Clinical Presentation, Timing, and Microbiology of CIED Infections: An Analysis of the WRAP-IT Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study characterized the microbiology of major cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections that occurred during the WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) study. BACKGROUND: The WRAP-IT study offers a unique opportunity for further understanding of the pathogens involved in major CIED infections in a prospective dataset, with implications for clinical practice and infection management. METHODS: A total of 6,800 patients randomized 1:1 to receive an antibacterial envelope or not (control subjects) were included in this analysis. Patient characteristics, infection manifestation (pocket vs. systemic), and infection microbiology were evaluated through all follow-up (36 months). Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 3,371 patients received an envelope, and 3,429 patients were control subjects. Major CIED infection occurred in 32 patients who received an envelope and 51 control subjects (36-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 1.3% and 1.9%, respectively; p = 0.046). A 61% reduction in major pocket infection was observed within 12 months of the procedure in the envelope group (hazard ratio: 0.39, 95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.73; p = 0.003). Among 76 patients with major infections who had a sample taken, causative pathogens were identified in 47 patients. Staphylococcus species were the predominate pathogen (n = 31) and envelope use resulted in a 76% reduction in Staphylococcus-related pocket infections (n = 4 vs. 17; p = 0.010). Envelope use was not associated with delayed onset of pocket infections and did not affect the presentation of infections. CONCLUSIONS: Antibacterial envelope use resulted in a significant reduction of major CIED pocket infections and was particularly effective against Staphylococcus species, the predominant cause of pocket infections. (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial [WRAP-IT]; NCT02277990).

Cost-Effectiveness of an Antibacterial Envelope for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection Prevention in the US Healthcare System From the WRAP-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the WRAP-IT trial (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention), adjunctive use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope resulted in a 40% reduction of major cardiac implantable electronic device infection without increased risk of complication in 6983 patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device revision, replacement, upgrade, or initial cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implant. There is limited information on the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. As a prespecified objective, we evaluated antibacterial envelope cost-effectiveness compared with standard-of-care infection prevention strategies in the US healthcare system. METHODS: A decision tree model was used to compare costs and outcomes of antibacterial envelope (TYRX) use adjunctive to standard-of-care infection prevention versus standard-of-care alone over a lifelong time horizon. The analysis was performed from an integrated payer-provider network perspective. Infection rates, antibacterial envelope effectiveness, infection treatment costs and patterns, infection-related mortality, and utility estimates were obtained from the WRAP-IT trial. Life expectancy and long-term costs associated with device replacement, follow-up, and healthcare utilization were sourced from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life years were discounted at 3%. An upper willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness, in alignment with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines and as supported by the World Health Organization and contemporary literature. RESULTS: The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the antibacterial envelope compared with standard-of-care was $112 603/quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold in 74% of iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and was most sensitive to the following model inputs: infection-related mortality, life expectancy, and infection cost. CONCLUSIONS: The absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks in the WRAP-IT patient population, suggesting that the envelope provides value for the US healthcare system by reducing the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02277990.

Exebacase for patients with Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection and endocarditis.

BACKGROUNDNovel therapeutic approaches are critically needed for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (BSIs), particularly for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Exebacase, a first-in-class antistaphylococcal lysin, is a direct lytic agent that is rapidly bacteriolytic, eradicates biofilms, and synergizes with antibiotics.METHODSIn this superiority-design study, we randomly assigned 121 patients with S. aureus BSI/endocarditis to receive a single dose of exebacase or placebo. All patients received standard-of-care antibiotics. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical outcome (responder rate) on day 14.RESULTSClinical responder rates on day 14 were 70.4% and 60.0% in the exebacase + antibiotics and antibiotics-alone groups, respectively (difference = 10.4, 90% CI [-6.3, 27.2], P = 0.31), and were 42.8 percentage points higher in the prespecified exploratory MRSA subgroup (74.1% vs. 31.3%, difference = 42.8, 90% CI [14.3, 71.4], ad hoc P = 0.01). Rates of adverse events (AEs) were similar in both groups. No AEs of hypersensitivity to exebacase were reported. Thirty-day all-cause mortality rates were 9.7% and 12.8% in the exebacase + antibiotics and antibiotics-alone groups, respectively, with a notable difference in MRSA patients (3.7% vs. 25.0%, difference = -21.3, 90% CI [-45.1, 2.5], ad hoc P = 0.06). Among MRSA patients in the United States, median length of stay was 4 days shorter and 30-day hospital readmission rates were 48% lower in the exebacase-treated group compared with antibiotics alone.CONCLUSIONThis study establishes proof of concept for exebacase and direct lytic agents as potential therapeutics and supports conduct of a confirmatory study focused on exebacase to treat MRSA BSIs.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov NCT03163446.FUNDINGContraFect Corporation.

