Outcomes by Candida spp. in the ReSTORE Phase 3 trial of rezafungin versus caspofungin for candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis.

Rezafungin is a long-acting, intravenously administered echinocandin for the treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis (IC). Non-inferiority of rezafungin vs caspofungin for the treatment of adults with candidemia and/or IC was demonstrated in the Phase 3 ReSTORE study based on the primary endpoints of day 14 global cure and 30-day all-cause mortality. Here, an analysis of ReSTORE data evaluating efficacy outcomes by baseline Candida species is described. Susceptibility testing was performed for Candida species using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference broth microdilution method. There were 93 patients in the modified intent-to-treat population who received rezafungin; 94 received caspofungin. Baseline Candida species distribution was similar in the two treatment groups; C. albicans (occurring in 41.9% and 42.6% of patients in the rezafungin and caspofungin groups, respectively), C. glabrata (25.8% and 26.6%), and C. tropicalis (21.5% and 18.1%) were the most common pathogens. Rates of global cure and mycological eradication at day 14 and day 30 all-cause mortality by Candida species were comparable in the rezafungin and caspofungin treatment groups and did not appear to be impacted by minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for either rezafungin or caspofungin. Two patients had baseline isolates with non-susceptible MIC values (both in the rezafungin group: one non-susceptible to rezafungin and one to caspofungin, classified as intermediate); both were candidemia-only patients in whom rezafungin treatment was successful based on the day 30 all-cause mortality endpoint. This analysis of ReSTORE demonstrated the efficacy of rezafungin for candidemia and IC in patients infected with a variety of Candida species.

Exebacase in Addition to Standard-of-Care Antibiotics for Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections and Right-Sided Infective Endocarditis: A Phase 3, Superiority-Design, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial (DISRUPT).

BACKGROUND: Novel treatments are needed for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, particularly for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Exebacase is a first-in-class antistaphylococcal lysin that is rapidly bactericidal and synergizes with antibiotics. METHODS: In DISRUPT, a superiority-design phase 3 study, patients with S. aureus bacteremia/endocarditis were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of IV exebacase or placebo in addition to standard-of-care antibiotics. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical response at Day 14 in the MRSA population. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients were randomized before the study was stopped for futility based on the recommendation of the unblinded Data Safety Monitoring Board. Clinical response rates at Day 14 in the MRSA population (n = 97) were 50.0% (exebacase + antibiotics; 32/64) vs. 60.6% (antibiotics alone; 20/33) (P = 0.392). Overall, rates of adverse events were similar across groups. No adverse events of hypersensitivity related to exebacase were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Exebacase + antibiotics failed to improve clinical response at Day 14 in patients with MRSA bacteremia/endocarditis. This result was unexpected based on phase 2 data that established proof-of-concept for exebacase + antibiotics in patients with MRSA bacteremia/endocarditis. In the antibiotics alone group, the clinical response rate was higher than that seen in phase 2. Heterogeneity within the study population and a relatively small sample size in either the phase 2 or phase 3 studies may have increased the probability of imbalances in the multiple components of Day 14 clinical outcome. This study provides lessons for future superiority studies in S. aureus bacteremia/endocarditis.

