Eptacog beta efficacy and safety in the treatment and control of bleeding in paediatric subjects (<12 years) with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Eptacog beta is a new recombinant activated human factor VII bypassing agent approved in the United States for the treatment and control of bleeding in patients with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors 12 years of age or older. AIM: To prospectively assess in a phase 3 clinical trial (PERSEPT 2) eptacog beta efficacy and safety for treatment of bleeding in children <12 years of age with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors. METHODS: Using a randomised crossover design, subjects received initial doses of 75 or 225 µg/kg eptacog beta followed by 75 µg/kg dosing at predefined intervals (as determined by clinical response) to treat bleeding episodes (BEs). Treatment success criteria included a haemostasis evaluation of 'excellent' or 'good' without use of additional eptacog beta, alternative haemostatic agent or blood product, and no increase in pain following the first 'excellent' or 'good' assessment. RESULTS: Treatment success proportions in 25 subjects (1-11 years) who experienced 546 mild or moderate BEs were 65% in the 75 µg/kg initial dose regimen (IDR) and 60% in the 225 µg/kg IDR 12 h following initial eptacog beta infusion. By 24 h, the treatment success proportions were 97% for the 75 µg/kg IDR and 98% for the 225 µg/kg IDR. No thrombotic events, allergic reactions, neutralising antibodies or treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Both 75 and 225 µg/kg eptacog beta IDRs provided safe and effective treatment and control of bleeding in children <12 years of age.

Global Seroprevalence of Pre-existing Immunity Against AAV5 and Other AAV Serotypes in People with Hemophilia A.

Adeno-associated virus (AAV)-mediated gene therapy may provide durable protection from bleeding events and reduce treatment burden for people with hemophilia A (HA). However, pre-existing immunity against AAV may limit transduction efficiency and hence treatment success. Global data on the prevalence of AAV serotypes are limited. In this global, prospective, noninterventional study, we determined the prevalence of pre-existing immunity against AAV2, AAV5, AAV6, AAV8, and AAVrh10 among people ≥12 years of age with HA and residual FVIII levels ≤2 IU/dL. Antibodies against each serotype were detected using validated, electrochemiluminescent-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. To evaluate changes in antibody titers over time, 20% of participants were retested at 3 and 6 months. In total, 546 participants with HA were enrolled at 19 sites in 9 countries. Mean (standard deviation) age at enrollment was 36.0 (14.87) years, including 12.5% younger than 18 years, and 20.0% 50 years of age and older. On day 1, global seroprevalence was 58.5% for AAV2, 34.8% for AAV5, 48.7% for AAV6, 45.6% for AAV8, and 46.0% for AAVrh10. Considerable geographic variability was observed in the prevalence of pre-existing antibodies against each serotype, but AAV5 consistently had the lowest seroprevalence across the countries studied. AAV5 seropositivity rates were 51.8% in South Africa (n = 56), 46.2% in Russia (n = 91), 40% in Italy (n = 20), 37.2% in France (n = 86), 26.8% in the United States (n = 71), 26.9% in Brazil (n = 26), 28.1% in Germany (n = 89), 29.8% in Japan (n = 84), and 5.9% in the United Kingdom (n = 17). For all serotypes, seropositivity tended to increase with age. Serostatus and antibody titer were generally stable over the 6-month sampling period. As clinical trials of AAV-mediated gene therapies progress, data on the natural prevalence of antibodies against various AAV serotypes may become increasingly important.