Impact of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: A Clinical and Economic Analysis of the WRAP-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of the impact of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is based on retrospective analyses from medical records or administrative claims data. The WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) offers an opportunity to evaluate the clinical and economic impacts of CIED infection from the hospital, payer, and patient perspectives in the US healthcare system. METHODS: This was a prespecified, as-treated analysis evaluating outcomes related to major CIED infections: mortality, quality of life, disruption of CIED therapy, healthcare utilization, and costs. Payer costs were assigned using medicare fee for service national payments, while medicare advantage, hospital, and patient costs were derived from similar hospital admissions in administrative datasets. RESULTS: Major CIED infection was associated with increased all-cause mortality (12-month risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 3.41 [95% CI, 1.81-6.41]; P<0.001), an effect that sustained beyond 12 months (hazard ratio through all follow-up, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.29-4.07]; P=0.004). Quality of life was reduced (P=0.004) and did not normalize for 6 months. Disruptions in CIED therapy were experienced in 36% of infections for a median duration of 184 days. Mean costs were $55 547±$45 802 for the hospital, $26 867±$14 893, for medicare fee for service and $57 978±$29 431 for Medicare Advantage (mean hospital margin of -$30 828±$39 757 for medicare fee for service and -$6055±$45 033 for medicare advantage). Mean out-of-pocket costs for patients were $2156±$1999 for medicare fee for service, and $1658±$1250 for medicare advantage. CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective analysis corroborates and extends understanding of the impact of CIED infections as seen in real-world datasets. CIED infections severely impact mortality, quality of life, healthcare utilization, and cost in the US healthcare system. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT02277990.

A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections in the Phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Introduction. Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to Gram-positive pathogens.Aim. This analysis evaluates patients with wound infections from two Phase 3 trials of ABSSSI.Methodology. Six-hundred-two patients with wound infections from two Phase 3, double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active controlled trials (REVIVE-1/-2) were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of iclaprim 80 mg compared with vancomycin 15 mg kg-1 administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was to determine whether iclaprim was non-inferior (10 % margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20 % reduction from baseline in lesion size 48-72 h after starting study drug (early clinical response [ECR]). Safety was assessed.Results. In REVIVE-1, ECR was 83.5 % with iclaprim versus 79.7 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 3.77%, 95 % CI -4.50%, 12.04%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 82.7 % with iclaprim versus 76.3 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 6.38%, 95 % CI -3.35%, 16.12%). In the pooled dataset, iclaprim had similar ECR rates compared with vancomycin among wound infection patients (83.2 % vs 78.2 %) with a treatment difference of 5.01 % (95 % CI -1.29%, 11.32%). The safety profile was similar in iclaprim- and vancomycin-treated patients, except for a higher incidence of diarrhea with vancomycin (n=17) compared with iclaprim (n=6) and fatigue with iclaprim (n=17) compared with vancomycin (n=8).Conclusion. Based on early clinical response, iclaprim achieved non-inferiority to vancomycin with a similar safety profile in patients with wound infections suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for wound infections.

In Vitro Activity of Eravacycline against Gram-Positive Bacteria Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017.

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic being developed for the treatment of serious infections, including those caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Here, we evaluated the in vitro activities of eravacycline and comparator antimicrobial agents against a recent global collection of frequently encountered clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria. The CLSI broth microdilution method was used to determine in vitro MIC data for isolates of Enterococcus spp. (n = 2,807), Staphylococcus spp. (n = 4,331), and Streptococcus spp. (n = 3,373) isolated primarily from respiratory, intra-abdominal, urinary, and skin specimens by clinical laboratories in 37 countries on three continents from 2013 to 2017. Susceptibilities were interpreted using both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. There were no substantive differences (a >1-doubling-dilution increase or decrease) in eravacycline MIC90 values for different species/organism groups over time or by region. Eravacycline showed MIC50 and MIC90 results of 0.06 and 0.12 µg/ml, respectively, when tested against Staphylococcus aureus, regardless of methicillin susceptibility. The MIC90 values of eravacycline for Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus were equal (0.5 µg/ml). The eravacycline MIC90s for Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium were 0.06 µg/ml and were within 1 doubling dilution regardless of the vancomycin susceptibility profile. Eravacycline exhibited MIC90 results of ≤0.06 µg/ml when tested against Streptococcus pneumoniae and beta-hemolytic and viridans group streptococcal isolates. In this surveillance study, eravacycline demonstrated potent in vitro activity against frequently isolated clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria (Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus spp.), including isolates collected over a 5-year period (2013 to 2017), underscoring its potential benefit in the treatment of infections caused by common Gram-positive pathogens.

In Vitro Activity of Eravacycline against Gram-Negative Bacilli Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017.

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic developed for the treatment of serious infections, including those caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. Here, we evaluated the in vitro activities of eravacycline and comparator antimicrobial agents against a global collection of frequently encountered clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacilli. The CLSI broth microdilution method was used to determine MIC data for isolates of Enterobacterales (n = 13,983), Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 2,097), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 1,647), and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 1,210) isolated primarily from respiratory, intra-abdominal, and urinary specimens by clinical laboratories in 36 countries from 2013 to 2017. Susceptibilities were interpreted using both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates were defined by resistance to agents from ≥3 different antimicrobial classes. The MIC90s ranged from 0.25 to 1 µg/ml for Enterobacteriaceae and were 1 µg/ml for A. baumannii and 2 µg/ml for S. maltophilia, Proteus mirabilis, and Serratia marcescens Eravacycline's potency was up to 4-fold greater than that of tigecycline against genera/species of Enterobacterales, A. baumannii, and S. maltophilia The MIC90s for five of six individual genera/species of Enterobacterales and A. baumannii were within 2-fold of the MIC90s for their respective subsets of MDR isolates, while the MDR subpopulation of Klebsiella spp. demonstrated 4-fold higher MIC90s. Eravacycline demonstrated potent in vitro activity against the majority of clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacilli, including MDR isolates, collected over a 5-year period. This study further underscores the potential benefit of eravacycline in the treatment of infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens.

A Pooled Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Iclaprim Versus Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Patients With Intravenous Drug Use: Phase 3 REVIVE Studies.

PURPOSE: This analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of iclaprim versus vancomycin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in patients who were intravenous drug users (IVDUs). METHODS: A total of 621 patients who were IVDUs from 2 parallel Phase III, double-blind, randomized (1:1), active-controlled, multinational, multicenter trials (REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2) were analyzed separately and pooled. This post hoc analysis summarizes the efficacy and safety profile of iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose compared with vancomycin 15 mg/kg administered intravenously during 2 h every 12 h for 5-14 days among this population. The primary end point of these studies was to determine whether iclaprim was noninferior (10% margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20% reduction in lesion size at 48-72 h after initiation of treatment with the study drug (early clinical response) in the intent-to-treat population. The safety profile was assessed based on adverse events and laboratory parameters. FINDINGS: Iclaprim had higher early clinical response rates (85.8%; 95% CI, 81.5%-89.4%) compared with vancomycin (79.8%; 95% CI, 74.8%-84.2%) among patients with ABSSSIs who were IVDUs, with a treatment difference of +6.00% (95% CI, 0.06-12.0). The safety profile was similar in the iclaprim and vancomycin arms, with 3.7% and 5.0%, respectively, of patients discontinuing study therapy because of adverse events and 1.9% and 3.4%, respectively, of patients developing serious adverse events. IMPLICATIONS: Iclaprim had a higher early clinical response rate and favorable safety profile compared with vancomycin for the treatment of ABSSSIs in patients who were IVDUs. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for ABSSSIs in this patient population.

Ceftaroline fosamil therapy in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections with systemic inflammatory signs: A retrospective dose comparison across three pivotal trials.