Efficacy and safety of rezafungin and caspofungin in candidaemia and invasive candidiasis: pooled data from two prospective randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Rezafungin, a new US Food and Drug Administration-approved, long-acting echinocandin to treat candidaemia and invasive candidiasis, was efficacious with a similar safety profile to caspofungin in clinical trials. We conducted pooled analyses of the phase 2 STRIVE and phase 3 ReSTORE rezafungin trials. METHODS: ReSTORE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial conducted at 66 tertiary care centres in 15 countries. STRIVE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 2 trial conducted at 44 centres in 10 countries. Adults (≥18 years) with candidaemia or invasive candidiasis were treated with once-a-week intravenous rezafungin (400 mg and 200 mg) or once-a-day intravenous caspofungin (70 mg and 50 mg). Efficacy was evaluated in a pooled modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population. Primary efficacy endpoint was day 30 all-cause mortality (tested for non-inferiority with a pre-specified margin of 20%). Secondary efficacy endpoint was mycological response. Safety was also evaluated. The STRIVE and ReSTORE trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02734862 and NCT03667690, and both studies are complete. FINDINGS: ReSTORE was conducted from Oct 12, 2018, to Oct 11, 2021, and STRIVE from July 26, 2016, to April 18, 2019. The mITT population, pooling the data from the two trials, comprised 139 patients for rezafungin and 155 patients for caspofungin. Day 30 all-cause mortality rates were comparable between groups (19% [26 of 139] for the rezafungin group and 19% [30 of 155] for the caspofungin group) and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the weighted treatment difference was below 10% (-1·5% [95% CI -10·7 to 7·7]). Mycological eradication occurred by day 5 in 102 (73%) of 139 rezafungin patients and 100 (65%) of 155 caspofungin patients (weighted treatment difference 10·0% [95% CI -0·3 to 20·4]). Safety profiles were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Rezafungin was non-inferior to caspofungin for all-cause mortality, with a potential early treatment benefit, possibly reflecting rezafungin's front-loaded dosing regimen. These findings are of clinical importance in fighting active and aggressive infections and reducing the morbidity and mortality caused by candidaemia and invasive candidiasis. FUNDING: Melinta Therapeutics and Cidara Therapeutics.

Efficacy and Safety of Adintrevimab (ADG20) for the Treatment of High-Risk Ambulatory Patients With Mild or Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a Phase 2/3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial (STAMP) Conducted During Delta Predominance and Early Emergence of Omicron.

Background: Safe and effective treatments are needed to prevent severe outcomes in individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We report results from STAMP, a phase 2/3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adintrevimab, an extended half-life monoclonal antibody, for treatment of high-risk ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Methods: Nonhospitalized, unvaccinated participants aged ≥12 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 and ≥1 risk factor for disease progression were randomized to receive a single intramuscular injection of 300 mg adintrevimab or placebo. Enrollment was paused due to the global emergence of the Omicron BA.1/BA1.1 variants, against which adintrevimab showed reduced activity in vitro. The primary efficacy endpoint was COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause death through day 29 in participants with COVID-19 due to laboratory-confirmed or suspected non-Omicron severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants. Results: Between 8 August 2021 and 11 January 2022, 399 participants were randomized to receive adintrevimab (n = 198) or placebo (n = 201), including 336 with COVID-19 due to non-Omicron variants. COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause death through day 29 occurred in 8 of 169 (4.7%) participants in the adintrevimab group and 23 of 167 (13.8%) participants in the placebo group, a 66% relative risk reduction in favor of adintrevimab (standardized risk difference, -8.7% [95% confidence interval, -14.71% to -2.67%]; P = .0047). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar between treatment groups (33.9% for adintrevimab and 39.5% for placebo). No adintrevimab-related serious TEAEs were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with a single intramuscular injection of adintrevimab provided protection against severe outcomes in high-risk ambulatory participants with COVID-19 due to susceptible variants, without safety concerns. Clinical Trial Registration. NCT04805671.

