Cargando…

2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study

BACKGROUND: New CABP treatments with targeted activity and improved tolerability are needed. LEF, a novel pleuromutilin antibiotic that binds to a conserved region of the bacterial ribosome, is in development for IV or oral CABP treatment. This Phase 3 clinical study evaluated the efficacy of LEF vs...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: File, Thomas, Goldberg, Lisa, Paukner, Susanne, Das, Anita, Gelone, Steven P, Saviski, John, Sweeney, Carolyn, Seltzer, Elyse, Talbot, George H, Gasink, Leanne B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6255284/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.2039
_version_ 1783373904014737408
author File, Thomas
Goldberg, Lisa
Paukner, Susanne
Das, Anita
Gelone, Steven P
Saviski, John
Sweeney, Carolyn
Seltzer, Elyse
Talbot, George H
Gasink, Leanne B
author_facet File, Thomas
Goldberg, Lisa
Paukner, Susanne
Das, Anita
Gelone, Steven P
Saviski, John
Sweeney, Carolyn
Seltzer, Elyse
Talbot, George H
Gasink, Leanne B
author_sort File, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: New CABP treatments with targeted activity and improved tolerability are needed. LEF, a novel pleuromutilin antibiotic that binds to a conserved region of the bacterial ribosome, is in development for IV or oral CABP treatment. This Phase 3 clinical study evaluated the efficacy of LEF vs. MOX in adults with CABP. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 551 adult patients with CABP (Patient Outcomes Research Team Risk Class ≥III) were randomized to LEF 150 mg IV Q12 hours (n = 276) or MOX 400 mg IV Q24 hours (n = 275). After 6 IV doses, qualifying patients could be switched to oral therapy. Adjunctive linezolid was given with MOX for suspected methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Primary outcomes were early clinical response (ECR) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (FDA endpoint), and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test of cure in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE-TOC) populations (co-primary EMA endpoints). The microITT population included all patients with a baseline CABP pathogen detected by respiratory tract or blood culture, urinary antigen test, serology, and real-time PCR from sputum, oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs. The microITT2 population included patients with a CABP pathogen detected by methods excluding PCR. Confirmatory identification and susceptibility testing of isolates, serology, and PCR were performed by a central laboratory. RESULTS: LEF was noninferior to MOX for ECR and IACR (LEF 87.3% [ITT], 81.7% [mITT], 86.9% [CE-TOC]; MOX 90.2% [ITT], 84.2% [mITT], 89.4% [CE-TOC]). The most common pathogen identified was S. pneumoniae. In the microITT population (n = 159 per arm), LEF and MOX demonstrated similar ECR and IACR rates (figure). LEF was efficacious against S. pneumoniae (including resistant phenotypes), H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis, S. aureus, and atypical pathogens. In the microITT2 population, response rates remained similar across baseline pathogens but showed more variation likely due to smaller sample sizes. CONCLUSION: In this first Phase 3 clinical trial, LEF showed similar efficacy to MOX against the most commonly identified CABP pathogens. LEF demonstrates promise as a targeted monotherapy for the treatment of CABP in adults. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: T. File, BioMerieux: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Curetis: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Melinta: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Merck: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. MotifBio: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Nabriva: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research grant. Pfizer: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Paratek: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. L. Goldberg, Nabriva: Employee, Employee Stock Options and Salary. S. Paukner, Nabriva: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. A. Das, Achaogen: Consultant, Consulting fee. Cempra: Consultant, Consulting fee. Contrafect: Consultant, Consulting fee. Paratek: Consultant, Consulting fee. Tetraphase: Consultant, Consulting fee. Wockhardt: Consultant, Consulting fee. Theravance: Consultant, Consulting fee. Zavante: Consultant, Consulting fee. UTILITY: Consultant, Consulting fee. S. P. Gelone, Nabriva Therapeutics: Employee, Equity, Shareholder and Salary. Achaogen: Shareholder, Equity, Shareholder. J. Saviski, Nabrica Therapeutics, plc: Employee, Salary. C. Sweeney, Nabriva: Employee, employee stock options and Salary. E. Seltzer, Nabriva (previous employee and salary): Employee and Shareholder, Salary. G. H. Talbot, Nabriva Therapeutics: Board Member, Consultant and Shareholder, Consulting fee and stock options, board fees. L. B. Gasink, Nabriva: Employee, Salary.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6255284