This post-hoc analysis compared the pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12 (q12h) versus every 8 hours (q8h) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSI) and signs of sepsis. Clinical outcomes at test-of-cure in patients with ABSSSI and systemic inflammatory signs/systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as well as ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against baseline pathogens were compared between the COVERS trial (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q8h, 2-h infusion) and the CANVAS 1 and 2 trials (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h, 1-h infusion). Ceftaroline exposure among patients in COVERS with or without markers of sepsis was compared using population pharmacokinetic modelling. In COVERS, 62% (312/506) and 41% (208/506) of ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients had ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS, respectively, compared with 55% (378/693) and 22% (155/693), respectively, in the CANVAS trials. Clinical cure rates for the modified intent-to-treat population in COVERS and CANVAS were similar for ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients with ≥1 sign of sepsis [82% (255/312) and 85% (335/394)] and for those with SIRS [84% (168/199) and 85% (131/155)]. Ceftaroline MIC distributions were similar across trials. Sepsis did not affect predicted individual steady-state ceftaroline exposure. Clinical cure rates in patients with ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS were comparable for both ceftaroline fosamil dosage regimens. Pathogen susceptibilities to ceftaroline were similar across trials. Ceftaroline exposure was not affected by disease severity. Ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h is a robust dosage regimen for most ABSSSI patients with sepsis [ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01499277, NCT00424190, NCT00423657].

Good Studies Evaluate the Disease While Great Studies Evaluate the Patient: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking Endpoint for Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infection.

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach in clinical trials to evaluate the global benefits and risks of an intervention. We developed and validated a DOOR endpoint for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (BSI) through a survey to infectious diseases clinicians and secondary analysis of trial data. METHODS: We administered a survey of 20 cases of S. aureus BSI, asking respondents to rank outcomes by global desirability. Correlations and percentage of pairwise agreement among rankings were estimated to inform development of a DOOR endpoint, which was applied to 2 prior S. aureus BSI trials. The probability that a patient randomly assigned to experimental treatment would have a better DOOR ranking than if assigned to control was estimated. Results were also analyzed using partial credit, which is analogous to scoring an academic test, assigning 100% to the most desirable outcome, 0% to the least, and "partial credit" to intermediate ranks. RESULTS: Forty-two recipients (97%) completed the survey. The DOOR endpoint fitting these rankings (r = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.94) incorporated survival plus cumulative occurrence of adverse events, cure, infectious complications, and ongoing symptoms. Tailored versions of this endpoint were applied to 2 S. aureus BSI trials, and both demonstrated no benefit of the experimental treatment using DOOR and partial credit analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Using S. aureus BSI as an exemplar, we developed a DOOR endpoint that can be used as a template for development of DOOR endpoints for other diseases. Future trials can incorporate DOOR to allow for global assessment of patient experience.

Surveillance of iclaprim activity: in vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive skin infection pathogens collected from 2015 to 2016 from North America and Europe.

Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine, which inhibits bacterial dihydrofolate reductase, and surveillance data prior to 2006 suggested that iclaprim was active against Gram-positive pathogens including emerging drug-resistant pathogens. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, we undertook testing iclaprim and comparators against 931 Gram-positive clinical isolates from the United States and Europe collected between 2015 and 2016. Susceptibility testing was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) interpretations were based on CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing criteria. MIC50/MIC90 was 0.03/0.12 for all Staphylococcus aureus, 0.06/0.06 for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, 0.03/0.12 for methicillin-resistant S. aureus, 0.12/0.5 for Streptococcus agalactiae, ≤0.015/≤0.015 for Streptococcus anginosus, 0.03/0.06 for Streptococcus dysgalactiae, and ≤0.015 /0.03 µg/mL for Streptococcus pyogenes. Iclaprim was active against a contemporary collection (2015-2016) of Gram-positive bacteria isolated from the skin or soft tissue from patients with SSSI from the United States and Europe.

Considerations for Clinical Trials of Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infection in Adults.

Clinical trials for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (SAB) are broadly grouped into 2 categories: registrational trials intended to support regulatory approval of antibiotics for the treatment of SAB and strategy trials intended to inform clinicians on the best treatment options for SAB among existing antibiotics. Both types of SAB trials are urgently needed but have been limited by cost, complexity, and regulatory uncertainty. Here, we review key SAB trial design considerations for investigators, sponsors, and regulators.

Iclaprim: a differentiated option for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections.