Sulopenem for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections Including Pyelonephritis: A Phase 3, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sulopenem is a thiopenem antibiotic being developed for the treatment of multidrug-resistant infections. The availability of both intravenous (IV) and oral formulations will facilitate earlier hospital discharge. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with pyuria, bacteriuria, and signs and symptoms of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) were randomized to 5 days of IV sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid or 5 days of IV ertapenem followed by oral ciprofloxacin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, depending on uropathogen susceptibility. The primary end point was overall combined clinical and microbiologic response at the test-of-cure visit (day 21). RESULTS: Of 1392 treated patients, 444 and 440 treated with sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, had a positive baseline urine culture and were eligible for the primary efficacy analyses. Extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing organisms were identified in 26.6% of patients and fluoroquinolone-nonsusceptible pathogens in 38.6%. For the primary end point, noninferiority of sulopenem to the comparator regimen was not demonstrated, 67.8% vs 73.9% (difference, -6.1%; 95% confidence interval, -12.0 to -.1%). The difference was driven by a lower rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the subgroup of ertapenem-treated patients who stepped down to ciprofloxacin. No substantial difference in overall response was observed at any other time point. Both IV and oral formulations of sulopenem were well-tolerated and compared favorably to the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem-etzadroxil/probenecid was not noninferior to ertapenem followed by oral step-down therapy for the treatment of cUTIs, driven by a lower rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in those who received ciprofloxacin. Both formulations of sulopenem were well-tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03357614.

Sulopenem or Ciprofloxacin for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Phase 3, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) caused by resistant pathogens. Sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid (sulopenem) is an oral thiopenem antibiotic active against multidrug-resistant pathogens that cause uUTIs. METHODS: Patients with uUTI were randomized to 5 days of sulopenem or 3 days of ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as both clinical and microbiologic response at day 12. In patients with ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible baseline pathogens, sulopenem was compared for superiority over ciprofloxacin; in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, the agents were compared for noninferiority. Using prespecified hierarchical statistical testing, the primary endpoint was tested in the combined population if either superiority or noninferiority was declared in the nonsusceptible or susceptible population, respectively. RESULTS: In the nonsusceptible population, sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin, 62.6% vs 36.0% (difference, 26.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.1 to 7.4; P <.001). In the susceptible population, sulopenem was not noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 66.8% vs 78.6% (difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -18.0 to 5.6). The difference was driven by a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) post-treatment in patients on sulopenem. In the combined analysis, sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin, 65.6% vs 67.9% (difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 3.3). Diarrhea occurred more frequently with sulopenem (12.4% vs 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem was noninferior to ciprofloxacin in the treatment of uUTIs. Sulopenem was superior to ciprofloxacin in patients with uUTIs due to ciprofloxacin-nonsusceptible pathogens. Sulopenem was not noninferior in patients with ciprofloxacin-susceptible pathogens, driven largely by a lower rate of ASB in those who received ciprofloxacin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03354598.

Rezafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (ReSTORE): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rezafungin is a next-generation, once-a-week echinocandin in development for the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis and for the prevention of invasive fungal disease caused by Candida, Aspergillus, and Pneumocystis spp after blood and marrow transplantation. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous rezafungin versus intravenous caspofungin in patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis. METHODS: ReSTORE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial done at 66 tertiary care centres in 15 countries. Adults (≥18 years) with systemic signs and mycological confirmation of candidaemia or invasive candidiasis were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous rezafungin once a week (400 mg in week 1, followed by 200 mg weekly, for a total of two to four doses) or intravenous caspofungin (70 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 50 mg daily) for no more than 4 weeks. The primary endpoints were global cure (consisting of clinical cure, radiological cure, and mycological eradication) at day 14 for the European Medical Agency (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), both with a target non-inferiority margin of 20%, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received one or more doses of study drug and had documented Candida infection based on a culture from blood or another normally sterile site obtained within 96 h before randomisation). Safety was evaluated by the incidence and type of adverse events and deaths in the safety population, defined as all patients who received any amount of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03667690, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 12, 2018, and Aug 29, 2021, 222 patients were screened for inclusion, and 199 patients (118 [59%] men; 81 [41%] women; mean age 61 years [SD 15·2]) were randomly assigned (100 [50%] patients to the rezafungin group and 99 [50%] patients to the caspofungin group). 55 (59%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 57 (61%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group had a global cure at day 14 (weighted treatment difference -1·1% [95% CI -14·9 to 12·7]; EMA primary endpoint). 22 (24%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 20 (21%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group died or had an unknown survival status at day 30 (treatment difference 2·4% [95% CI -9·7 to 14·4]; FDA primary endpoint). In the safety analysis, 89 (91%) of 98 patients in the rezafungin group and 83 (85%) of 98 patients in the caspofungin group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients in either group were pyrexia, hypokalaemia, pneumonia, septic shock, and anaemia. 55 (56%) patients in the rezafungin group and 52 (53%) patients in the caspofungin group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that rezafungin was non-inferior to caspofungin for the primary endpoints of day-14 global cure (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality (FDA). Efficacy in the initial days of treatment warrants evaluation. There were no concerning trends in treatment-emergent or serious adverse events. These phase 3 results show the efficacy and safety of rezafungin and support its ongoing development. FUNDING: Cidara Therapeutics and Mundipharma.

