Phase 3 study of recombinant factor VIII Fc fusion protein in severe hemophilia A.

This phase 3 pivotal study evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of a recombinant FVIII Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) for prophylaxis, treatment of acute bleeding, and perioperative hemostatic control in 165 previously treated males aged ≥12 years with severe hemophilia A. The study had 3 treatment arms: arm 1, individualized prophylaxis (25-65 IU/kg every 3-5 days, n = 118); arm 2, weekly prophylaxis (65 IU/kg, n = 24); and arm 3, episodic treatment (10-50 IU/kg, n = 23). A subgroup compared recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) and rFVIIIFc pharmacokinetics. End points included annualized bleeding rate (ABR), inhibitor development, and adverse events. The terminal half-life of rFVIIIFc (19.0 hours) was extended 1.5-fold vs rFVIII (12.4 hours; P < .001). Median ABRs observed in arms 1, 2, and 3 were 1.6, 3.6, and 33.6, respectively. In arm 1, the median weekly dose was 77.9 IU/kg; approximately 30% of subjects achieved a 5-day dosing interval (last 3 months on study). Across arms, 87.3% of bleeding episodes resolved with 1 injection. Adverse events were consistent with those expected in this population; no subjects developed inhibitors. rFVIIIFc was well-tolerated, had a prolonged half-life compared with rFVIII, and resulted in low ABRs when dosed prophylactically 1 to 2 times per week.

Phase 3 study of recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein in hemophilia B.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic factor replacement in patients with hemophilia B improves outcomes but requires frequent injections. A recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) with a prolonged half-life was developed to reduce the frequency of injections required. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, nonrandomized, open-label study of the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of rFIXFc for prophylaxis, treatment of bleeding, and perioperative hemostasis in 123 previously treated male patients. All participants were 12 years of age or older and had severe hemophilia B (endogenous factor IX level of ≤2 IU per deciliter, or ≤2% of normal levels). The study included four treatment groups: group 1 received weekly dose-adjusted prophylaxis (50 IU of rFIXFc per kilogram of body weight to start), group 2 received interval-adjusted prophylaxis (100 IU per kilogram every 10 days to start), group 3 received treatment as needed for bleeding episodes (20 to 100 IU per kilogram), and group 4 received treatment in the perioperative period. A subgroup of group 1 underwent comparative sequential pharmacokinetic assessments of recombinant factor IX and rFIXFc. The primary efficacy end point was the annualized bleeding rate, and safety end points included the development of inhibitors and adverse events. RESULTS: As compared with recombinant factor IX, rFIXFc exhibited a prolonged terminal half-life (82.1 hours) (P<0.001). The median annualized bleeding rates in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 3.0, 1.4, and 17.7, respectively. In group 2, 53.8% of participants had dosing intervals of 14 days or more during the last 3 months of the study. In groups 1, 2 and 3, 90.4% of bleeding episodes resolved after one injection. Hemostasis was rated as excellent or good during all major surgeries. No inhibitors were detected in any participants receiving rFIXFc; in groups 1, 2, and 3, 73.9% of participants had at least one adverse event, and serious adverse events occurred in 10.9% of participants. These events were mostly consistent with those expected in the general population of patients with hemophilia. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic rFIXFc, administered every 1 to 2 weeks, resulted in low annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia B. (Funded by Biogen Idec; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01027364.).

Daptomycin compared to standard therapy for the treatment of native valve endocarditis

Introduction In a recent randomized trial of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and native valve endocarditis, daptomycin was found not inferior to standard therapy. We summarized findings in the subgroup of patients with endocarditis according to the Duke criteria. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive daptomycin 6mg/kg/day or standard therapy (vancomycin 1g every 12h or antistaphylococcal penicillin 2g every 4h, both with gentamicin 1mg/kg every 8h for the first 4 days). The primary end point was success in the modified intent-to-treat population 6 weeks after the end of therapy.Results Fifty-three patients were included: 35 with right-sided endocarditis (RIE) and 18 with left-sided endocarditis (LIE). The success rates in patients with RIE were similar between daptomycin and the comparator (42% vs 44%). Patients with RIE with septic pulmonary infarcts responded similarly to treatment with daptomycin and standard therapy (60% vs 67%). In the LIE population, treatment success rates were poor in both arms (11% vs 22%).Conclusion Daptomycin is an efficacious and well-tolerated alternative to standard therapy in the treatment of RIE. Patients with LIE had a poor outcome regardless of the treatment received. Daptomycin is also effective in treating endocarditis with septic pulmonary infarcts (AU)

