Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin-Structure Infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections are associated with substantial morbidity and health care costs. Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic that can be administered once daily either orally or intravenously, is active against pathogens that commonly cause such infections, including antibiotic-resistant strains. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive omadacycline (100 mg given intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg given intravenously every 24 hours) or linezolid (600 mg given intravenously every 12 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or oral linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was an early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours, defined as survival with a reduction in lesion size of at least 20% without rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was an investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation 7 to 14 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as survival with resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms of infection to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. For both end points, the noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. RESULTS: In the modified intention-to-treat population, omadacycline (316 patients) was noninferior to linezolid (311 patients) with respect to early clinical response (rate of response, 84.8% and 85.5%, respectively; difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3 to 4.9). Omadacycline also was noninferior to linezolid with respect to investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation in the modified intention-to-treat population (rate of response, 86.1% and 83.6%, respectively; difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.2 to 8.2) and in the clinical per-protocol population (96.3% and 93.5%, respectively; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 6.9). In both groups, the efficacy of the trial drug was similar for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Adverse events were reported in 48.3% of the patients in the omadacycline group and in 45.7% of those in the linezolid group; the most frequent adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal (in 18.0% and 15.8% of the patients in the respective groups). CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and had a similar safety profile. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OASIS-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02378480 .).

Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid and Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Injection Drug Users: Analysis of Two Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Injection drug users (IDUs) often develop acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and use emergency departments as their primary source for medical care. METHODS: A post hoc subgroup analysis of two randomized trials examined the efficacy and safety of tedizolid in the treatment of ABSSSI in IDUs. IDUs (n = 389) were identified from two pooled phase 3 trials (NCT01170221, NCT01421511) in patients with ABSSSI (n = 1333). Patients were randomly assigned to tedizolid phosphate (200 mg once daily, 6 days) or linezolid (600 mg twice daily, 10 days). Primary endpoint was ≥ 20% reduction in lesion area from baseline at 48 -72 h. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical and microbiological response at the post-therapy evaluation (PTE). RESULTS: Wound infection was more common in IDUs (52.2%), while cellulitis/erysipelas was more common in non-IDUs (55.9%). Most infections were due to Staphylococcus aureus (IDUs, 75.2%; non-IDUs, 85.6%), while oral pathogens were more prevalent in IDUs. Early clinical success rates for tedizolid and linezolid were 82.5% and 79.6% in IDUs and 81.3% and 79.3% for non-IDUs, respectively; responses at PTE were similar. Microbiological response per pathogen was similar between treatment groups. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in IDUs were comparable between tedizolid (46.2%) and linezolid (47.8%) arms, while lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was observed with tedizolid (20.3%) than with linezolid (25.1%). CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid in the treatment of ABSSSI was similar in IDUs and non-IDUs, supporting the use of oxazolidinones in treating ABSSSIs in IDUs. FUNDING: Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Pooled analysis of single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens, including a large patient subset with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with bactericidal activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The phase 3 studies SOLO I and SOLO II demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety of a single dose of oritavancin compared with 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs). The present analysis assessed clinical responses by pathogen at 48-72 h and at study days 14-24 in SOLO patients within the pooled data set. Of the 1959 patients in the pooled SOLO studies, 1067 had at least one baseline Gram-positive pathogen and 405 had MRSA. Clinical response rates were similar for oritavancin- and vancomycin-treated patients by pathogen, including Staphylococcus aureus with or without the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (pvl) gene and from different clonal complexes, and were similar for pathogens within each treatment group. Oritavancin exhibited potent in vitro activity against all baseline pathogens, with MIC90 values (minimum inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of the isolates) of 0.12 µg/mL for Staphylococcus aureus, 0.25 µg/mL for Streptococcus pyogenes and 0.06 µg/mL for Enterococcus faecalis. Whereas both oritavancin and vancomycin achieved similarly high rates of clinical response by pathogen, including methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus, oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin to treat ABSSSIs.

