Trial of Beremagene Geperpavec (B-VEC) for Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa.

BACKGROUND: Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa is a rare genetic blistering skin disease caused by mutations in COL7A1, which encodes type VII collagen (C7). Beremagene geperpavec (B-VEC) is a topical investigational herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1)-based gene therapy designed to restore C7 protein by delivering COL7A1. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, intrapatient randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving patients 6 months of age or older with genetically confirmed dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. For each patient, a primary wound pair was selected, with the wounds matched according to size, region, and appearance. The wounds within each pair were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive weekly application of either B-VEC or placebo for 26 weeks. The primary end point was complete wound healing of treated as compared with untreated wounds at 6 months. Secondary end points included complete wound healing at 3 months and the change from baseline to weeks 22, 24, and 26 in pain severity during changes in wound dressing, assessed with the use of a visual analogue scale (scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain). RESULTS: Primary wound pairs were exposed to B-VEC and placebo in 31 patients. At 6 months, complete wound healing occurred in 67% of the wounds exposed to B-VEC as compared with 22% of those exposed to placebo (difference, 46 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24 to 68; P = 0.002). Complete wound healing at 3 months occurred in 71% of the wounds exposed to B-VEC as compared with 20% of those exposed to placebo (difference, 51 percentage points; 95% CI, 29 to 73; P<0.001). The mean change from baseline to week 22 in pain severity during wound-dressing changes was -0.88 with B-VEC and -0.71 with placebo (adjusted least-squares mean difference, -0.61; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.13); similar mean changes were observed at weeks 24 and 26. Adverse events with B-VEC and placebo included pruritus and chills. CONCLUSIONS: Complete wound healing at 3 and 6 months in patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa was more likely with topical administration of B-VEC than with placebo. Pruritus and mild systemic side effects were observed in patients treated with B-VEC. Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the durability and side effects of B-VEC for this disease. (Funded by Krystal Biotech; GEM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04491604.).

Potency of Omadacycline against Mycobacteroides abscessus Clinical Isolates In Vitro and in a Mouse Model of Pulmonary Infection.

The incidence of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases in the United States is rising and has surpassed that of tuberculosis. Most notable among the nontuberculous mycobacteria is Mycobacteroides abscessus, an emerging environmental opportunistic pathogen capable of causing chronic infections. M. abscessus disease is difficult to treat, and the current treatment recommendations include repurposed antibiotics, several of which are associated with undesirable side effects. In this study, we have evaluated the activity of omadacycline, a new tetracycline derivative, against M. abscessus using in vitro and in vivo approaches. Omadacycline exhibited an MIC90 of 0.5 µg/mL against a panel of 32 contemporary M. abscessus clinical isolates, several of which were resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used for treatment of M. abscessus disease. Omadacycline combined with clarithromycin, azithromycin, cefdinir, rifabutin, or linezolid also exhibited synergism against several M. abscessus strains and did not exhibit antagonism when combined with an additional nine antibiotics also commonly considered to treat M. abscessus disease. Concentration-dependent activity of omadacycline was observed in time-kill assessments. Efficacy of omadacycline was evaluated in a mouse model of lung infection against four M. abscessus strains. A dose equivalent to the 300-mg standard oral human dose was used. Compared to the untreated control group, within 4 weeks of treatment, 1 to 3 log10 fewer M. abscessus CFU were observed in the lungs of mice treated with omadacycline. Treatment outcome was biphasic, with bactericidal activity observed after the first 2 weeks of treatment against all four M. abscessus strains.

Activity of Omadacycline in Rat Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Osteomyelitis.

Omadacycline, vancomycin, and rifampin, as well as rifampin combination therapies, were evaluated in an experimental rat model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) osteomyelitis. All treatment groups had less MRSA recovered than saline-treated animals. The emergence of rifampin resistance was observed in 3 of 16 animals with rifampin monotherapy and none with rifampin combination therapy. After treatment, the median tibial bacterial loads were 6.04, 0.1, 4.81, and 5.24 log10 CFU/g for saline-, rifampin-, vancomycin-, and omadacycline-treated animals, respectively. Omadacycline or vancomycin administered with rifampin yielded no detectable MRSA. Omadacycline administered with rifampin deserves evaluation in humans as a potential treatment for osteomyelitis.