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62552842018-11-28 2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study File, Thomas Goldberg, Lisa Paukner, Susanne Das, Anita Gelone, Steven P Saviski, John Sweeney, Carolyn Seltzer, Elyse Talbot, George H Gasink, Leanne B Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: New CABP treatments with targeted activity and improved tolerability are needed. LEF, a novel pleuromutilin antibiotic that binds to a conserved region of the bacterial ribosome, is in development for IV or oral CABP treatment. This Phase 3 clinical study evaluated the efficacy of LEF vs. MOX in adults with CABP. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 551 adult patients with CABP (Patient Outcomes Research Team Risk Class ≥III) were randomized to LEF 150 mg IV Q12 hours (n = 276) or MOX 400 mg IV Q24 hours (n = 275). After 6 IV doses, qualifying patients could be switched to oral therapy. Adjunctive linezolid was given with MOX for suspected methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Primary outcomes were early clinical response (ECR) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (FDA endpoint), and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test of cure in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE-TOC) populations (co-primary EMA endpoints). The microITT population included all patients with a baseline CABP pathogen detected by respiratory tract or blood culture, urinary antigen test, serology, and real-time PCR from sputum, oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs. The microITT2 population included patients with a CABP pathogen detected by methods excluding PCR. Confirmatory identification and susceptibility testing of isolates, serology, and PCR were performed by a central laboratory. RESULTS: LEF was noninferior to MOX for ECR and IACR (LEF 87.3% [ITT], 81.7% [mITT], 86.9% [CE-TOC]; MOX 90.2% [ITT], 84.2% [mITT], 89.4% [CE-TOC]). The most common pathogen identified was S. pneumoniae. In the microITT population (n = 159 per arm), LEF and MOX demonstrated similar ECR and IACR rates (figure). LEF was efficacious against S. pneumoniae (including resistant phenotypes), H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis, S. aureus, and atypical pathogens. In the microITT2 population, response rates remained similar across baseline pathogens but showed more variation likely due to smaller sample sizes. CONCLUSION: In this first Phase 3 clinical trial, LEF showed similar efficacy to MOX against the most commonly identified CABP pathogens. LEF demonstrates promise as a targeted monotherapy for the treatment of CABP in adults. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: T. File, BioMerieux: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Curetis: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Melinta: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Merck: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. MotifBio: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Nabriva: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research grant. Pfizer: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Paratek: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. L. Goldberg, Nabriva: Employee, Employee Stock Options and Salary. S. Paukner, Nabriva: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. A. Das, Achaogen: Consultant, Consulting fee. Cempra: Consultant, Consulting fee. Contrafect: Consultant, Consulting fee. Paratek: Consultant, Consulting fee. Tetraphase: Consultant, Consulting fee. Wockhardt: Consultant, Consulting fee. Theravance: Consultant, Consulting fee. Zavante: Consultant, Consulting fee. UTILITY: Consultant, Consulting fee. S. P. Gelone, Nabriva Therapeutics: Employee, Equity, Shareholder and Salary. Achaogen: Shareholder, Equity, Shareholder. J. Saviski, Nabrica Therapeutics, plc: Employee, Salary. C. Sweeney, Nabriva: Employee, employee stock options and Salary. E. Seltzer, Nabriva (previous employee and salary): Employee and Shareholder, Salary. G. H. Talbot, Nabriva Therapeutics: Board Member, Consultant and Shareholder, Consulting fee and stock options, board fees. L. B. Gasink, Nabriva: Employee, Salary. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6255284/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.2039 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
File, Thomas
Goldberg, Lisa
Paukner, Susanne
Das, Anita
Gelone, Steven P
Saviski, John
Sweeney, Carolyn
Seltzer, Elyse
Talbot, George H
Gasink, Leanne B
2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study
title 2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study
title_full 2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study
title_fullStr 2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study
title_full_unstemmed 2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study
title_short 2386. Efficacy of Lefamulin (LEF) vs. Moxifloxacin (MOX) Against Common Pathogens in Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Results From the Phase 3 Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Study
title_sort 2386. efficacy of lefamulin (lef) vs. moxifloxacin (mox) against common pathogens in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (cabp): results from the phase 3 lefamulin evaluation against pneumonia (leap 1) study
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6255284/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.2039
work_keys_str_mv AT filethomas 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT goldberglisa 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT pauknersusanne 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT dasanita 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT gelonestevenp 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT saviskijohn 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT sweeneycarolyn 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT seltzerelyse 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT talbotgeorgeh 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study
AT gasinkleanneb 2386efficacyoflefamulinlefvsmoxifloxacinmoxagainstcommonpathogensinadultswithcommunityacquiredbacterialpneumoniacabpresultsfromthephase3lefamulinevaluationagainstpneumonialeap1study