Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of omadacycline by BMI categories and diabetes history in two Phase III randomized studies of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objectives of this post-hoc analysis were to examine the safety and efficacy of omadacycline by BMI categories and diabetes history in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) from two pivotal Phase III studies.

Patients and methods

OASIS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02378480): patients were randomized 1:1 to IV omadacycline or linezolid for 7-14 days, with optional transition to oral medication. OASIS-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02877927): patients received once-daily oral omadacycline or twice-daily oral linezolid for 7-14 days. Early clinical response (ECR) was defined as ≥20% reduction in lesion size 48-72 h after the first dose. Clinical success at post-treatment evaluation (PTE; 7-14 days after the last dose) was defined as symptom resolution such that antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events and laboratory measures. Between-treatment comparisons were made with regard to WHO BMI categories and diabetes history.

Results

Patients were evenly distributed among healthy weight, overweight and obese groups. Clinical success for omadacycline-treated patients at ECR and PTE was similar across BMI categories. Outcomes by diabetes status were similar in omadacycline- and linezolid-treated patients: at ECR, clinical success rates were lower for those with diabetes; at PTE, clinical success was similar between treatment groups regardless of diabetes history. The safety of omadacycline and linezolid was largely similar across BMI groups and by diabetes history.

Conclusions

Omadacycline efficacy in patients with higher BMI and in patients with diabetes was consistent with results from two pivotal Phase III ABSSSI trials. Fixed-dose omadacycline is an appropriate treatment for ABSSSI in adults regardless of BMI.

SUBMITTER: Pai MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8050767 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAcute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) represent one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits, and are frequent complications of intravenous drug use in persons who inject drugs (PWID). This study examined the efficacy and safety of omadacycline, versus linezolid, in PWID and persons who do not inject drugs, in the Phase 3 Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infection (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) studies.MethodsEligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years with qualifying skin infections: wound infection, cellulitis, erysipelas, or major abscess. The primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as survival with ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at 48-72 h after the first dose of omadacycline or linezolid. Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation (PTE) in the mITT and clinical per-protocol populations, and clinical response at PTE in the micro-mITT population. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and standard clinical laboratory tests. Efficacy endpoints of clinical response at ECR and PTE were analyzed for the mITT and clinically evaluable (CE) PTE populations.ResultsIn total, 1380 patients (822 PWID, 558 non-PWID) were included in this secondary analysis. Wound infections were reported more frequently in the PWID subgroup (72.8%) at baseline; cellulitis or erysipelas (43.9%) and major abscess (37.4%) were the most frequently reported baseline infections in the non-PWID subgroup. Clinical success rates at ECR and PTE in the mITT population, and at PTE in the CE population, were high for patients receiving omadacycline or linezolid. Severe or serious treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were infrequent.ConclusionThis subgroup analysis showed that omadacycline was effective and well tolerated, regardless of PWID status.