Safety and efficacy of omadacycline by BMI categories and diabetes history in two Phase III randomized studies of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this post-hoc analysis were to examine the safety and efficacy of omadacycline by BMI categories and diabetes history in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) from two pivotal Phase III studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OASIS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02378480): patients were randomized 1:1 to IV omadacycline or linezolid for 7-14 days, with optional transition to oral medication. OASIS-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02877927): patients received once-daily oral omadacycline or twice-daily oral linezolid for 7-14 days. Early clinical response (ECR) was defined as ≥20% reduction in lesion size 48-72 h after the first dose. Clinical success at post-treatment evaluation (PTE; 7-14 days after the last dose) was defined as symptom resolution such that antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events and laboratory measures. Between-treatment comparisons were made with regard to WHO BMI categories and diabetes history. RESULTS: Patients were evenly distributed among healthy weight, overweight and obese groups. Clinical success for omadacycline-treated patients at ECR and PTE was similar across BMI categories. Outcomes by diabetes status were similar in omadacycline- and linezolid-treated patients: at ECR, clinical success rates were lower for those with diabetes; at PTE, clinical success was similar between treatment groups regardless of diabetes history. The safety of omadacycline and linezolid was largely similar across BMI groups and by diabetes history. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline efficacy in patients with higher BMI and in patients with diabetes was consistent with results from two pivotal Phase III ABSSSI trials. Fixed-dose omadacycline is an appropriate treatment for ABSSSI in adults regardless of BMI.

An Integrated Safety Summary of Omadacycline, a Novel Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic.

Omadacycline is a semisynthetic tetracycline antibiotic. Phase III clinical trial results have shown that omadacycline has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Similar to most tetracyclines, transient nausea and vomiting and low-magnitude increases in liver aminotransferases were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in phase III studies but were not treatment limiting. Package insert warnings and precautions for omadacycline include tooth discoloration; enamel hypoplasia; inhibition of bone growth following use in late pregnancy, infancy, or childhood up to 8 years of age; an imbalance in mortality (2%, compared with 1% in moxifloxacin-treated patients) was observed in the phase III study in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Omadacycline has no effect on the QT interval, and its affinity for muscarinic M2 receptors resulted in transient heart rate increases following dosing.

Early Clinical Response in Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: From Clinical Endpoint to Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Early clinical response (ECR) is a new endpoint to determine whether a drug should be approved for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the United States. The Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community (OPTIC) phase III study demonstrated noninferiority of omadacycline to moxifloxacin using this endpoint. This study describes the performance of the ECR endpoint and clinical stability relative to a posttreatment evaluation (PTE) of clinical success. METHODS: ECR was defined as symptom improvement 72-120 hours after the first dose of study drug (ECR window), no use of rescue antibiotics, and patient survival. Clinical success at PTE was an investigator assessment of success. Clinical stability was defined based on vital sign stabilization, described in the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America community-acquired pneumonia treatment guidelines. RESULTS: During the ECR window, ECR was achieved in 81.1% and 82.7% of omadacycline and moxifloxacin patients, respectively. Similar numbers of patients achieved clinical stability in each treatment group (omadacycline 74.6%, moxifloxacin 77.6%). The proportion of patients with improved symptoms who were considered clinically stable increased across the ECR window (69.2-77.6% for omadacycline; 68.0-79.7% for moxifloxacin). There was high concordance (>70%) and high positive predictive value (>90%) of ECR and clinical stability with overall clinical success at PTE. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin, based on a new ECR endpoint. Clinical stability was similarly high when measured in the same time frame as ECR. Both ECR and clinical stability showed high concordance and high positive predictive value with clinical success at PTE. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02531438.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Clinical Outcomes of Omadacycline in Women with Cystitis: Results from a Phase 1b Study.

Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, is approved as once-daily intravenous (i.v.) and oral (p.o.) monotherapy for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and it is under development for treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI). This is a phase 1b, randomized, open-label study of omadacycline in women with cystitis (defined as UTI symptoms and a positive urine leukocyte esterase test). Patients received omadacycline for 5 days (group 1: 200 mg intravenously on day 1, then 300 mg orally every 24 h [q24h]; group 2: 300 mg orally every 12 h [q12h] on day 1, then 300 mg orally q24h; group 3: 450 mg orally q12h on day 1, then 450 mg orally q24h). Blood and urine samples were collected over 5 days. Investigator-assessed clinical response was determined at end of treatment (EOT; day 6) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE; 5 to 9 days after last dosing). A total of 31 women were treated. At steady state (day 5), the range of mean omadacycline urine concentrations over 24 h across the groups was 17.94 to 48.12 µg/ml. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (including nausea [60% to 73%] and vomiting [20% to 40%]) and were generally mild and transient. Investigator-determined clinical success was observed in 94% and 84% of patients at EOT and PTE, respectively, with similar results across groups. A favorable microbiological response at PTE was observed in 78% of patients who had a baseline pathogen. Omadacycline is partially excreted in urine and appears to be safe and well tolerated. These preliminary results indicate that omadacycline warrants further evaluation in larger controlled UTI studies.

Safety and Pharmacokinetics of the Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic Omadacycline Administered to Healthy Subjects in Oral Multiple-Dose Regimens.

Omadacycline, a first-in-class aminomethylcycline antibiotic, is related to tetracyclines but is structurally modified to circumvent mechanisms of resistance to tetracyclines. Omadacycline demonstrates potent activity against a broad range of pathogens, including drug-resistant strains, and is in late-stage development for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Previous studies support an intravenous-to-oral transition regimen with 300-mg once-daily oral dosing. This phase 1 study investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability of multiple oral omadacycline doses higher than 300 mg. Using a 3-period crossover design, healthy adults were randomized to receive oral omadacycline at 300, 450, and 600 mg in variable sequence (n = 26) or placebo (n = 7) once daily for 5 consecutive days per period. In plasma, omadacycline maximum concentration and total exposure increased with increasing dose but were less than dose proportional. The kinetics of omadacycline plasma accumulation were similar between dose levels; exposure on day 5 was ∼50% higher than that on day 1. Omadacycline plasma concentrations on day 1 of 450-mg dosing were similar to those on day 5 of 300-mg dosing. All doses were generally well tolerated, but the 600-mg dose was associated with more gastrointestinal adverse events.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Omadacycline in Subjects with Impaired Renal Function.

Many antibiotics require dose adjustments in patients with renal impairment and/or in those undergoing hemodialysis. Omadacycline, the first aminomethylcycline antibiotic in late-stage clinical development, displays activity against a broad spectrum of bacterial pathogens, including drug-resistant strains. Data from completed phase 3 studies of omadacycline for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) showed intravenous (i.v.) to once-daily oral omadacycline to be clinically effective and well tolerated. To determine if the dosing of omadacycline should be adjusted in patients with impaired renal function, a phase 1 study examining the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of i.v. omadacycline (100 mg) was conducted in subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on stable hemodialysis (n = 8) and in matched healthy subjects (n = 8). i.v. administration of omadacycline produced similar plasma concentration-time profiles in subjects with ESRD and healthy subjects. Further, in subjects with ESRD, similar values of the PK parameters were observed when omadacycline was administered i.v. after or before dialysis. The mean area under the concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity in plasma was 10.30 µg · h/ml when omadacycline was administered to ESRD subjects after dialysis, 10.20 µg · h/ml when omadacycline was administered to ESRD subjects before dialysis, and 9.76 µg · h/ml when omadacycline was administered to healthy subjects. The mean maximum observed concentration of omadacycline in plasma in ESRD subjects was 1.88 µg/ml when it was administered after dialysis and 2.33 µg/ml when it was administered before dialysis, and in healthy subjects it was 1.92 µg/ml. The 100-mg i.v. dose of omadacycline was generally safe and well tolerated in both ESRD and healthy subjects. This study demonstrates that no dose adjustment is necessary for omadacycline in patients with impaired renal function or on days when patients are receiving hemodialysis.

Comparison of Omadacycline and Tigecycline Pharmacokinetics in the Plasma, Epithelial Lining Fluid, and Alveolar Cells of Healthy Adult Subjects.

