A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections in the Phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections Free

Abstract

Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to Gram-positive pathogens.

This analysis evaluates patients with wound infections from two Phase 3 trials of ABSSSI.

Six-hundred-two patients with wound infections from two Phase 3, double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active controlled trials (REVIVE-1/–2) were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of iclaprim 80 mg compared with vancomycin 15 mg kg administered intravenously every 12 h for 5–14 days. The primary endpoint was to determine whether iclaprim was non-inferior (10 % margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20 % reduction from baseline in lesion size 48–72 h after starting study drug (early clinical response [ECR]). Safety was assessed.

In REVIVE-1, ECR was 83.5 % with iclaprim versus 79.7 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 3.77%, 95 % CI −4.50%, 12.04%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 82.7 % with iclaprim versus 76.3 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 6.38%, 95 % CI −3.35%, 16.12%). In the pooled dataset, iclaprim had similar ECR rates compared with vancomycin among wound infection patients (83.2 % vs 78.2 %) with a treatment difference of 5.01 % (95 % CI −1.29%, 11.32%). The safety profile was similar in iclaprim- and vancomycin-treated patients, except for a higher incidence of diarrhea with vancomycin (=17) compared with iclaprim (=6) and fatigue with iclaprim (=17) compared with vancomycin (=8).

Based on early clinical response, iclaprim achieved non-inferiority to vancomycin with a similar safety profile in patients with wound infections suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for wound infections.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001177
2020-03-20
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/69/4/625.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001177&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Pulido-Cejudo A, Guzmán-Gutierrez M, Jalife-Montaño A, Ortiz-Covarrubias A, Martínez-Ordaz JL et al. Management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections with a focus on patients at high risk of treatment failure. Ther Adv Infect Dis 2017; 4:143–161 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ray GT, Suaya JA, Baxter R. Microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections in the age of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2013; 76:24–30 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Sader HS, Fritsche TR, Jones RN. Potency and bactericidal activity of iclaprim against recent clinical gram-positive isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:2171–2175 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Schneider P, Hawser S, Islam K. Iclaprim, a novel diaminopyrimidine with potent activity on trimethoprim sensitive and resistant bacteria. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2003; 13:4217–4221 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Oefner C, Bandera M, Haldimann A, Laue H, Schulz H et al. Increased hydrophobic interactions of iclaprim with Staphylococcus aureus dihydrofolate reductase are responsible for the increase in affinity and antibacterial activity. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 63:687–698 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ho JM-W, Juurlink DN. Considerations when prescribing trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. CMAJ 2011; 183:1851–1858 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Huang DB, O'Riordan W, Overcash JS, Heller B, Amin F et al. 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. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 66:1222–1229 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Holland TL, O'Riordan W, McManus A, Shin E, Borghei A et al. 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). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018; 62:e02580-17 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CLSI. M07-A10 Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard, 10th ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.; 2015
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CLSI. M100 Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: 27th Informational Supplement Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Morrissey I, Maher K, Hawser S. Activity of iclaprim against clinical isolates of Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus agalactiae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 63:413–414 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR, Das AF, De Anda C et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14:2014705 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Armstrong ES, Chitra S, Sirbu A, Garrity-Ryan L, Manley A et al. Efficacy of Omadacycline and Linezolid against characterized drug resistant S. aureus from combined Phase 3 ABSSSI studies. ASM Microbe 2018
    [Google Scholar]
  14. BAXDELA (Delafloxacin) Lincolnshire, Illinois: Melinta Therapeutics, Inc; 2017
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Huang DB, Corey GR, Holland TL, Lodise T, O'Riordan W et al. Pooled analysis of the phase 3 revive trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2018; 52:233–240 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001177
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001177
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed