И снова тетрациклины...

Noel GJ et al

A randomized, investigator-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial involving patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) compared the safety and efficacy of omadacycline, a broad-spectrum agent with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), to those of linezolid (with or without aztreonam). Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline (100 mg intravenously [i.v.] once a day [QD] with an option to transition to 200 mg orally QD) or linezolid (600 mg i.v. twice daily [BID] with an option to transition to 600 mg orally BID) at 11 U.S. sites. Patients suspected or documented to have infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria were given aztreonam (2 g i.v. every 12 h [q12h]) if randomized to linezolid or matching placebo infusions if randomized to omadacycline. Adverse events were reported in 46 (41.4%) omadacycline-treated and 55 (50.9%) linezolid-treated patients. Adverse events related to treatment were assessed by investigators in 24 (21.6%) omadacycline-treated and 33 (30.6%) linezolid-treated patients. The gastrointestinal tract was most commonly involved, with adverse events reported in 21 (18.9%) patients exposed to omadacycline and 20 (18.5%) exposed to linezolid. Rates of successful clinical response in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and clinical evaluable (CE) populations favored omadacycline (ITT, 88.3% versus 75.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 22.9; CE, 98.0% versus 93.2%; 95% CI, -1.7 to 11.3). For microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients with S. aureus infections, the clinical success rates were 97.2% (70/72) in omadacycline-treated and 92.7% (51/55) in linezolid-treated patients. This phase 2 experience supports conclusions that omadacycline is well tolerated in cSSSI patients and that this aminomethylcycline has potential to be an effective treatment for serious skin infections.

PubMed

Solomkin J et al

IMPORTANCE:

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic of the tetracycline class with in vitro activity against clinically important gram-negative, gram-positive aerobic, and facultative bacteria including most of those resistant to cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, multidrug resistant strains and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and most anaerobic pathogens.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with ertapenem in adult hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of eravacycline in comparison with ertapenem in patients with cIAI requiring surgical or percutaneous intervention. The test-of-cure evaluation was conducted 25 to 31 days after the first dose of the study drug and the follow-up visit was conducted 38 to 50 days after the first dose of the study drug. All patients recruited into this study were hospitalized. Five hundred forty-one patients were recruited for this study; 270 patients were randomized to receive eravacycline, and 271 patients were randomized to receive ertapenem. Patients had to meet all of the following criteria: hospitalized for cIAI requiring intervention; 18 years or older; evidence of systemic inflammatory response; pain caused by cIAI; able to provide informed consent; and diagnosis of cIAI with sonogram or radiographic imaging or visual confirmation. Analyses were done in intent-to-treat and evaluable populations.

INTERVENTIONS:

Patients received eravacycline, 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours, or ertapenem, 1.0 g every 24 hours, for a minimum of four 24-hour dosing cycles.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Clinical outcome assessments were made at the end of treatment, test of cure, and follow-up visits and were classified as clinical cure, clinical failure, or indeterminate/missing.

RESULTS:

In total, 541 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 270 in the eravacycline group and 271 in the ertapenem group. The mean ages were 54.9 years and 55.4 years for the eravacycline and ertapenem groups, respectively. Most patients were white (263 of 270 patients [97.4%] in the eravacycline group and 260 of 271 patients [95.9%] in the ertapenem group). For the microbiological intent-to-treat population, the rates of clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit were 86.8% in the eravacycline group and 87.6% in the ertapenem group. The difference in clinical cure rates between the groups was -0.80% (95% CI, -7.1% to 5.5%), meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin and allowing for statistical noninferiority of eravacycline to ertapenem to be declared for this study. Both study drugs were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Overall, eravacycline demonstrated noninferiority to ertapenem for the treatment of patients with cIAI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01844856.

PubMed

Solomkin J et al

IMPORTANCE:

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic of the tetracycline class with in vitro activity against clinically important gram-negative, gram-positive aerobic, and facultative bacteria including most of those resistant to cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, multidrug resistant strains and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and most anaerobic pathogens.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with ertapenem in adult hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of eravacycline in comparison with ertapenem in patients with cIAI requiring surgical or percutaneous intervention. The test-of-cure evaluation was conducted 25 to 31 days after the first dose of the study drug and the follow-up visit was conducted 38 to 50 days after the first dose of the study drug. All patients recruited into this study were hospitalized. Five hundred forty-one patients were recruited for this study; 270 patients were randomized to receive eravacycline, and 271 patients were randomized to receive ertapenem. Patients had to meet all of the following criteria: hospitalized for cIAI requiring intervention; 18 years or older; evidence of systemic inflammatory response; pain caused by cIAI; able to provide informed consent; and diagnosis of cIAI with sonogram or radiographic imaging or visual confirmation. Analyses were done in intent-to-treat and evaluable populations.

INTERVENTIONS:

Patients received eravacycline, 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours, or ertapenem, 1.0 g every 24 hours, for a minimum of four 24-hour dosing cycles.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Clinical outcome assessments were made at the end of treatment, test of cure, and follow-up visits and were classified as clinical cure, clinical failure, or indeterminate/missing.

RESULTS:

In total, 541 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 270 in the eravacycline group and 271 in the ertapenem group. The mean ages were 54.9 years and 55.4 years for the eravacycline and ertapenem groups, respectively. Most patients were white (263 of 270 patients [97.4%] in the eravacycline group and 260 of 271 patients [95.9%] in the ertapenem group). For the microbiological intent-to-treat population, the rates of clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit were 86.8% in the eravacycline group and 87.6% in the ertapenem group. The difference in clinical cure rates between the groups was -0.80% (95% CI, -7.1% to 5.5%), meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin and allowing for statistical noninferiority of eravacycline to ertapenem to be declared for this study. Both study drugs were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Overall, eravacycline demonstrated noninferiority to ertapenem for the treatment of patients with cIAI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01844856.

PubMed