Cefepime-Taniborbactam in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales species and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa are global health threats. Cefepime-taniborbactam is an investigational ß-lactam and ß-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa expressing serine and metallo-ß-lactamases. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned hospitalized adults with complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis, in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous cefepime-taniborbactam (2.5 g) or meropenem (1 g) every 8 hours for 7 days; this duration could be extended up to 14 days in case of bacteremia. The primary outcome was both microbiologic and clinical success (composite success) on trial days 19 to 23 in the microbiologic intention-to-treat (microITT) population (patients who had a qualifying gram-negative pathogen against which both study drugs were active). A prespecified superiority analysis of the primary outcome was performed after confirmation of noninferiority. RESULTS: Of the 661 patients who underwent randomization, 436 (66.0%) were included in the microITT population. The mean age of the patients was 56.2 years, and 38.1% were 65 years of age or older. In the microITT population, 57.8% of the patients had complicated UTI, 42.2% had acute pyelonephritis, and 13.1% had bacteremia. Composite success occurred in 207 of 293 patients (70.6%) in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and in 83 of 143 patients (58.0%) in the meropenem group. Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem regarding the primary outcome (treatment difference, 12.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.2; P = 0.009). Differences in treatment response were sustained at late follow-up (trial days 28 to 35), when cefepime-taniborbactam had higher composite success and clinical success. Adverse events occurred in 35.5% and 29.0% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and the meropenem group, respectively, with headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea the most frequently reported; the frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem. (Funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals and others; CERTAIN-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03840148.).

Effects of valganciclovir on spermatogenesis in renal transplant patients - results of a multicenter prospective nonrandomized study.

Ganciclovir (GCV) inhibits spermatogenesis in preclinical studies but long-term effects on fertility in renal transplant patients are unknown. In a prospective, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized study, male patients were assigned to Cohort A [valganciclovir (VGCV), a prodrug of GCV] (n = 38) or B (no VGCV) (n = 21) by cytomegalovirus prophylaxis requirement. Changes in semen parameters and DNA fragmentation were assessed via a mixed-effects linear regression model accounting for baseline differences. Sperm concentration increased post-transplant, but between baseline and treatment end (mean 164 days Cohort A, 211 days Cohort B), the model-based change was lower in Cohort A (difference: 43.82 × 106 /ml; P = 0.0038). Post-treatment, sperm concentration increased in Cohort A so that by end of follow-up (6 months post-treatment) changes were comparable between cohorts (difference: 2.09 × 106 /ml; P = 0.92). Most patients' sperm concentration improved by end of follow-up; none with normal baseline concentrations (≥20 × 106 /ml) were abnormal at end of follow-up. Changes in seminal volume, sperm motility/morphology, DNA fragmentation, and hormone levels were comparable between cohorts at end of follow-up. Improvement in semen parameters after renal transplant was delayed in men receiving VCGV, but 6 months post-treatment parameters were comparable between cohorts.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim Vs Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed to be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens: REVIVE-1.

Background: Our objective in this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim compared with vancomycin for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Methods: REVIVE-1 was a phase 3, 600-patient, double-blinded, randomized (1:1), active-controlled trial among patients with ABSSSI that compared the safety and efficacy of iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose with vancomycin 15 mg/kg, both administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint of this study was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size (early clinical response [ECR]) compared with baseline among patients randomized to iclaprim or vancomycin at the early time point (ETP), 48 to 72 hours after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Results: ECR among patients who received iclaprim and vancomycin at the ETP was 80.9% (241 of 298) of patients receiving iclaprim compared with 81.0% (243 of 300) of those receiving vancomycin (treatment difference, -0.13%; 95% confidence interval, -6.42%-6.17%). Iclaprim was well tolerated in the study, with most adverse events categorized as mild. Conclusions: Iclaprim achieved noninferiority (10% margin) at ETP compared with vancomycin and was well tolerated in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of ABSSSI. Based on these results, iclaprim appears to be an efficacious and safe treatment for ABSSSI suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02600611.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim versus Vancomycin for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed To Be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens (REVIVE-2 Study).

Iclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine antibiotic that may be an effective and safe treatment for serious skin infections. The safety and effectiveness of iclaprim were assessed in a global phase 3, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial. Six hundred thirteen adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens were randomized to iclaprim (80 mg) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg of body weight), both of which were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5 to 14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size compared with that at the baseline at 48 to 72 h after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Among patients randomized to iclaprim, 78.3% (231 of 295) met this primary endpoint, whereas 76.7% (234 of 305) of those receiving vancomycin met this primary endpoint (difference, 1.58%; 95% confidence interval, -5.10% to 8.26%). This met the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin. Iclaprim was well tolerated, with most adverse events being categorized as mild. In conclusion, iclaprim was noninferior to vancomycin in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. On the basis of these results, iclaprim may be an efficacious and safe treatment for skin infections suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens. (This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02607618.).

