A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Phase 2b Trial of P2X3 Receptor Antagonist Sivopixant for Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough.

INTRODUCTION: To determine the optimal dose of sivopixant, a highly selective P2X3 receptor antagonist, for refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC/UCC). METHODS: In this phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial, patients received sivopixant 50, 150, or 300 mg or placebo once daily for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change from baseline in 24-h cough frequency (coughs/h) with sivopixant vs placebo. RESULTS: Overall, 390/406 randomized patients completed the study. Placebo-adjusted changes in hourly cough count over 24 h were 13.17% (P = 0.3532), - 1.77% (P = 0.8935), and - 12.47% (P = 0.3241) and in cough severity (visual analog scale) were 1.75 mm (P = 0.5854), - 1.21 mm (P = 0.7056), and - 6.55 mm (P = 0.0433) with sivopixant 50, 150, and 300 mg, respectively. Placebo-adjusted changes from baseline in Leicester Cough Questionnaire total scores were - 0.37 (P = 0.4207), - 0.07 (P = 0.8806), and 0.69 (P = 0.1473) with sivopixant 50, 150, and 300 mg, respectively. Additionally, 61.3%, 78.3%, 86.8%, and 71.4% of patients receiving sivopixant 50, 150, and 300 mg and placebo, respectively, reported any improvements in Patient Global Impression of Change. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 25.7%, 32.0%, 49.0%, and 20.6% in sivopixant 50, 150, and 300 mg and placebo groups, respectively; all TEAEs in the sivopixant group were mild-to-moderate. CONCLUSION: Sivopixant did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference vs placebo in change from baseline in 24-h cough frequency. The dose of 300 mg has potential for RCC/UCC, showing the greatest improvements in cough frequency and patient-reported outcomes and dose-related mild to moderate reversible taste disturbance, although further trials are needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04110054; registered September 26, 2019.

Randomised trial of the P2X3 receptor antagonist sivopixant for refractory chronic cough.

BACKGROUND: The purinoceptor subtype P2X3 has been shown to have significant involvement in the cough reflex; the heterotrimer version of the purinoceptor (P2X2/3) has been implicated in taste disturbance. The most advanced clinical candidate antagonist gefapixant has low selectivity among P2X3 receptors and induced taste disturbance, whereas newly developed sivopixant has high selectivity towards P2X3 versus P2X2/3. METHODS: In a phase 2a, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, multicentre study, adult patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough received oral sivopixant 150 mg or placebo once daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 2-3-week washout period, and then crossed over to placebo or sivopixant for 2 weeks. Efficacy and safety of sivopixant were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 31 randomised patients, 15 in the sivopixant-first group and 15 in the placebo-first group completed the study. After 2 weeks of treatment, the placebo-adjusted ratios of the average hourly number of coughs to baseline during daytime (primary end-point) and over 24 h (secondary end-point) were -31.6% (p=0.0546) and -30.9% (p=0.0386), respectively. Sivopixant also improved health-related quality of life. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% and 3.2% of patients during sivopixant and placebo administration, respectively. Mild taste disturbance occurred in two patients (6.5%) during sivopixant administration. CONCLUSIONS: Sivopixant reduced objective cough frequency and improved health-related quality of life, with a low incidence of taste disturbance, among patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.

Effect of Cefiderocol, a Siderophore Cephalosporin, on QT/QTc Interval in Healthy Adult Subjects.

PURPOSE: Cefiderocol is a novel siderophore cephalosporin with potent activity against gram-negative bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains. This Phase I study was conducted to assess the tolerability of single-ascending doses of cefiderocol (part 1) and the effect of cefiderocol on cardiac repolarization, assessed using the electrocardiographic corrected QT interval (QTcF) and other ECG parameters (part 2), in healthy adult subjects. METHODS: Part 1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending dose study in healthy adult male and female subjects. Part 2 was a 4-period crossover study in which subjects received a single 2-g dose of cefiderocol (therapeutic dose), a single 4-g dose of cefiderocol (supratherapeutic dose), or saline (placebo), each infused over 3 hours, and a single oral 400-mg dose of moxifloxacin. In each treatment period, continuous cardiac monitoring was used to assess the effects of cefiderocol on ECG parameters. The QT interval corrected using the Fridericia formula (QTcF) was the primary ECG parameter; the time-matched placebo- and baseline-adjusted (dd)-QTcF interval was the primary end point. The plasma pharmacokinetic properties of cefiderocol were calculated on the basis of concentration-time profiles in all evaluable subjects. FINDINGS: All point estimates for the ddQTcF interval were <5 ms and the upper bound of the 90% CIs were <10 ms at each timepoint after the initiation of the cefiderocol 3-hour infusion. Concentration-effect modeling showed a slightly negative slope and predicted modestly negative values of the ddQTcF interval at the Cmax of cefiderocol. Both doses of cefiderocol were well tolerated. All adverse events were mild in severity, with no deaths or serious adverse events reported. IMPLICATIONS: Overall, therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of cefiderocol had no apparent clinically significant effect on the QTcF.

Cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by Gram-negative uropathogens: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria represent the highest priority for addressing global antibiotic resistance. Cefiderocol (S-649266), a new siderophore cephalosporin, has broad activity against Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, including carbapenem-resistant strains. We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in patients at risk of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. METHODS: We did a phase 2, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group non-inferiority trial at 67 hospitals in 15 countries. Adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis or those with acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis were randomly assigned (2:1) by an interactive web or voice response system to receive 1 h intravenous infusions of cefiderocol (2 g) or imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) three times daily, every 8 h for 7-14 days. Patients were excluded if they had a baseline urine culture with more than two uropathogens, a fungal urinary tract infection, or pathogens known to be carbapenem resistant. The primary endpoint was the composite of clinical and microbiological outcomes at test of cure (ie, 7 days after treatment cessation), which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% and 20% margins) of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug and had a qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug, according to the treatment they received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02321800. FINDINGS: Between Feb 5, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016, 452 patients were randomly assigned to cefiderocol (n=303) or imipenem-cilastatin (n=149), of whom 448 patients (n=300 in the cefiderocol group; n=148 in the imipenem-cilastatin group) received treatment. 371 patients (n=252 patients in the cefiderocol group; n=119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group) had qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 CFU/mL) and were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At test of cure, the primary efficacy endpoint was achieved by 183 (73%) of 252 patients in the cefiderocol group and 65 (55%) of 119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with an adjusted treatment difference of 18·58% (95% CI 8·23-28·92; p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of cefiderocol. Cefiderocol was well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 122 (41%) of 300 patients in the cefiderocol group and 76 (51%) of 148 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with gastrointestinal disorders (ie, diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) the most common adverse events for both treatment groups (35 [12%] patients in the cefiderocol group and 27 [18%] patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group). INTERPRETATION: Intravenous infusion of cefiderocol (2 g) three times daily was non-inferior compared with imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in people with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. The results of this study will provide the basis for submission of a New Drug Application to the US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials of hospital-acquired pneumonia and carbapenem-resistant infections are ongoing. FUNDING: Shionogi & Co Ltd, Shionogi Inc.

Missing CD4+ cell response in randomized clinical trials of maraviroc and dolutegravir.

BACKGROUND: Missing data can compromise inferences from clinical trials, yet the topic has received little attention in the clinical trial community. Shortcomings in commonly used methods used to analyze studies with missing data (complete case, last- or baseline-observation carried forward) have been highlighted in a recent Food and Drug Administration-sponsored report. This report recommends how to mitigate the issues associated with missing data. We present an example of the proposed concepts using data from recent clinical trials. METHODS: CD4+ cell count data from the previously reported SINGLE and MOTIVATE studies of dolutegravir and maraviroc were analyzed using a variety of statistical methods to explore the impact of missing data. Four methodologies were used: complete case analysis, simple imputation, mixed models for repeated measures, and multiple imputation. We compared the sensitivity of conclusions to the volume of missing data and to the assumptions underpinning each method. RESULTS: Rates of missing data were greater in the MOTIVATE studies (35%-68% premature withdrawal) than in SINGLE (12%-20%). The sensitivity of results to assumptions about missing data was related to volume of missing data. Estimates of treatment differences by various analysis methods ranged across a 61 cells/mm3 window in MOTIVATE and a 22 cells/mm3 window in SINGLE. CONCLUSIONS: Where missing data are anticipated, analyses require robust statistical and clinical debate of the necessary but unverifiable underlying statistical assumptions. Multiple imputation makes these assumptions transparent, can accommodate a broad range of scenarios, and is a natural analysis for clinical trials in HIV with missing data.