Pooled microbiological findings and efficacy outcomes by pathogen in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 phase 3 trials of lefamulin versus moxifloxacin.

OBJECTIVES: Lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was evaluated for microbiological efficacy in a prespecified pooled analysis of LEAP 1 and 2 phase 3 clinical trial data in patients with CABP. METHODS: In LEAP 1, adults (PORT risk class III‒V) received intravenous (IV) lefamulin 150 mg every 12 h (q12h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h (q24h) for 7 days, with optional IV-to-oral switch. In LEAP 2, adults (PORT II‒IV) received oral lefamulin 600 mg q12h for 5 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg q24h for 7 days. Primary outcomes were early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after treatment start and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) 5‒10 days after the last dose. Secondary outcomes included ECR and IACR in patients with a baseline CABP pathogen (detected via culture, urinary antigen testing, serology and/or real-time PCR). RESULTS: Baseline CABP pathogens were detected in 709/1289 patients (55.0%; microbiological intention-to-treat population). The most frequently identified pathogens were Streptococcus pneumoniae (61.9% of patients) and Haemophilus influenzae (29.9%); 25.1% had atypical pathogens and 33.1% had polymicrobial infections. Pathogens were identified most frequently by PCR from sputum, followed by culture from respiratory specimens. In patients with baseline CABP pathogens, ECR rates were 89.3% (lefamulin) and 93.0% (moxifloxacin); IACR success rates were 83.2% and 86.7%, respectively. Results were consistent across CABP pathogens, including drug-resistant isolates and polymicrobial infections. CONCLUSION: Lefamulin is a valuable IV and oral monotherapy option for empirical and directed CABP treatment in adults.

Lefamulin in Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Caused by Atypical Respiratory Pathogens: Pooled Results from Two Phase 3 Trials.

Lefamulin was the first systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia based on two phase 3 trials (Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia [LEAP]-1 and LEAP-2). This pooled analysis evaluated lefamulin efficacy and safety in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by atypical pathogens (Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and Chlamydia pneumoniae). In LEAP-1, participants received intravenous lefamulin 150 mg every 12 h for 5-7 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch. In LEAP-2, participants received oral lefamulin 600 mg every 12 h for 5 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days. Primary outcomes were early clinical response at 96 ± 24 h after first dose and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5-10 days after last dose). Atypical pathogens were identified in 25.0% (91/364) of lefamulin-treated patients and 25.2% (87/345) of moxifloxacin-treated patients; most were identified by ≥1 standard diagnostic modality (M. pneumoniae 71.2% [52/73]; L. pneumophila 96.9% [63/65]; C. pneumoniae 79.3% [46/58]); the most common standard diagnostic modality was serology. In terms of disease severity, more than 90% of patients had CURB-65 (confusion of new onset, blood urea nitrogen > 19 mg/dL, respiratory rate ≥ 30 breaths/min, blood pressure <90 mm Hg systolic or ≤60 mm Hg diastolic, and age ≥ 65 years) scores of 0-2; approximately 50% of patients had PORT (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team) risk class of III, and the remaining patients were more likely to have PORT risk class of II or IV versus V. In patients with atypical pathogens, early clinical response (lefamulin 84.4-96.6%; moxifloxacin 90.3-96.8%) and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (lefamulin 74.1-89.7%; moxifloxacin 74.2-97.1%) were high and similar between arms. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in the lefamulin (34.1% [31/91]) and moxifloxacin (32.2% [28/87]) groups. Limitations to this analysis include its post hoc nature, the small numbers of patients infected with atypical pathogens, the possibility of PCR-based diagnostic methods to identify non-etiologically relevant pathogens, and the possibility that these findings may not be generalizable to all patients. Lefamulin as short-course empiric monotherapy, including 5-day oral therapy, was well tolerated in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and demonstrated high clinical response rates against atypical pathogens.