The safety of activated eptacog beta in the management of bleeding episodes and perioperative haemostasis in adult and paediatric haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia patients with inhibitors often require a bypassing agent (BPA) for bleeding episode management. Eptacog beta (EB) is a new FDA-approved recombinant activated human factor VII BPA for the treatment and control of bleeding in haemophilia A or B patients with inhibitors (≥12 years of age). We describe here the EB safety profile from the three prospective Phase 3 clinical trials performed to date. AIM: To assess EB safety, immunogenicity and thrombotic potential in children and adults who received EB for treatment of bleeding and perioperative care. METHODS: Using a randomized crossover design, 27 subjects in PERSEPT 1 (12-54 years) and 25 subjects in PERSEPT 2 (1-11 years) treated bleeding episodes with 75 or 225 µg/kg EB initially followed by 75 µg/kg dosing at predefined intervals as determined by clinical response. Twelve PERSEPT 3 subjects (2-56 years) received an initial preoperative infusion of 75 µg/kg (minor procedures) or 200 µg/kg EB (major surgeries) with subsequent 75 µg/kg doses administered intraoperatively and post-operatively as indicated. Descriptive statistics were used for data analyses. RESULTS: Sixty subjects who received 3388 EB doses in three trials were evaluated. EB was well tolerated, with no allergic, hypersensitivity, anaphylactic or thrombotic events reported and no neutralizing anti-EB antibodies detected. A death occurred during PERSEPT 3 and was determined to be unlikely related to EB treatment by the data monitoring committee. CONCLUSION: Results from all three Phase 3 trials establish an excellent safety profile of EB in haemophilia A or B patients with inhibitors for treatment of bleeding and perioperative use.

PERSEPT 3: A phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the haemostatic efficacy of eptacog beta (recombinant human FVIIa) in perioperative care in subjects with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical procedures in persons with haemophilia A or B with inhibitors (PwHABI) require the use of bypassing agents (BPA) and carry a high risk of complications. Historically, only two BPAs have been available; these are reported to have variable responses. AIM: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new bypassing agent, human recombinant factor VIIa (eptacog beta) in elective surgical procedures in PwHABI in a phase 3 clinical trial, PERSEPT 3. METHODS: Subjects were administered 200 µg/kg (major procedures) or 75 µg/kg eptacog beta (minor procedures) immediately prior to the initial surgical incision; subsequent 75 µg/kg doses were administered to achieve postoperative haemostasis and wound healing. Efficacy was assessed on a 4-point haemostatic scale during the intra- and postoperative periods. Anti-drug antibodies, thrombotic events and changes in clinical/laboratory parameters were monitored throughout the perioperative period. RESULTS: Twelve subjects underwent six major and six minor procedures. The primary efficacy endpoint success proportion was 100% (95% CI: 47.8%-100%) for minor procedures and 66.7% (95% CI: 22.3%-95.7%) for major procedures; 81.8% (95% CI: 48.2%-97.7%) of the procedures were considered successful using eptacog beta. There was one death due to bleeding from a nonsurgical site; this was assessed as unlikely related to eptacog beta. No thrombotic events or anti-eptacog beta antibodies were reported. CONCLUSION: Two eptacog beta dosing regimens in PwHABI undergoing major and minor surgical procedures were well-tolerated, and the majority of procedures were successful based on surgeon/investigator assessments. Eptacog beta offers clinicians a new potential therapeutic option for procedures in PwHABI.

Omadacycline for Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Omadacycline, a new once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic agent that can be administered intravenously or orally, reaches high concentrations in pulmonary tissues and is active against common pathogens that cause community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (Pneumonia Severity Index risk class II, III, or IV) to receive omadacycline (100 mg intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg intravenously every 24 hours), or moxifloxacin (400 mg intravenously every 24 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours), respectively, was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was early clinical response, defined as survival with improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, sputum production, pleuritic chest pain, and dyspnea) and no worsening of symptoms at 72 to 120 hours, without receipt of rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was investigator-assessed clinical response at a post-treatment evaluation 5 to 10 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. A noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points was used. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 386 patients in the omadacycline group and 388 patients in the moxifloxacin group. Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for early clinical response (81.1% and 82.7%, respectively; difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 3.8), and the rates of investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation were 87.6% and 85.1%, respectively (difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 7.4). Adverse events that emerged after treatment initiation were reported in 41.1% of the patients in the omadacycline group and 48.5% of the patients in the moxifloxacin group; the most frequent events were gastrointestinal (10.2% and 18.0%, respectively), and the largest difference was for diarrhea (1.0% and 8.0%). Twelve deaths (8 in the omadacycline group and 4 in the moxifloxacin group) occurred during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OPTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02531438 .).

Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of maraviroc in treatment-experienced pediatric patients Infected with CCR5-tropic HIV-1

BACKGROUND: Maraviroc is a CC-chemokine receptor 5 antagonist approved to treat adults infected with CC-chemokine receptor 5-tropic (R5) HIV-1. Study A4001031 was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of maraviroc in combination with optimized background therapy in treatment-experienced pediatric patients infected with R5 HIV-1 and support registration of maraviroc for pediatric use. METHODS: This is an open-label, 2-stage, age-stratified, noncomparative multicenter study. One-hundred and three participants were enrolled into 4 age/formulation cohorts and dosed twice daily. Initial doses were determined by body surface area and optimized background therapy, based on drug interactions with maraviroc in adults. Dose adjustment and pharmacokinetic reevaluation occurred if the average concentrations (Cavg) at Week 2 were <100 ng/mL (Stage 1-dose finding). RESULTS: Data from the Week 48 analysis demonstrated that 49/50 Stage 1 participants rolling over into Stage 2 (safety and efficacy) achieved Cavg ≥100 ng/mL. Doses were identified that achieved similar concentration ranges to those seen in adults. The majority (90/103) received optimized background therapy containing potent cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors. Maraviroc was well tolerated and the safety and efficacy were comparable to those of adults. All cohorts had a mean decrease from baseline in HIV-1 RNA of >1 log10. Increases from baseline in the median CD4+ cell count and percentage were seen for all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The maraviroc dosing strategy resulted in participants achieving the target Cavg, with exposure ranges similar to those observed in adults on approved doses. The safety and efficacy of maraviroc in this pediatric population were comparable to those seen in adults

Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Efficacy of Maraviroc in Treatment-experienced Pediatric Patients Infected With CCR5-Tropic HIV-1.

BACKGROUND: Maraviroc is a CC-chemokine receptor 5 antagonist approved to treat adults infected with CC-chemokine receptor 5-tropic (R5) HIV-1. Study A4001031 was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of maraviroc in combination with optimized background therapy in treatment-experienced pediatric patients infected with R5 HIV-1 and support registration of maraviroc for pediatric use. METHODS: This is an open-label, 2-stage, age-stratified, noncomparative multicenter study. One-hundred and three participants were enrolled into 4 age/formulation cohorts and dosed twice daily. Initial doses were determined by body surface area and optimized background therapy, based on drug interactions with maraviroc in adults. Dose adjustment and pharmacokinetic reevaluation occurred if the average concentrations (Cavg) at Week 2 were <100 ng/mL (Stage 1-dose finding). RESULTS: Data from the Week 48 analysis demonstrated that 49/50 Stage 1 participants rolling over into Stage 2 (safety and efficacy) achieved Cavg ≥100 ng/mL. Doses were identified that achieved similar concentration ranges to those seen in adults. The majority (90/103) received optimized background therapy containing potent cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors. Maraviroc was well tolerated and the safety and efficacy were comparable to those of adults. All cohorts had a mean decrease from baseline in HIV-1 RNA of >1 log10. Increases from baseline in the median CD4+ cell count and percentage were seen for all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The maraviroc dosing strategy resulted in participants achieving the target Cavg, with exposure ranges similar to those observed in adults on approved doses. The safety and efficacy of maraviroc in this pediatric population were comparable to those seen in adults.

Efficacy and safety of oral solithromycin versus oral moxifloxacin for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: a global, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial (SOLITAIRE-ORAL).

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and treatment recommendations, each with specific limitations, vary globally. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of solithromycin, a novel macrolide, with moxifloxacin for treatment of CABP. METHODS: We did this global, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin America, Europe, and South Africa. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with clinically and radiographically confirmed pneumonia of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based central block randomisation procedure (block size of four), to receive either oral solithromycin (800 mg on day 1, 400 mg on days 2-5, placebo on days 6-7) or oral moxifloxacin (400 mg on days 1-7). Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, PORT risk class (II vs III or IV), and medical history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study sponsor, investigators, staff, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was early clinical response, defined as an improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, chest pain, sputum production, dyspnoea) with no worsening in any symptom at 72 h after the first dose of study drug, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT-01756339. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2013, and Sept 24, 2014, we randomly assigned 860 patients to receive solithromycin (n=426) or moxifloxacin (n=434). Patients were followed up to days 28-35 after first dose. Solithromycin was non-inferior to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response: 333 (78·2%) patients had an early clinical response in the solithromycin group versus 338 (77·9%) patients in the moxifloxacin group (difference 0·29, 95% CI -5·5 to 6·1). Both drugs had a similar safety profile. 43 (10%) of 155 treatment-emergent adverse events in the solithromycin group and 54 (13%) of 154 such events in the moxifloxacin group were deemed to be related to study drug. The most common adverse events, mostly of mild severity, were gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhoea (18 [4%] patients in the solithromycin group vs 28 [6%] patients in the moxifloxacin group), nausea (15 [4%] vs 17 [4%] patients) and vomiting (ten [2%] patients in each group); and nervous system disorders, including headache (19 [4%] vs 11 [3%] patients) and dizziness (nine [2%] vs seven [2%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Oral solithromycin was non-inferior to oral moxifloxacin for treatment of patients with CABP, showing the potential to restore macrolide monotherapy for this indication. FUNDING: Cempra.