Single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with rapid bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and long half-life allow for single-dose treatment. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) received either a single intravenous 1200-mg dose of oritavancin or 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin. Three efficacy endpoints were tested for noninferiority: (1) primary composite endpoint at 48-72 hours (cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no rescue antibiotic); (2) investigator-assessed clinical cure 7-14 days after end of treatment; and (3) ≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48-72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 503 and 502 patients comprised the modified intent-to-treat population for oritavancin and vancomycin, respectively. All 3 efficacy endpoints met the 10% noninferiority margin: the primary composite endpoint (80.1% vs 82.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 2.0), investigator-assessed clinical cure (82.7% vs 80.5%; 95% CI, -2.6 to 7.0), and proportion of patients attaining ≥20% reduction in lesion area (85.9% vs 85.3%; 95% CI, -3.7 to 5.0) for oritavancin vs vancomycin, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the frequency of adverse events, were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single 1200-mg dose of oritavancin was noninferior to 7-10 days of vancomycin in treating ABSSSIs caused by gram-positive pathogens, and was well tolerated. Oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to multidose therapies for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01252732.

ABT-450/r-ombitasvir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin for HCV.

BACKGROUND: The interferon-free regimen of ABT-450 with ritonavir (ABT-450/r), ombitasvir, and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin has shown efficacy in inducing a sustained virologic response in a phase 2 study involving patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. We conducted two phase 3 trials to examine the efficacy and safety of this regimen in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and no cirrhosis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 419 patients with HCV genotype 1b infection (PEARL-III study) and 305 patients with genotype 1a infection (PEARL-IV study) to 12 weeks of ABT-450/r-ombitasvir (at a once-daily dose of 150 mg of ABT-450, 100 mg of ritonavir, and 25 mg of ombitasvir), dasabuvir (250 mg twice daily), and ribavirin administered according to body weight or to matching placebo for ribavirin. The primary efficacy end point was a sustained virologic response (an HCV RNA level of <25 IU per milliliter) 12 weeks after the end of treatment. RESULTS: The study regimen resulted in high rates of sustained virologic response among patients with HCV genotype 1b infection (99.5% with ribavirin and 99.0% without ribavirin) and among those with genotype 1a infection (97.0% and 90.2%, respectively). Of patients with genotype 1b infection, 1 had virologic failure, and 2 did not have data available at post-treatment week 12. Among patients with genotype 1a infection, the rate of virologic failure was higher in the ribavirin-free group than in the ribavirin group (7.8% vs. 2.0%). In both studies, decreases in the hemoglobin level were significantly more common in patients receiving ribavirin. Two patients (0.3%) discontinued the study drugs owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events were fatigue, headache, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve weeks of treatment with ABT-450/r-ombitasvir and dasabuvir without ribavirin was associated with high rates of sustained virologic response among previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. Rates of virologic failure were higher without ribavirin than with ribavirin among patients with genotype 1a infection but not among those with genotype 1b infection. (Funded by AbbVie; PEARL-III and PEARL-IV ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01767116 and NCT01833533.).

Tedizolid phosphate for the management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: efficacy summary.

The novel oxazolidinone tedizolid phosphate is in late-stage development for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Preclinical and phase 1 trials have shown that 200-mg once-daily tedizolid phosphate dosing achieves the appropriate pharmacokinetic goals for optimal antimicrobial effect, and a randomized phase 2 dose-ranging trial confirmed that tedizolid phosphate may be an option for the treatment of ABSSSIs at the 200-mg dose, the lowest effective dose, over a mean of 6.4 days of therapy. In the first of two phase 3 trials, 6 days of 200-mg once-daily oral tedizolid phosphate (plus 4 days of placebo) was noninferior to 10 days of 600-mg twice-daily oral linezolid when evaluated at both the early (48- to 72-hour assessment) and test-of-cure (7-14 days after the last dose of active or placebo agent was given) time points. Initial results from the second phase 3 trial (intravenous to oral therapy design) confirm the study met all primary and secondary endpoints and continues to add insight into the clinical utility of tedizolid phosphate.