The steady-state concentrations of omadacycline and tigecycline in the plasma, epithelial lining fluid (ELF), and alveolar cells (AC) of 58 healthy adult subjects were obtained. Subjects were administered either omadacycline at 100 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 12 h for two doses followed by 100 mg i.v. every 24 h for three doses or tigecycline at an initial dose of 100 mg i.v. followed by 50 mg i.v. every 12 h for six doses. A bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage were performed once in each subject following the start of the fifth dose of omadacycline at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, or 24 h and after the start of the seventh dose of tigecycline at 2, 4, 6, or 12 h. The value of the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to 24 h postdosing (AUC0-24) (based on mean concentrations) in ELF and the ratio of the ELF to total plasma omadacycline concentration based on AUC0-24 values were 17.23 mg · h/liter and 1.47, respectively. The AUC0-24 value in AC was 302.46 mg · h/liter, and the ratio of the AC to total plasma omadacycline concentration was 25.8. In comparison, the values of the AUC from time zero to 12 h postdosing (AUC0-12) based on the mean concentrations of tigecycline in ELF and AC were 3.16 and 38.50 mg · h/liter, respectively. The ratio of the ELF and AC to total plasma concentrations of tigecycline based on AUC0-12 values were 1.71 and 20.8, respectively. The pharmacokinetic advantages of higher and sustained concentrations of omadacycline compared to those of tigecycline in plasma, ELF, and AC suggest that omadacycline is a promising antibacterial agent for the treatment of lower respiratory tract bacterial infections caused by susceptible pathogens.

Testosterone 2% gel can normalize testosterone concentrations in men with low testosterone regardless of body mass index.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the efficacy and safety of testosterone therapy in hypogonadal men. A prior noncomparative trial demonstrated that testosterone 2% gel restored testosterone levels in hypogonadal men and was generally well tolerated. AIM: This post hoc analysis evaluated the influence of BMI on the pharmacokinetics of testosterone therapy in men with low testosterone. METHODS: Men (N = 149) aged 18-75 applied testosterone 2% gel to the front and inner thigh once daily for 90 days. Starting dose was 40 mg/day, which could be adjusted at days 14, 35, and 60. Patients were split into categories depending on baseline BMI: Tertile 1 (≤ 29.1 kg/m(2)), Tertile 2 (29.2-32.4 kg/m(2)), and Tertile 3 (>32.4 kg/m(2)). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy end points were average serum total testosterone concentrations over 24 hours and maximum serum testosterone concentrations at day 90. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The efficacy analysis included 129 men with low testosterone (mean age 52.9, 54.0, and 54.2 years for Tertiles 1, 2, and 3, respectively) defined as serum testosterone <250-300 ng/dL. Baseline testosterone levels were comparable across BMI tertiles. After 90 days of treatment with testosterone 2% gel (≥ 40 mg/day), 79.1%, 79.5%, and 73.8% of patients in Tertiles 1, 2, and 3, respectively, achieved serum testosterone concentrations in the physiologic range (i.e., ≥ 300 to ≤ 1,140 ng/dL). The mean average daily dose at day 90 was higher in participants in Tertiles 3 vs. 2 (P = 0.039) and Tertiles 3 vs. 1 (P = 0.010). The gel was generally well tolerated, with skin reactions the most commonly reported adverse event (16.1%; n = 24). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, daily application of testosterone 2% gel was effective at returning serum testosterone to physiologic levels in men with low testosterone and high BMI, although required dose was affected by BMI.

Intravenous Versus Oral Omadacycline or Linezolid for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Infections: A post hoc Analysis of the OASIS Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) is a challenge, as current oral treatment guidelines do not fully cover the most common skin pathogens. Both linezolid and omadacycline are available as intravenous or bioequivalent oral formulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the OASIS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02378480) and OASIS-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02877927) phase 3 trials assessed safety and clinical efficacy of intravenous (IV)-start versus oral (PO)-start therapy in patients treated with omadacycline or linezolid for ABSSSI. In OASIS-1, patients were randomized to IV omadacycline or linezolid, with optional switch to oral therapy, while patients in OASIS-2 received oral omadacycline or linezolid. Treatment was provided for 7-14 days in both studies. The primary endpoint was an early clinical response (ECR) at 48 to 72 h, defined as survival and ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size, without rescue antibacterial therapy. RESULTS: A total of 645 IV-start inpatients and 735 PO-start outpatients were assessed. Median age was 47 years for the IV-start group and 44 years for the PO-start group. Most patients had solely gram-positive infections (97% in each group; ECR [85.2% IV-start and 85.0% PO-start]), and the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was similar between the groups. The most frequent AEs observed were nausea (11.2% [IV-start] versus 18.9% [PO-start]) and subcutaneous abscess (5.6% [IV-start] versus 1.9% [PO-start]). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent in both groups (2% [IV-start] versus 1.2% [PO-start]). CONCLUSION: Oral therapy is equally efficacious to IV therapy when omadacycline or linezolid is used to treat ABSSSIs. These data strengthen the evidence for oral omadacycline as a therapeutic option for ABSSSI, particularly for patients who have experienced treatment failure because of the limitations of other therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02378480 and NCT02877927.