INTRODUCTION: Iclaprim is a selective bacterial dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) inhibitor. Although there are alternative options for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), iclaprim is differentiated from other available antibiotics. Areas covered: Iclaprim is under clinical development for ABSSSI. This review summarizes the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, microbiology, clinical development program, and the differentiation of iclaprim from other antibiotics. Expert commentary: Iclaprim has a different mechanism of action (DHFR inhibitor) compared to most other antibiotics, is active and rapidly bactericidal against Gram-positive pathogens including antibiotic-resistant pathogens, and suppresses bacterial exotoxins (alpha hemolysin, Panton Valentine leukocidin, and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1). Compared to trimethoprim, iclaprim has lower MIC90s, can be given without a sulfonamide, overcomes select trimethoprim resistance, and does not cause hyperkalemia. Iclaprim is administered as a fixed dose, does not require dose adjustment in renally-impaired or obese patients, and was not associated with nephrotoxicity in the Phase 3 pivotal REVIVE studies. Iclaprim represents a novel, alternative option for the treatment of severe skin and skin structure infections due to Gram-positive bacteria, particularly in patients at risk of acute kidney injury.

Effect of Algorithm-Based Therapy vs Usual Care on Clinical Success and Serious Adverse Events in Patients with Staphylococcal Bacteremia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The appropriate duration of antibiotics for staphylococcal bacteremia is unknown. Objective: To test whether an algorithm that defines treatment duration for staphylococcal bacteremia vs standard of care provides noninferior efficacy without increasing severe adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized trial involving adults with staphylococcal bacteremia was conducted at 16 academic medical centers in the United States (n = 15) and Spain (n = 1) from April 2011 to March 2017. Patients were followed up for 42 days beyond end of therapy for those with Staphylococcus aureus and 28 days for those with coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had 1 or more blood cultures positive for S aureus or coagulase-negative staphylococci. Patients were excluded if they had known or suspected complicated infection at the time of randomization. Interventions: Patients were randomized to algorithm-based therapy (n = 255) or usual practice (n = 254). Diagnostic evaluation, antibiotic selection, and duration of therapy were predefined for the algorithm group, whereas clinicians caring for patients in the usual practice group had unrestricted choice of antibiotics, duration, and other aspects of clinical care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were (1) clinical success, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee and tested for noninferiority within a 15% margin; and (2) serious adverse event rates in the intention-to-treat population, tested for superiority. The prespecified secondary outcome measure, tested for superiority, was antibiotic days among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia. Results: Among the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.6 [SD, 16.8] years; 226 [44.4%] women), 480 (94.3%) completed the trial. Clinical success was documented in 209 of 255 patients assigned to algorithm-based therapy and 207 of 254 randomized to usual practice (82.0% vs 81.5%; difference, 0.5% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.2% to ∞]). Serious adverse events were reported in 32.5% of algorithm-based therapy patients and 28.3% of usual practice patients (difference, 4.2% [95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%]). Among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia, mean duration of therapy was 4.4 days for algorithm-based therapy vs 6.2 days for usual practice (difference, -1.8 days [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with staphylococcal bacteremia, the use of an algorithm to guide testing and treatment compared with usual care resulted in a noninferior rate of clinical success. Rates of serious adverse events were not significantly different, but interpretation is limited by wide confidence intervals. Further research is needed to assess the utility of the algorithm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191840.

Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.

Iclaprim, a diaminopyrimidine antimicrobial, was compared with vancomycin for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two studies (REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2). Here, the efficacy and tolerability of iclaprim in a pooled analysis of results from both studies was explored. REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2 were phase 3, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, active-controlled, non-inferiority (margin of 10%) trials, each designed to enrol 600 patients with ABSSSI using identical study protocols. Iclaprim 80 mg and vancomycin 15 mg/kg were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction from baseline in lesion size [early clinical response (ECR)] at the early time point (ETP) (48-72 h after starting study drug) in the intent-to-treat population. In REVIVE-1, ECR at the ETP was 80.9% with iclaprim versus 81.0% with vancomycin (treatment difference -0.13%, 95% CI -6.42% to 6.17%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 78.3% with iclaprim versus 76.7% with vancomycin (treatment difference 1.58%, 95% CI -5.10% to 8.26%). The pooled ECR was 79.6% with iclaprim versus 78.8% with vancomycin (treatment difference 0.75%, 95% CI -3.84 to 5.35%). Iclaprim and vancomycin were comparable for the incidence of mostly mild adverse events, except for a higher incidence of elevated serum creatinine with vancomycin (n = 7) compared with iclaprim (n = 0). Iclaprim achieved non-inferiority compared with vancomycin for ECR at the ETP and secondary endpoints with a similar safety profile in two phase 3 studies for treatment of ABSSSI suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. [Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02600611 and NCT02607618.].