Clinical Efficacy of Patients With Secondary Bacteremia Treated With Omadacycline: Results From Phase 3 Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Studies.

In this post hoc analysis of the 63 patients with secondary bacteremia enrolled in the 3 omadacycline phase 3 studies of acute bacterial skin/skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), we determined that omadacycline is a viable therapeutic option for appropriate patients with secondary bacteremia.

Efficacy of Omadacycline Versus Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia by Disease Severity: Results From the OPTIC Study.

BACKGROUND: Severity/mortality risk scores and disease characteristics may assist in deciding whether patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) require outpatient treatment or hospitalization. The phase 3 OPTIC (Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community) study enrolled patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II-IV. Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to moxifloxacin in adults with CABP, at early clinical response (ECR) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE). We assessed efficacy of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in these patients based on disease severity. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) omadacycline (100 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses followed by 100 mg daily [q24h], with optional transition to omadacycline 300 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment) or moxifloxacin IV 400 mg q24h (with optional transition to 400 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment). Total treatment duration was 7-14 days. We compared rates of early clinical success (72-120 hours after first dose) and investigator-assessed clinical success at PTE (5-10 days after last dose) in subgroups based (1) on severity/mortality risk scores (PORT, CURB-65, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, modified ATS, SMART-COP) and (2) on presence of baseline radiographic characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, or bacteremia. RESULTS: Altogether, 774 patients (omadacycline, n = 386; moxifloxacin, n = 388) were randomized. Clinical success rates (ECR/PTE) were similar between treatment groups (across all subgroups). Efficacy across treatment groups was similar in patients with baseline radiographic characteristics or COPD/asthma, but moxifloxacin had higher clinical success rates in patients with bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of omadacycline was similar to that of moxifloxacin, regardless of disease severity/mortality risk and disease characteristics.

Lefamulin efficacy and safety in a pooled phase 3 clinical trial population with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and common clinical comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Lefamulin, a first-in-class pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was noninferior to moxifloxacin in the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 intravenous-to-oral switch study and the LEAP 2 oral-only study. Using pooled LEAP 1/2 data, we examined lefamulin efficacy/safety overall and within subgroups of patients presenting with comorbidities typical in CABP management. METHODS: In LEAP 1, adults with CABP were randomized to receive intravenous lefamulin (150 mg every 12 h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch if predefined improvement criteria were met. In LEAP 2, adults with CABP were randomized to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 h) for 5 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days. Both studies assessed early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after first study drug dose and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test-of-cure (5‒10 days after last dose). Pooled analyses of the overall population used a 10% noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Lefamulin (n = 646) was noninferior to moxifloxacin (n = 643) for ECR (89.3% vs 90.5%, respectively; difference - 1.1%; 95% CI - 4.4 to 2.2); IACR success rates at test-of-cure were similarly high (≥ 85.0%). High efficacy with both lefamulin and moxifloxacin was also demonstrated across all well-represented patient subgroups, including those with advanced age, diabetes mellitus, a history of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmia) or chronic lung diseases (e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), elevated liver enzymes, or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Lefamulin may provide a valuable intravenous/oral monotherapy alternative to fluoroquinolones or macrolides for empiric treatment of patients with CABP, including cases of patients at risk for poor outcomes due to age or various comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov LEAP 1 (NCT02559310; Registration Date: 24/09/2015) and LEAP 2 (NCT02813694; Registration Date: 27/06/2016).