Omadacycline in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in patients with comorbidities: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 OPTIC trial.

Introduction: The 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolones to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) in adults with comorbidities. Fluoroquinolones are effective against both typical and atypical pathogens. However, fluoroquinolone treatment has a risk of adverse effects, and the Food and Drug Administration has issued black box safety warnings for their use. Inpatient use of fluoroquinolones has reduced as a result; however, most antibiotic courses are completed as outpatients and discharge prescriptions account for the majority of fluoroquinolone use. As such, a new treatment option is needed to replace fluoroquinolones. Omadacycline is an aminomethylcycline antibiotic with a broad spectrum of activity and is available as a once-daily intravenous or bioequivalent oral formulation. Methods: This study assessed the safety and clinical efficacy of omadacycline compared with moxifloxacin for the treatment of adult CABP patients with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) risk class II/III and ≥1 comorbidity through a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 OPTIC study (NCT02531438). Results: In total, 239 omadacycline- and 222 moxifloxacin-treated patients were assessed. The median age was similar between groups (omadacycline: 57 years; moxifloxacin: 58 years), with 26.0% and 26.6%, respectively, ≥65 years of age. Early clinical response was 91.6% for patients with ≥1 comorbidity treated with omadacycline and 91.4% for those treated with moxifloxacin. Post-treatment evaluation results for overall response were 89.1% in the omadacycline group and 87.4% in the moxifloxacin group. Conclusion: Safety warnings have reduced inpatient use of fluoroquinolones; however, outpatient and discharge prescriptions account for the majority of fluoroquinolone use. Outpatients with comorbidities need an efficacious alternative to fluoroquinolones. Omadacycline maintains the similar efficacy and benefits of fluoroquinolones as a once-daily, monotherapy, bioequivalent oral option with potent in vitro activity against the most common CABP pathogens, including S. pneumoniae and atypical pathogens, but offers a materially different safety profile consistent with its tetracycline heritage. In conclusion, both omadacycline and moxifloxacin exhibited similar efficacy in patients with PSI risk class II/III and comorbidities. Omadacycline fulfills an unmet need as an oral monotherapy treatment option for adult patients with CABP, which will further reduce the use of fluoroquinolones. Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02531438, identifer: NCT02531438; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2013-004071-13, identifier: EudraCT #2013-004071-13.

Anti-CD20-atezolizumab-polatuzumab vedotin in relapsed/refractory follicular and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

PURPOSE: New therapies are needed for relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This phase 1b, open-label trial evaluated two anti-CD20-based triplet combinations. METHODS: Patients with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 13) were treated with obinutuzumab, atezolizumab, and polatuzumab vedotin (G-atezo-pola; 1.4 mg/kg/1.8 mg/kg) and patients with R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 23) received rituximab (R)-atezo-pola. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR) at end of induction (EOI) by PET-CT (investigator assessed; modified Lugano 2014 criteria). Safety endpoints were also assessed. RESULTS: 13 FL patients were treated and evaluable for safety; 2/23 DLBCL patients did not receive treatment and were not included in the safety population. Median observation time was 23.3 and 5.7 months in the FL and DLBCL cohorts, respectively. At EOI, CR rates in FL patients treated with G-atezo-pola at pola doses of 1.4 mg/kg (N = 3) and 1.8 mg/kg (N = 7) were 33% and 14%, respectively. In DLBCL patients receiving R-atezo-pola, the CR rate at EOI was 13%. In the FL cohort, 62% of patients experienced a grade 3-5 adverse event (AE; including two deaths) and 31% developed a serious AE (SAE). In DLBCL patients, R-atezo-pola was associated with a lower incidence of grade 3-5 AEs (24%; one death) and SAEs (10%). In both cohorts, the most common grade 3-5 AEs were hematologic toxicities. CONCLUSION: Based on these safety issues, considered as related specifically to G-atezo-pola, and limited efficacy, no further development of either combination is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02729896; Date of registration: April 6, 2016.