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim versus Vancomycin for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed To Be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens (REVIVE-2 Study).

Iclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine antibiotic that may be an effective and safe treatment for serious skin infections. The safety and effectiveness of iclaprim were assessed in a global phase 3, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial. Six hundred thirteen adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens were randomized to iclaprim (80 mg) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg of body weight), both of which were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5 to 14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size compared with that at the baseline at 48 to 72 h after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Among patients randomized to iclaprim, 78.3% (231 of 295) met this primary endpoint, whereas 76.7% (234 of 305) of those receiving vancomycin met this primary endpoint (difference, 1.58%; 95% confidence interval, -5.10% to 8.26%). This met the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin. Iclaprim was well tolerated, with most adverse events being categorized as mild. In conclusion, iclaprim was noninferior to vancomycin in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. On the basis of these results, iclaprim may be an efficacious and safe treatment for skin infections suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens. (This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02607618.).

Surveillance of iclaprim activity: In vitro susceptibility of gram-positive pathogens collected from 2012 to 2014 from the United States, Asia Pacific, Latin American and Europe.

Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine, which inhibits bacterial dihydrofolate reductase, and it is highly active against Gram-positive pathogens including emerging drug-resistant pathogens. In vitro activity of iclaprim and comparators against 2814 Gram-positive clinical isolates from the United States, Asia Pacific, Latin American and Europe collected between 2012 and 2014 were tested. Susceptibility testing was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) interpretations were based on CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) criteria. MIC50/MIC90 for all S. aureus, methicillin susceptible S. aureus, methicillin resistant S. aureus, beta-hemolytic streptococci, and Streptococcus pneumoniae were 0.06/0.12, 0.06/0.12, 0.06/0.5, 0.06/0.25, and 0.06/2µg/mL, respectively. Iclaprim was 8 to 32-fold more potent than trimethoprim, the only FDA approved dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor, against all Gram-positive isolates including resistant phenotypes. The MIC90 of iclaprim was also lower than most of the comparators including linezolid and vancomycin against Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim demonstrated potent activity against a contemporary collection (2012-2014) of Gram-positive clinical isolates from the United States, Asia Pacific, Latin America and Europe.

Single Intravenous Dose of Oritavancin for Treatment of Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Caused by Gram-Positive Bacteria: Summary of Safety Analysis from the Phase 3 SOLO Studies.

Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with bactericidal activity against Gram-positive organisms. Its rapid concentration-dependent bactericidal activity and long elimination half-life allow single-dose treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). SOLO I and SOLO II were randomized, double-blind studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single 1,200-mg intravenous (i.v.) dose of oritavancin versus twice-daily i.v. vancomycin for 7 to 10 days in ABSSSI patients. Safety data from both studies were pooled for safety analysis. The database comprised pooled safety data for 976 oritavancin-treated patients and 983 vancomycin-treated patients. The incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar for oritavancin (55.3, 5.8, and 3.7%, respectively) and vancomycin (56.9, 5.9, and 4.2%, respectively). The median time to onset (3.8 days versus 3.1 days, respectively) and the duration (3.0 days for both groups) of adverse events were also similar between the two groups. The most frequently reported events were nausea, headache, and vomiting. Greater than 90% of all events were mild or moderate in severity. There were slightly more infections and infestations, abscesses or cellulitis, and hepatic and cardiac adverse events in the oritavancin group; however, more than 80% of these events were mild or moderate. Subgroup analyses did not identify clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of adverse events attributed to oritavancin. A single 1,200-mg dose of oritavancin was well tolerated and had a safety profile similar to that of twice-daily vancomycin. The long elimination half-life of oritavancin compared to that of vancomycin did not result in a clinically meaningful delay to the onset or prolongation of adverse events. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01252719 and NCT01252732.).

The effect of pulmonary surfactant on the in vitro activity of Iclaprim against common respiratory bacterial pathogens.

The in vitro antimicrobial activity of iclaprim, a novel diaminopyrimidine, against common respiratory bacteria remained unchanged in the presence of pulmonary surfactant (Survanta®) at concentrations that greatly antagonized the antimicrobial activity of daptomycin. These results indicate that iclaprim could be a potential treatment for pneumonia caused by susceptible and multidrug resistant bacteria.