Omadacycline vs moxifloxacin in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a major clinical burden worldwide. In the phase III OPTIC study (NCT02531438) in CABP, omadacycline was found to be non-inferior to moxifloxacin for investigator-assessed clinical response (IACR) at post-treatment evaluation (PTE, 5-10 days after last dose). This article reports the efficacy findings, as specified in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline 100 mg intravenously (every 12 h for two doses, then every 24 h) with optional transition to 300 mg orally after 3 days, or moxifloxacin 400 mg intravenously (every 24 h) with optional transition to 400 mg orally after 3 days. The total treatment duration was 7-14 days. The primary endpoint for EMA efficacy analysis was IACR at PTE in patients with Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV. RESULTS: In total, 660 patients were randomized as PORT risk class III and IV. Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin at PTE. The clinical success rates were 88.4% and 85.2%, respectively [intent-to-treat population; difference 3.3; 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -2.7 to 9.3], and 92.5% and 90.5%, respectively (clinically evaluable population; difference 2.0; 97.5% CI 3.2-7.4). Clinical success rates with omadacycline and moxifloxacin were similar against identified pathogens and across key subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin for IACR at PTE, with high clinical success across pathogen types and patient subgroups.

Safety review of hydroxyprogesterone caproate in women with a history of spontaneous preterm birth.

17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) has been in use for prevention of recurrent preterm birth since 2003 when the Meis trial was published. A requirement for Food and Drug Administration approval of 17P was a confirmatory trial, called "PROLONG", which was recently completed, but did not replicate the efficacy demonstrated in the Meis trial. This review analyzes the safety data from each trial, as well as integrated data from the two trials. The relative risks (95% CI) with 17P versus placebo in the integrated dataset were 0.66 (0.25-1.78) for miscarriage, 1.83 (0.68-4.91) for stillbirth, and 0.86 (0.53-1.41) for all fetal and neonatal death. The rate of gestational diabetes in the integrated dataset was 3.6% for 17P vs. 3.8% for placebo. Similar findings with low and comparable rates between 17P and placebo were also found for other adverse events. The integrated safety data demonstrate a favorable safety profile that was comparable to placebo.

Rezafungin Versus Caspofungin in a Phase 2, Randomized, Double-blind Study for the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis: The STRIVE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rezafungin (RZF) is a novel echinocandin exhibiting distinctive pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. STRIVE was a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial designed to compare the safety and efficacy of RZF once weekly (QWk) to caspofungin (CAS) once daily for treatment of candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis (IC). METHODS: Adults with systemic signs and mycological confirmation of candidemia and/or IC were randomized to RZF 400 mg QWk (400 mg), RZF 400 mg on week 1 then 200 mg QWk (400/200 mg), or CAS 70 mg as a loading dose followed by 50 mg daily for ≤4 weeks. Efficacy assessments included overall cure (resolution of signs of candidemia/IC + mycological eradication) at day 14 (primary endpoint), investigator-assessed clinical response at day 14, and 30-day all-cause mortality (ACM) (secondary endpoints), and time to negative blood culture. Safety was evaluated by adverse events and ACM through follow-up. RESULTS: Of 207 patients enrolled, 183 were in the microbiological intent-to-treat population (~21% IC). Overall cure rates were 60.5% (46/76) for RZF 400 mg, 76.1% (35/46) for RZF 400/200 mg, and 67.2% (41/61) for CAS; investigator-assessed clinical cure rates were 69.7% (53/76), 80.4% (37/46), and 70.5% (43/61), respectively. In total, 30-day ACM was 15.8% for RZF 400 mg, 4.4% for RZF 400/200 mg, and 13.1% for CAS. Candidemia was cleared in 19.5 and 22.8 hours in RZF and CAS patients, respectively. No concerning safety trends were observed; ACM through follow-up was 15.2% (21/138) for RZF and 18.8% (13/69) for CAS. CONCLUSIONS: RZF was safe and efficacious in the treatment of candidemia and/or IC. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02734862.