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 2 dose-ranging study comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin plus relebactam with imipenem/cilastatin alone in patients with complicated urinary tract infections.

Objectives: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem non-susceptible pathogens. Methods: To explore relebactam's safety, tolerability and efficacy, we conducted a randomized (1:1:1), controlled, Phase 2 trial comparing imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 250 mg, imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 125 mg and imipenem/cilastatin alone in adults with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) or acute pyelonephritis, regardless of baseline pathogen susceptibility. Treatment was administered intravenously every 6 h for 4-14 days, with optional step-down to oral ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was favourable microbiological response rate (pathogen eradication) at discontinuation of intravenous therapy (DCIV) in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population. Non-inferiority of imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam over imipenem/cilastatin alone was defined as lower bounds of the 95% CI for treatment differences being above -15%. Results: At DCIV, 71 patients in the imipenem/cilastatin + 250 mg relebactam, 79 in the imipenem/cilastatin + 125 mg relebactam and 80 in the imipenem/cilastatin-only group were ME; 51.7% had cUTI and 48.3% acute pyelonephritis. Microbiological response rates were 95.5%, 98.6% and 98.7%, respectively, confirming non-inferiority of both imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam doses to imipenem/cilastatin alone. Clinical response rates were 97.1%, 98.7% and 98.8%, respectively. All 23 ME patients with imipenem non-susceptible pathogens had favourable DCIV microbiological responses (100% in each group). Among all 298 patients treated, 28.3%, 29.3% and 30.0% of patients, respectively, had treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-related adverse events across groups (1.0%-4.0%) were diarrhoea, nausea and headache. Conclusions: Imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam (250 or 125 mg) was as effective as imipenem/cilastatin alone for treatment of cUTI. Both relebactam-containing regimens were well tolerated. (NCT01505634).

Phase 2, Dose-Ranging Study of Relebactam with Imipenem-Cilastatin in Subjects with Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection.

Relebactam (REL [MK-7655]) is a novel class A/C ß-lactamase inhibitor intended for use with imipenem for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial infections. REL restores imipenem activity against some resistant strains of Klebsiella and Pseudomonas In this multicenter, double-blind, controlled trial (NCT01506271), subjects who were ≥18 years of age with complicated intra-abdominal infection were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 250 mg REL, 125 mg REL, or placebo, each given intravenously (i.v.) with 500 mg imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) every 6 h (q6h) for 4 to 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of microbiologically evaluable (ME) subjects with a favorable clinical response at discontinuation of i.v. therapy (DCIV). A total of 351 subjects were randomized, 347 (99%) were treated, and 255 (73%) were ME at DCIV (55% male; mean age, 49 years). The most common diagnoses were complicated appendicitis (53%) and complicated cholecystitis (17%). Thirty-six subjects (13%) had imipenem-resistant Gram-negative infections at baseline. Both REL doses plus IMI were generally well tolerated and demonstrated safety profiles similar to that of IMI alone. Clinical response rates at DCIV were similar in subjects who received 250 mg REL plus IMI (96.3%) or 125 mg REL plus IMI (98.8%), and both were noninferior to IMI alone (95.2%; one-sided P < 0.001). The treatment groups were also similar with respect to clinical response at early and late follow-up and microbiological response at all visits. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic simulations show that imipenem exposure at the proposed dose of 500 mg IMI with 250 mg REL q6h provides coverage of >90% of carbapenem-resistant bacterial strains.

Quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical trial screening rates over time in 37 countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented and disruptive impact on people's health and lives worldwide. In addition to burdening people's health in the short-term in the form of infection, illness, and mortality, there has been an enormous negative impact on clinical research. Clinical trials experienced challenges in ensuring patient safety and enrolling new patients throughout the pandemic. Here, we investigate and quantify the negative impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has industry-sponsored clinical trials, both in the USA and worldwide. We find a negative correlation between the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and clinical trial screening rate, with the relationship being strongest during the first three months of the pandemic compared to the entire duration of the pandemic. This negative statistical relationship holds across therapeutic areas, across states in the USA despite the heterogeneity of responses at the state-level, and across countries. This work has significant implications for the management of clinical trials worldwide in response to the fluctuating severity of COVID-19 moving forward and for future pandemics.

