and 81 (46.6%) of 174 vancomycin-treated patients achieved clinical success at EOS (95% confidence interval for difference, 0.5%-21.6%; P = .042). All-cause 60-day mortality was similar (linezolid, 15.7%; vancomycin, 17.0%), as was incidence of adverse events. Nephrotoxicity occurred more frequently with vancomycin (18.2%; linezolid, 8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia, clinical response at EOS in the PP population was significantly higher with linezolid than with vancomycin, although 60-day mortality was similar.

Comparison of serotonin toxicity with concomitant use of either linezolid or comparators and serotonergic agents: an analysis of Phase III and IV randomized clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The present study's objective was to evaluate serotonin toxicity with concomitant use of linezolid or comparators and serotonergic agents from 20 Phase III and IV comparator-controlled clinical studies on treatment of various Gram-positive infections. All reported adverse events were evaluated for serotonin toxicity using exact and surrogate terms consistent with Sternbach Criteria and Hunter Serotonin Toxicity Criteria. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and co-morbidities were similar between linezolid and comparator groups. No patients in either group were reported to have adverse events identified as serotonin toxicity. Among the patients receiving at least one serotonergic agent, 9 of the 2208 (0.41%) linezolid patients and 3 of the 2057 (0.15%) comparator patients met the Sternbach Criteria [risk ratio (RR) 2.79; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.76-10.31]; 3 (0.14%) of the linezolid patients and 1 (0.05%) of the comparator patients met the Hunter Serotonin Toxicity Criteria (RR 2.79; 95% CI 0.29-26.85). No patients met both criteria. Most patients meeting criteria for serotonin toxicity had past or present co-morbidities that may have contributed to or overlapped with reported adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: While the potential exists for serotonin toxicity to occur with concomitant use of linezolid and serotonergic agents, the risk appears to be low. Based on the large database of Phase III and IV studies included in our analysis, we did not find enough evidence to conclude that linezolid-induced serotonin toxicity was different from that of comparators.

Anidulafungin compared with fluconazole in severely ill patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: support for the 2009 IDSA treatment guidelines for candidiasis.

INTRODUCTION: During the past decade, the incidence of Candida infections in hospitalized patients has increased, with fluconazole being the most commonly prescribed systemic antifungal agent for these infections. However, the 2009 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) candidiasis guidelines recommend an echinocandin for the treatment of candidemia/invasive candidiasis in patients who are considered to be "moderately severe or severely" ill. To validate these guidelines, clinical trial data were reviewed. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from a previously published prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed; it compared anidulafungin with fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. Patients with critical illness were identified at study entry by using the following criteria: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of ≥ 15, evidence of severe sepsis (sepsis and one or more end-organ dysfunctions) present, and/or patient was in intensive care. Global response rates were compared at the end of intravenous study treatment (the primary end point of the original study) and all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days from study entry in this group. RESULTS: The patients (163 (66.5%) of 245) fulfilled at least one criterion for critical illness (anidulafungin, n = 89; fluconazole, n = 74). No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics between the two treatment groups. The global response rate was 70.8% for anidulafungin and 54.1% for fluconazole (P = 0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0 to 31.5); all-cause mortality was 10.1% versus 20.3% at 14 days (P = 0.08; 95% CI, -0.9 to 21.3) and was 20.2% versus 24.3% at 28 days (P = 0.57; 95% CI, -8.8 to 17.0) for anidulafungin and fluconazole, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, anidulafungin was more effective than fluconazole for treatment of severely ill patients with candidemia, thus supporting the 2009 IDSA guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00058682.

Anidulafungin compared with fluconazole for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans: a multivariate analysis of factors associated with improved outcome.

BACKGROUND: Candida albicans is the most common cause of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Systemic infections due to C. albicans exhibit good susceptibility to fluconazole and echinocandins. However, the echinocandin anidulafungin was recently demonstrated to be more effective than fluconazole for systemic Candida infections in a randomized, double-blind trial among 245 patients. In that trial, most infections were caused by C. albicans, and all respective isolates were susceptible to randomized study drug. We sought to better understand the factors associated with the enhanced efficacy of anidulafungin and hypothesized that intrinsic properties of the antifungal agents contributed to the treatment differences. METHODS: Global responses at end of intravenous study treatment in patients with C. albicans infection were compared post-hoc. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to predict response and to adjust for differences in independent baseline characteristics. Analyses focused on time to negative blood cultures, persistent infection at end of intravenous study treatment, and 6-week survival. RESULTS: In total, 135 patients with C. albicans infections were identified. Among these, baseline APACHE II scores were similar between treatment arms. In these patients, global response was significantly better for anidulafungin than fluconazole (81.1% vs 62.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference, 3.7-33.9). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the odds ratio for global response was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.06-5.25). Study treatment and APACHE II score were significant predictors of outcome. The most predictive logistic regression model found that the odds ratio for study treatment was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.14-5.91) in favor of anidulafungin, and the odds ratio for APACHE II score was 0.935 (95% CI, 0.885-0.987), with poorer responses associated with higher baseline APACHE II scores. Anidulafungin was associated with significantly faster clearance of blood cultures (log-rank p < 0.05) and significantly fewer persistent infections (2.7% vs 13.1%; p < 0.05). Survival through 6 weeks did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with C. albicans infection, anidulafungin was more effective than fluconazole, with more rapid clearance of positive blood cultures. This suggests that the fungicidal activity of echinocandins may have important clinical implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00058682.

The role of diabetes mellitus in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: results from three randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with linezolid versus vancomycin in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. METHODS: We pooled data from three prospective clinical trials in which 1056 patients were randomized to receive either linezolid (intravenous (IV) or oral) or vancomycin (IV) every 12h, for 7-28 days. RESULTS: Diabetic (n=349) and non-diabetic patients (n=707) had comparable demographics and co-morbidities. Clinical success rates were lower in diabetic than in non-diabetic patients (72.3% and 85.8%, respectively). Overall, non-diabetic patients had a shorter adjusted mean length of stay (LOS) compared with diabetic patients (8.2 and 10.7 days, respectively; p<0.0001). Among diabetic patients, rates were comparable with linezolid and vancomycin treatment for clinical success (74% and 71%, respectively) and microbiological success (60% and 54%, respectively). Among non-diabetic patients, clinical and microbiological success rates were higher in linezolid- than in vancomycin-treated patients (90% and 81%, respectively, and 78% and 65%, respectively). Rates of drug-related adverse events were comparable in diabetic and non-diabetic patients and with linezolid and vancomycin treatment. Adjusted mean LOS was shorter with linezolid than with vancomycin treatment in diabetic patients (9.5 and 11.7 days, respectively; p=0.03) and non-diabetic patients (7.6 and 8.9 days, respectively; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical success rates were lower in diabetic than non-diabetic patients with cSSSI caused by MRSA. Comparing linezolid and vancomycin, clinical and microbiological success rates were comparable in diabetic patients, but were better for linezolid than for vancomycin in non-diabetic patients.