Efficacy and Safety of Omadacycline Versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Persons Who Inject Drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) represent one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits, and are frequent complications of intravenous drug use in persons who inject drugs (PWID). This study examined the efficacy and safety of omadacycline, versus linezolid, in PWID and persons who do not inject drugs, in the Phase 3 Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infection (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) studies. METHODS: Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years with qualifying skin infections: wound infection, cellulitis, erysipelas, or major abscess. The primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as survival with ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at 48-72 h after the first dose of omadacycline or linezolid. Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation (PTE) in the mITT and clinical per-protocol populations, and clinical response at PTE in the micro-mITT population. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and standard clinical laboratory tests. Efficacy endpoints of clinical response at ECR and PTE were analyzed for the mITT and clinically evaluable (CE) PTE populations. RESULTS: In total, 1380 patients (822 PWID, 558 non-PWID) were included in this secondary analysis. Wound infections were reported more frequently in the PWID subgroup (72.8%) at baseline; cellulitis or erysipelas (43.9%) and major abscess (37.4%) were the most frequently reported baseline infections in the non-PWID subgroup. Clinical success rates at ECR and PTE in the mITT population, and at PTE in the CE population, were high for patients receiving omadacycline or linezolid. Severe or serious treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were infrequent. CONCLUSION: This subgroup analysis showed that omadacycline was effective and well tolerated, regardless of PWID status.

Safety and efficacy of omadacycline by body mass index in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: Subanalysis from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety and efficacy of omadacycline by body mass index (BMI) in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) from a Phase III trial. METHODS: Patients hospitalized for suspected CABP were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous omadacycline or moxifloxacin, with an optional transition to oral, for a total of 7-14 days. Early clinical response (ECR) was assessed 72-120 h after receipt of the first dose, and clinical success was assessed 5-10 days after the last dose (post-treatment evaluation [PTE]). ECR was defined as improvement in at least two CABP symptoms with no worsening of other symptoms or use of rescue antibacterial treatment; success at PTE was defined as resolution of signs and symptoms to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events and laboratory measures. Between-treatment comparisons were made by World Health Organization BMI categories and by diabetes history. RESULTS: Distribution of patients in the normal weight, overweight, and obese subgroups was fairly even. Clinical success for omadacycline-treated patients at ECR were similar across ascending BMI groups (OMC: 82.9%, 80.5%, 76.9%; MOX: 88.6%, 80.7%, 76.9%). Outcomes by diabetes status were generally similar in omadacycline- and moxifloxacin-treated patients. Patients who had clinical success or clinical stability at ECR generally showed continued clinical success at PTE. Safety profiles for omadacycline and moxifloxacin were largely similar across BMI subgroups and by diabetes history. CONCLUSION: The omadacycline fixed-dosing strategy showed consistent safety and efficacy in patients with CABP of different body sizes.

Health-Related Quality of Life as Measured by the 36-Item Short Form Survey Among Adults With Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections who Received Either Omadacycline or Linezolid in a Phase 3 Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Clinical Trial.

This analysis of data from a Phase 3 study of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections showed that successful oral treatment with omadacycline (n = 368) or linezolid (n = 367) was associated with improvement in health-related quality of life.