Inhaled amikacin adjunctive to intravenous standard-of-care antibiotics in mechanically ventilated patients with Gram-negative pneumonia (INHALE): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of ventilated pneumonia is often unsuccessful, even when patients are treated according to established guidelines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of the combination drug device Amikacin Inhale as an adjunctive therapy to intravenous standard-of-care antibiotics for pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens in intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: INHALE was a prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study comprising two trials (INHALE 1 and INHALE 2) done in 153 hospital intensive-care units in 25 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had pneumonia that had been diagnosed by chest radiography and that was documented as being caused by or showing two risk factors for a Gram-negative, multidrug-resistant pathogen; were intubated and mechanically ventilated; had impaired oxygenation within 48 h before screening; and had a modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score of at least 6. Patients were stratified by region and disease severity (according to their Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score) and randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-recognition system to receive 400 mg amikacin (Amikacin Inhale) or saline placebo, both of which were aerosolised, administered every 12 h for 10 days via the same synchronised inhalation system, and given alongside standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics. All patients and all staff involved in administering devices and monitoring outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, survival at days 28-32, was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a Gram-negative pathogen, and had an APACHE II score of at least 10 at diagnosis. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01799993 and NCT00805168. FINDINGS: Between April 13, 2013, and April 7, 2017, 807 patients were assessed for eligibility and 725 were randomly assigned to Amikacin Inhale (362 patients) or aerosolised placebo (363 patients). 712 patients received at least one dose of study drug (354 in the Amikacin Inhale group and 358 in the placebo group), although one patient assigned to Amikacin Inhale received placebo in error and was included in the placebo group for safety analyses. 508 patients (255 in the Amikacin Inhale group and 253 in the placebo group) were assessed for the primary endpoint. We found no between-group difference in survival: 191 (75%) patients in the Amikacin Inhale group versus 196 (77%) patients in the placebo group survived until days 28-32 (odds ratio 0·841, 95% CI 0·554-1·277; p=0·43). Similar proportions of patients in the two treatment groups had a treatment-emergent adverse event (295 [84%] of 353 patients in the Amikacin Inhale group vs 303 [84%] of 359 patients in the placebo group) or a serious treatment-emergent adverse event (101 [29%] patients vs 97 [27%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Our findings do not support use of inhaled amikacin adjunctive to standard-of-care intravenous therapy in mechanically ventilated patients with Gram-negative pneumonia. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

[(124)I]FIAU: Human dosimetry and infection imaging in patients with suspected prosthetic joint infection.

INTRODUCTION: Fialuridine (FIAU) is a nucleoside analog that is a substrate for bacterial thymidine kinase (TK). Once phosphorylated by TK, [(124)I]FIAU becomes trapped within bacteria and can be detected with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). [(124)I]FIAU PET/CT has been shown to detect bacteria in patients with musculoskeletal bacterial infections. Accurate diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) has proven challenging because of the lack of a well-validated reference. In the current study, we assessed biodistribution and dosimetry of [(124)I]FIAU, and investigated whether [(124)I]FIAU PET/CT can diagnose PJIs with acceptable accuracy. METHODS: To assess biodistribution and dosimetry, six subjects with suspected hip or knee PJI and six healthy subjects underwent serial PET/CT after being dosed with 74MBq (2mCi) [(124)I]FIAU intravenously (IV). Estimated radiation doses were calculated with the OLINDA/EXM software. To determine accuracy of [(124)I]FIAU, 22 subjects with suspected hip or knee PJI were scanned at 2-6 and 24-30h post IV injection of 185MBq (5mCi) [(124)I]FIAU. Images were interpreted by a single reader blinded to clinical information. Representative cases were reviewed by 3 additional readers. The utility of [(124)I]FIAU to detect PJIs was assessed based on the correlation of the patient's infection status with imaging results as determined by an independent adjudication board (IAB). RESULTS: The kidney, liver, spleen, and urinary bladder received the highest radiation doses of [(124)I]FIAU. The effective dose was 0.16 to 0.20mSv/MBq and doses to most organs ranged from 0.11 to 0.76mGy/MBq. PET image quality obtained from PJI patients was confounded by metal artifacts from the prostheses and pronounced FIAU uptake in muscle. Consequently, a correlation with infection status and imaging results could not be established. CONCLUSIONS: [(124)I]FIAU was well-tolerated in healthy volunteers and subjects with suspected PJI, and had acceptable dosimetry. However, the utility of [(124)I]FIAU for the clinical detection of PJIs is limited by poor image quality and low specificity.