Ozenoxacin 1% cream in the treatment of impetigo: a multicenter, randomized, placebo- and retapamulin-controlled clinical trial.

AIM: We compared the efficacy and safety of ozenoxacin (a new nonfluorinated quinolone) 1% cream with placebo in the treatment of impetigo. PATIENTS & METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study, patients received ozenoxacin cream or placebo cream twice daily for 5 days (a third group received retapamulin 1% ointment as a control). Clinical, microbiological and laboratory evaluations were performed during follow-up (over 2 weeks). RESULTS: Ozenoxacin was superior to placebo (success rate 34.8 vs 19.2%; p = 0.003). Microbiological success was 70.8% for ozenoxacin and 38.2% for placebo after 3-4 days and 79.2% versus 56.6% after 6-7 days. Ozenoxacin produced more rapid microbiological clearance than retapamulin. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Ozenoxacin 1% cream was effective and safe in the treatment of impetigo.

Immunogenicity and safety of an investigational fully liquid hexavalent combination vaccine versus licensed combination vaccines at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age in healthy South African infants.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of primary vaccination of a new fully liquid, hexavalent investigational DTaP-IPV-Hep B-PRP-T vaccine (Hexaxim) in South African infants. METHODS: Infants were randomized to the following at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age (Expanded Program on Immunization schedule): DTaP-IPV-Hep B-PRP-T (Group 1; N = 286); DTwP-Hib, hepatitis B, and OPV vaccines (Group 2; N = 286); or DTaP-IPV-Hep B-PRP-T vaccine with hepatitis B vaccine at birth (Group 3; N = 143). Antibody titers were measured before vaccination (pertussis toxoid, filamentous hemagglutinin) and postprimary vaccination (all valences). Noninferiority analyses were performed for Group 1 versus Group 2 for seroprotection rates. Safety was evaluated from parental reports. RESULTS: Noninferiority (Group 1 minus Group 2) was demonstrated for anti-HBs, -PRP, -diphtheria, -tetanus, and -polio 1, 2, 3 (lower 95% confidence interval for the difference was -8.20 to 3.46). Anti-HBs antibody titers ≥10 mIU/mL and anti-PRP ≥0.15 µg/mL were ≥95.4% in each group. Seroprotection rates were also high for the other antigens. Seroconversion rates (4-fold increase from pre- to postvaccination) were 93.6%, 83.2%, and 95.1% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for anti-pertussis toxoid and 93.1%, 57.7%, and 90.0% for anti-filamentous hemagglutinin. Anti-HBs GMTs were 330, 148, and 1913 mIU/mL for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Reactogenicity was similar in each group. Fever ≥39.0°C occurred in 1.7%, 0.4%, and 0.0% of infants in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; no extensive limb swelling, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, or vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The new, fully liquid, investigational hexavalent vaccine in the Expanded Program on Immunization schedule, with/without hepatitis B at birth, is highly immunogenic and safe compared with control vaccines, warranting further development.

Randomized, comparative, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial of miconazole buccal tablet and clotrimazole troches for the treatment of oropharyngeal candidiasis: study of miconazole Lauriad® efficacy and safety (SMiLES).

BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC) is the most common opportunistic infection among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Once-daily miconazole 50 mg buccal tablet (MBT) is a novel delivery system using an extended-spectrum azole with potent in vitro activity against many Candida species, including some that may be resistant to other azoles. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial evaluated 578 randomized patients with HIV infection and OPC. The study compared the efficacy and safety of MBT once daily with clotrimazole 10 mg troches (CT) 5 times daily for 14 days. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were clinical cure at test of cure (TOC) visit (days 17-22) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) populations. RESULTS: Clinical cure rate at TOC visit for MBT-treated patients was statistically noninferior to CT-treated patients in both the ITT (61% vs 65%) and PP (68% vs 74%) populations. Secondary endpoints, safety, and tolerability were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this large trial, once-daily MBT was shown to be noninferior to CT 5 times daily in the treatment of OPC in HIV-positive patients. MBT offers an effective, safe, and well-tolerated topical treatment option for OPC administered as a convenient once-daily dose.

Efficacy and safety of nemonoxacin versus levofloxacin for community-acquired pneumonia.

Nemonoxacin, a novel nonfluorinated quinolone, exhibits potent in vitro and in vivo activities against community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens, including multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Patients with mild to moderate CAP (n = 265) were randomized to receive oral nemonoxacin (750 mg or 500 mg) or levofloxacin (500 mg) once daily for 7 days. Clinical responses were determined at the test-of-cure visit in intent-to-treat (ITT), clinical per protocol (PPc), evaluable-ITT, and evaluable-PPc populations. The clinical cure rates for 750 mg nemonoxacin, 500 mg nemonoxacin, and levofloxacin were 89.9%, 87.0%, and 91.1%, respectively, in the evaluable-ITT population; 91.7%, 87.7%, and 90.3%, respectively, in the evaluable-PPc population; 82.6%, 75.3%, and 80.0%, respectively, in the ITT population; and 83.5%, 78.0%, and 82.3%, respectively, in the PPc population. Noninferiority to levofloxacin was demonstrated in both the 750-mg and 500-mg nemonoxacin groups for the evaluable-ITT and evaluable-PPc populations, and also in the 750 mg nemonoxacin group for the ITT and PPc populations. Overall bacteriological success rates were high for all treatment groups in the evaluable-bacteriological ITT population (90.2% in the 750 mg nemonoxacin group, 84.8% in the 500 mg nemonoxacin group, and 92.0% in the levofloxacin group). All three treatments were well tolerated, and no drug-related serious adverse events were observed. Overall, oral nemonoxacin (both 750 mg and 500 mg) administered for 7 days resulted in high clinical and bacteriological success rates in CAP patients. Further, good tolerability and excellent activity against common causative pathogens were demonstrated. Nemonoxacin (750 mg and 500 mg) once daily is as effective and safe as levofloxacin (500 mg) once daily for the treatment of CAP.

Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide (a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) to metformin were compared with addition of placebo or glimepiride to metformin in subjects previously treated with oral antidiabetes (OAD) therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group trial, 1,091 subjects were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1:2) to once-daily liraglutide (either 0.6, 1.2, or 1.8 mg/day injected subcutaneously), to placebo, or to glimepiride (4 mg once daily). All treatments were in combination therapy with metformin (1g twice daily). Enrolled subjects (aged 25-79 years) had type 2 diabetes, A1C of 7-11% (previous OAD monotherapy for > or =3 months) or 7-10% (previous OAD combination therapy for > or =3 months), and BMI < or =40 kg/m(2). RESULTS: A1C values were significantly reduced in all liraglutide groups versus the placebo group (P < 0.0001) with mean decreases of 1.0% for 1.8 mg liraglutide, 1.2 mg liraglutide, and glimepiride and 0.7% for 0.6 mg liraglutide and an increase of 0.1% for placebo. Body weight decreased in all liraglutide groups (1.8-2.8 kg) compared with an increase in the glimepiride group (1.0 kg; P < 0.0001). The incidence of minor hypoglycemia with liraglutide ( approximately 3%) was comparable to that with placebo but less than that with glimepiride (17%; P < 0.001). Nausea was reported by 11-19% of the liraglutide-treated subjects versus 3-4% in the placebo and glimepiride groups. The incidence of nausea declined over time. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with type 2 diabetes, once-daily liraglutide induced similar glycemic control, reduced body weight, and lowered the occurrence of hypoglycemia compared with glimepiride, when both had background therapy of metformin.