Re-examining the Meis Trial for Evidence of False-Positive Results.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate therapy is currently available to reduce recurrent preterm birth in the United States. This commentary reviews the original landmark Meis trial ("Prevention of Recurrent Preterm Delivery by 17 Alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate"), which led to conditional approval of 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate by the FDA in 2011. The recent PROLONG (Progestin's Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) trial failed to confirm the original findings. The Meis trial was rigorously designed and conducted, with highly statistically significant results that should not be undermined by the negative results of PROLONG. Given that the United States has among the highest preterm birth rates in the world and that the predominant enrollment in PROLONG was outside the United States, the results of the "old" Meis trial should not be summarily dismissed. It would be detrimental to high-risk pregnant patients to inappropriately prioritize results of PROLONG over the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network's Meis trial (funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development). We assert PROLONG was underpowered, based on substantially lower observed preterm birth rates than anticipated, and therefore was a false-negative study, rather than the Meis trial being a false-positive study. Careful assessment of these two trials is critical as removal of 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate from the U.S. marketplace may have substantial effects on public health.

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.

17-OHPC to Prevent Recurrent Preterm Birth in Singleton Gestations (PROLONG Study): A Multicenter, International, Randomized Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with a history of spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) are at a significantly increased risk for recurrent preterm birth (PTB). To date, only one large U.S. clinical trial comparing 17-OHPC (17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate or "17P") to placebo has been published, and this trial was stopped early due to a large treatment benefit. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether 17-OHPC decreases recurrent PTB and neonatal morbidity in women with a prior SPTB in a singleton gestation. STUDY DESIGN: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled international trial involving women with a previous singleton SPTB (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01004029). Women were enrolled at 93 clinical centers (41 in the United States and 52 outside the United States) between 160/7 to 206/7 weeks in a 2:1 ratio, to receive either weekly intramuscular (IM) injections of 250 mg of 17-OHPC or an inert oil placebo; treatment was continued until delivery or 36 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were PTB < 35 weeks and a neonatal morbidity composite index. The composite included any of the following: neonatal death, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, or proven sepsis. A planned sample size of 1,707 patients was estimated to provide 98% power to detect a 30% reduction in PTB < 35 weeks (30% to 21%) and 90% power to detect a 35% reduction in neonatal composite index (17%-11%) using a two-sided type-I error of 5%. Finally, this sample size would also provide 82.8% power to rule out a doubling in the risk of fetal/early infant death assuming a 4% fetal/early infant death rate. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between the 1,130 women who received 17-OHPC and 578 women who received placebo were similar. Overall, 87% of enrolled women were Caucasian, 12% had >1 prior SPTB, 7% smoked cigarettes, and 89% were married/lived with partner. Prior to receiving study drug, 73% women had a transvaginal cervical length measurement performed and <2% had cervical shortening <25 mm. There were no significant differences in the frequency of PTB < 35 weeks (17-OHPC 11.0% vs. placebo 11.5%; relative risk = 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-1.26]) or neonatal morbidity index (17-OHPC 5.6% vs. placebo 5.0%; relative risk = 1.12 [95% CI: 0.68-1.61]). There were also no differences in frequency of fetal/early infant death (17-OHPC 1.7% vs. placebo 1.9%; relative risk = 0.87 [95% CI: 0.4-1.81]. Maternal outcomes were also similar. In the subgroup of women enrolled in the United States (n = 391; 23% of all patients), although the rate of PTB < 35 weeks was higher than the overall study population, there were no statistically significant differences between groups (15.6% vs. 17.6%; relative risk = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.55, 1.40]. CONCLUSION: In this study population, 17-OHPC did not decrease recurrent PTB and was not associated with increased fetal/early infant death.