Potential Cost Savings Associated with Targeted Substitution of Current Guideline-Concordant Inpatient Agents with Omadacycline for the Treatment of Adult Hospitalized Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia at High Risk for Clostridioides difficile Infections: Results of Healthcare-Decision Analytic Model from the United States Hospital Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 3% of hospitalized patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) develop healthcare-associated Clostridioides difficile infection (HCA-CDI). The validated Davis risk score (DRS) indicates that patients with a DRS ≥ 6 are at an increased risk of 30-day HCA-CDI. In the phase 3 OPTIC CABP study, 14% of CABP patients with DRS ≥ 6 who received moxifloxacin developed CDI vs. 0% for omadacycline. This study assessed the potential economic impact of substituting current guideline-concordant CABP inpatient treatments with omadacycline in hospitalized CABP patients with a DRS ≥ 6 across US hospitals. METHODS: A deterministic healthcare-decision analytic model was developed. The model population was hospitalized adult CABP patients with a DRS ≥ 6 across US hospitals (100,000 patients). In the guideline-concordant arm, 14% of CABP patients with DRS ≥ 6 were assumed to develop an HCA-CDI, each costing USD 20,100. In the omadacycline arm, 5 days of therapy was calculated for the entire model population. RESULTS: The use of omadacycline in place of guideline-concordant CABP inpatient treatments for CABP patients with DRS ≥ 6 was estimated to result in cost savings of USD 55.4 million annually across US hospitals. CONCLUSION: The findings of this simulated model suggest that prioritizing the use of omadacycline over current CABP treatments in hospitalized CABP with a DRS ≥ 6 may potentially reduce attributable HCA-CDI costs. The findings are not unique to omadacycline and could be applied to any antibiotic that confers a lower risk of HCA-CDI relative to current CABP inpatient treatments.

The Effect of Verapamil, a P-gp Inhibitor, on the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Omadacycline in Healthy Adults: A Phase I, Open-Label, Single-Sequence Study.

BACKGROUND: Omadacycline is a semisynthetic aminomethylcycline antibacterial derived from the tetracycline class. It is approved in the USA to treat adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: This phase I, open-label study evaluated the effect of a potential drug-drug interaction of verapamil-a known P-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibitor-with omadacycline on the pharmacokinetic profile of omadacycline in healthy adults. The safety and tolerability of omadacycline taken alone and in combination with verapamil were also evaluated. METHODS: A single oral dose of 240 mg verapamil extended release (ER) was given 2 h prior to a single oral dose of 300 mg omadacycline. RESULTS: Ten (83.3%) of the 12 participants enrolled in the study completed the study, and all enrolled participants were included in the safety and pharmacokinetic populations. An increase of 14-25% in systemic exposure to omadacycline was seen when administered following a single oral dose of 240 mg verapamil ER compared with omadacycline alone, as measured by the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to 24 h after dosing (AUC0-24), from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t), from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf), and by maximum (peak) observed plasma concentration (Cmax). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by one participant (nausea and headache). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, if given with a known P-gp inhibitor, dose adjustment of oral omadacycline is not warranted based on small increases in absorption and systemic exposure. No safety signals were identified.

Safety and efficacy of omadacycline for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in patients with mild-to-moderate renal impairment.

BACKGROUND: Many antibiotics require dosage adjustments in patients with renal impairment. In Phase III studies, omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin and linezolid in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), respectively. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety measures from three omadacycline studies by patient renal function. METHODS: Patients were stratified as having normal renal function (creatinine clearance >89 mL/min), mild renal impairment (creatinine clearance 60-89 mL/min) or moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance <60 mL/min); creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min (severe renal impairment) was an exclusion criterion. Efficacy endpoints were clinical success at the early clinical response (ECR) and post-treatment evaluation (PTE) time-points. Safety was evaluated as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory measures. RESULTS: This subgroup analysis included 773 patients with CABP and 1339 patients with ABSSSI in intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations, respectively. Clinical success rates were high at ECR and PTE across the studies (CABP 75-90%; ABSSSI 74-95%), and broadly similar between treatments, irrespective of renal function. Rates of TEAEs in patients with ABSSSI ranged from 33% to 52%, and were similar across renal function groups. In patients with CABP, higher rates were observed in patients with moderate renal impairment (56-61%) compared with patients with normal renal function or mild renal impairment (35-49%). The most common TEAEs were nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical success was similar across renal function groups, indicating no notable difference in the efficacy of omadacycline in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Omadacycline and comparators displayed similar safety profiles. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRY: OPTIC (NCT02531438); OASIS-1 (NCT02378480); OASIS-2 (NCT02877927).