Introducción En un reciente ensayo aleatorizado sobre bacteriemia por Staphylococcus aureus y endocarditis de la válvula natural, daptomicina no resultó inferior a la terapéutica estándar. Resumimos los hallazgos en el subgrupo de pacientes con endocarditis según los criterios de Duke.MétodosLos pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a recibir daptomicina, 6mg/kg/día, o la terapéutica estándar (vancomicina 1g cada 12h o una penicilina antiestafilocócica 2g cada 4h, ambos con gentamicina 1mg/kg cada 8h, durante los 4 primeros días). La variable principal fue el éxito en la población modificada por intención de tratamiento 6 semanas después del final del tratamiento.Resultados El estudio incluyó a 53 pacientes: 35 con endocarditis infecciosa de las cavidades derechas (RIE) y 18 con endocarditis infecciosa de las cavidades izquierdas (LIE). En los pacientes con RIE, las tasas de éxito con daptomicina y el tratamiento de comparación fueron similares (42% frente a 44%). Los pacientes con RIE e infartos pulmonares sépticos respondieron de forma similar al tratamiento con daptomicina y con la terapéutica estándar (60% frente a 67%). En la población con LIE, las tasas de éxito fueron pobres con ambos brazos (11% frente a 22%).Conclusión Daptomicina es una alternativa eficaz y bien tolerada a la terapéutica estándar en el tratamiento de la RIE. Los pacientes con LIE tuvieron mal resultado, con independencia del tratamiento recibido. Daptomicina también es eficaz en el tratamiento de la endocarditis con infartos pulmonares sépticos (AU)

Daptomycin compared to standard therapy for the treatment of native valve endocarditis.

INTRODUCTION: In a recent randomized trial of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and native valve endocarditis, daptomycin was found not inferior to standard therapy. We summarized findings in the subgroup of patients with endocarditis according to the Duke criteria. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive daptomycin 6 mg/kg/day or standard therapy (vancomycin 1g every 12h or antistaphylococcal penicillin 2g every 4h, both with gentamicin 1mg/kg every 8h for the first 4 days). The primary end point was success in the modified intent-to-treat population 6 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included: 35 with right-sided endocarditis (RIE) and 18 with left-sided endocarditis (LIE). The success rates in patients with RIE were similar between daptomycin and the comparator (42% vs 44%). Patients with RIE with septic pulmonary infarcts responded similarly to treatment with daptomycin and standard therapy (60% vs 67%). In the LIE population, treatment success rates were poor in both arms (11% vs 22%). CONCLUSION: Daptomycin is an efficacious and well-tolerated alternative to standard therapy in the treatment of RIE. Patients with LIE had a poor outcome regardless of the treatment received. Daptomycin is also effective in treating endocarditis with septic pulmonary infarcts.

Initial low-dose gentamicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis is nephrotoxic.

BACKGROUND: The safety of adding initial low-dose gentamicin to antistaphylococcal penicillins or vancomycin for treatment of suspected Staphylococcus aureus native valve endocarditis is unknown. This study evaluated the association between this practice and nephrotoxicity. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of safety data from a randomized, controlled trial of therapy for S. aureus bacteremia and native valve infective endocarditis involving 236 patients from 44 hospitals in 4 countries. Patients either received standard therapy (antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin) plus initial low-dose gentamicin (n=116) or received daptomycin monotherapy (n = 120). We measured renal adverse events and clinically significant decreased creatinine clearance in patients (1) in the original randomized study arms and (2) who received any initial low-dose gentamicin either, as a study medication or or=65 years and receipt of any initial low-dose gentamicin. CONCLUSIONS: Initial low-dose gentamicin as part of therapy for S. aureus bacteremia and native valve infective endocarditis is nephrotoxic and should not be used routinely, given the minimal existing data supporting its benefit.

Daptomycin versus vancomycin plus gentamicin for treatment of bacteraemia and endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus: subset analysis of patients infected with methicillin-resistant isolates.

OBJECTIVES: In a prospective, randomized trial, daptomycin was non-inferior to standard therapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and right-sided endocarditis. Since rates of infection due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infection are increasing and treatment outcomes for bacteraemia caused by MRSA are generally worse than those observed with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteraemia, clinical characteristics and treatment results in the trial's pre-specified subset of patients with MRSA were analysed. METHODS: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving daptomycin were compared with those receiving vancomycin plus low-dose gentamicin. Success was defined as clinical improvement with clearance of bacteraemia among patients who completed adequate therapy, received no potentially effective non-study antibiotics and had negative blood cultures 6 weeks after end of therapy. RESULTS: Twenty of the 45 (44.4%) daptomycin patients and 14 of the 43 (32.6%) vancomycin/gentamicin patients were successfully treated (difference 11.9%; confidence interval -8.3 to 32.1). Success rates for daptomycin versus vancomycin/gentamicin were 45% versus 27% in complicated bacteraemia, 60% versus 45% in uncomplicated bacteraemia and 50% versus 50% in right-sided MRSA endocarditis. Cure rates in patients with septic emboli and in patients who received pre-enrolment vancomycin were similar between treatment groups. However, in both treatment groups, success rates were lower in the elderly (>/=75 years). Persisting or relapsing bacteraemia occurred in 27% of daptomycin and 21% of vancomycin/gentamicin patients; among these patients, MICs of >/=2 mg/L occurred in five daptomycin and four vancomycin/gentamicin patients. The clinical course of several patients may have been influenced by lack of surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin was an effective alternative to vancomycin/gentamicin for MRSA bacteraemia or right-sided endocarditis.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of daptomycin at doses up to 12 milligrams per kilogram of body weight once daily in healthy volunteers.

Daptomycin, a novel lipopeptide, is bactericidal against a broad range of gram-positive strains, including methicillin- (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Daptomycin is approved at 4 mg/kg of body weight given intravenously once daily for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections and at 6 mg/kg for the treatment of S. aureus bloodstream infections (bacteremia), including right-sided endocarditis caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus and MRSA. The present study was designed to evaluate the multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of daptomycin at doses of 6 to 12 mg/kg in healthy volunteers. Three cohorts of 12 subjects each were given daptomycin (10 mg/kg) or placebo once daily for 14 days, daptomycin (12 mg/kg) or placebo once daily for 14 days, or daptomycin (6 or 8 mg/kg) once daily for 4 days. Daptomycin produced dose-proportional increases in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and in trough daptomycin levels and nearly dose-proportional increases in peak daptomycin concentrations. Other pharmacokinetic parameters measured on day 1 and at steady state were independent of the dose, including the half-life (approximately 8 h), weight-normalized plasma clearance (9 to 10 ml/h/kg), and volume of distribution (approximately 100 ml/kg). Plasma protein binding was 90% to 93% and was independent of the daptomycin concentration. Daptomycin did not produce electrocardiographic abnormalities or electrophysiological evidence of muscle or nerve toxicity. Daptomycin was well tolerated in subjects dosed with up to 12 mg/kg intravenously for 14 days. Doses of daptomycin higher than 6 mg/kg once daily may be considered in further studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of daptomycin in difficult-to-treat infections.

Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Alternative therapies for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis are needed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 124 patients with S. aureus bacteremia with or without endocarditis to receive 6 mg of daptomycin intravenously per kilogram of body weight daily and 122 to receive initial low-dose gentamicin plus either an antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success 42 days after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Forty-two days after the end of therapy in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a successful outcome was documented for 53 of 120 patients who received daptomycin as compared with 48 of 115 patients who received standard therapy (44.2 percent vs. 41.7 percent; absolute difference, 2.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.2 to 15.1 percent). Our results met prespecified criteria for the noninferiority of daptomycin. The success rates were similar in subgroups of patients with complicated bacteremia, right-sided endocarditis, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Daptomycin therapy was associated with a higher rate of microbiologic failure than was standard therapy (19 vs. 11 patients, P=0.17). In 6 of the 19 patients with microbiologic failure in the daptomycin group, isolates with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin emerged; similarly, a reduced susceptibility to vancomycin was noted in isolates from patients treated with vancomycin. As compared with daptomycin therapy, standard therapy was associated with a nonsignificantly higher rate of adverse events that led to treatment failure due to the discontinuation of therapy (17 vs. 8, P=0.06). Clinically significant renal dysfunction occurred in 11.0 percent of patients who received daptomycin and in 26.3 percent of patients who received standard therapy (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin (6 mg per kilogram daily) is not inferior to standard therapy for S. aureus bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00093067 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).