Project description:IntroductionSkin and soft tissue infections involve microbial invasion of the skin and underlying soft tissues and are estimated to affect 7-10% of hospitalized patients worldwide. Nadifloxacin, a topical fluoroquinolone, has been shown to be effective against aerobic Gram-negative, Gram-positive (including MRSA and coagulase-negative staphylococci), and anaerobic bacteria. However, there is paucity of data comparing efficacy and safety of 1% nadifloxacin with other anti-bacterials for skin infections in Indian patients.MethodsThis article presents the results of one post-marketing surveillance (PMS) and three randomized, open, non-blinded, multi-centric clinical studies that compared nadifloxacin with mupirocin and framycetin, and nadifloxacin with fusidic acid. Patients in India, aged from 1 to 65 years old, suffering from mild to moderate bacterial skin infections including impetigo, secondarily infected wounds, folliculitis, infected atopic dermatitis, and furunculosis were randomly allocated to three treatment groups within the studies. Efficacy was assessed by the evaluation of symptoms of erythema, exudation, swelling, pruritus, crusting, pain and tenderness in all the studies.ResultsA total of 272 subjects were enrolled in the study and subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups; 92 in the nadifloxacin group, 90 in the mupirocin group, and 90 in the framycetin group. A significant reduction in the mean scores for bacterial infection symptoms in the nadifloxacin groups was observed when compared to mupirocin, framycetin and fusidic acid groups. Both physician and patients rated nadifloxacin as excellent (complete remission of symptoms) on a 4-point scale in the studies. No adverse events (AEs) were reported in the clinical studies. In the PMS, only two patients (of 329, 0.6%) reported AEs including burning and itching, one in each patient that had resolved at the time of reporting.ConclusionNadifloxacin, a fluoroquinolone, is a new alternative topical agent in the treatment of bacterial skin infection with minimal AEs.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:This NMA compared the efficacy and safety between IV antibiotics that are used in the current standard of care for managing adult patients (≥18 years of age) with ABSSSI. METHODS:Comparators were chosen on the basis that both direct and indirect comparisons between the interventions of interest could be performed. Outcomes of the analysis were selected on the basis that they are frequently measured and reported in trials involving ABSSSI patients, and only published randomised control trials of any size and duration and with any blinding status were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The NMA was performed using both a fixed-effect and random-effect model. Efficacy-related endpoints were (1) clinical treatment success and (2) microbiological success at TOC visit. Safety-related endpoints were (1) number of discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs, (2) patients experiencing AEs, (3) patients experiencing SAEs and (4) all-cause mortality. RESULTS:Study interventions included daptomycin, dalbavancin, linezolid and tigecycline. Vancomycin was the comparator in all studies, except in two where it was linezolid and teicoplanin. The NMA showed that irrespective of patient subgroup, the likelihood of clinical and microbiological success with dalbavancin was statistically similar to the comparators studied. No statistically significant differences were observed between dalbavancin and any of the comparators in the discontinuation rate due to AEs/SAEs. In contrast, dalbavancin was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing an AE than linezolid, a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing a SAE than vancomycin and daptomycin, and a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality than vancomycin, linezolid and tigecycline. CONCLUSION:Dalbavancin affords a promising, new alternative IV antimicrobial agent which is as effective as traditional therapies, but with the added benefit of enabling clinicians to treat patients with ABSSSI in different organisational settings. Notwithstanding, any introduction of an effective treatment with a differential mode of administration into healthcare systems must be followed by a change in clinical practice and patient management in order to fully achieve desirable economic outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundDelafloxacin is an investigational anionic fluoroquinolone in development for oral or intravenous administration for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive (including MRSA), Gram-negative, atypical and anaerobic organisms.ObjectivesTo establish the non-inferiority of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and to compare the safety of the two antimicrobials.Patients and methodsA Phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study with 660 patients compared delafloxacin 300 mg or vancomycin 15 mg/kg plus aztreonam 2 g each administered twice daily intravenously for 5-14 days. Non-inferiority was evaluated by objective response (≥20% erythema reduction) at 48-72 h after initiation of study drug, investigator subjective assessment of outcome and microbiological responses. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01811732. EudraCT number: 2012-001767-71.ResultsIn the ITT analysis set, the objective response was 78.2% in the delafloxacin arm and 80.9% in the vancomycin/aztreonam arm (mean treatment difference, -2.6%; 95% CI, -8.78% to 3.57%). Investigator-assessed cure was similar between the two groups at follow-up (52.0% versus 50.5%) and late follow-up (70.4% versus 66.6%). Bacterial eradication of MRSA was 100% and 98.5% in the delafloxacin group and the vancomycin/aztreonam group, respectively. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events in the delafloxacin and vancomycin/aztreonam groups was similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation were higher in the vancomycin/aztreonam group compared with the delafloxacin group (4.3% versus 0.9%).ConclusionsDelafloxacin, an anionic fluoroquinolone, was statistically non-inferior to vancomycin/aztreonam at 48-72 h following the start of therapy and was well tolerated as monotherapy in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Project description:Abstract Background Omadacycline (OMC) was FDA approved to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) for indicated organisms in 2018. Phase 2 OMC clinical trials for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI; NCT03425396) and acute pyelonephritis (NCT03757234) are ongoing. OMC is active against bacterial isolates expressing common tetracycline, penicillin, fluoroquinolone, and macrolide resistance mechanisms. Methods Isolates (14,000) were collected in 2018 from 31 medical centers located in the United States and 38 medical centers in Europe, including 3,458 staphylococci, 1,551 streptococci, 746 enterococci, 574 Haemophilus spp., and 5,690 Enterobacterales isolates. One isolate per patient infection episode was tested. Identifications were confirmed by MALDI-TOF MS and susceptibility testing was performed using CLSI broth microdilution methods. Results OMC (MIC50/90, 0.12/0.25 mg/L) was highly active against S. aureus isolates from skin and skin structure infection (SSSI; 99.3% susceptible [S]) including MRSA (97.7%S) and MSSA (99.9%S) (table). Similarly, OMC demonstrated potent activity against S. aureus isolates from respiratory tract infection (RTI; MIC50/90, 0.12/0.25 mg/L) including MSSA (98.2%S). All S. lugdunensis isolates from SSSI were S (100.0%) to OMC. All Streptococcus anginosus group (100.0%) and 97.6% of S. pyogenes isolates from SSSI were S to OMC as were 98.0% of S. pneumoniae from RTI. No streptococci were resistant (R) to OMC. OMC (MIC50/90 0.12/0.25 mg/L) had potent activity against E. faecalis isolates from SSSI (99.0%S). OMC S against E. cloacae and K. pneumoniae isolates from SSSI was 92.1% S and 89.4% S, respectively. Similarly, 86.2% of K. pneumoniae isolates from RTI were S to OMC. Susceptibility of H. influenzae isolates from RTI to OMC was 99.8%S (no isolates were R). ?90.0% of E. coli (MIC50/90, 1/2 mg/L) and K. pneumoniae (MIC50/90, 2/4 mg/L) UTI isolates were inhibited by ?4 mg/L of OMC. Conclusion OMC was highly active against bacterial pathogens associated with ABSSSI, CABP, and UTI including staphylococci (97.7%-100.0%S), streptococci (97.6%-100.0%S), E. faecalis (99.0%S). E. cloacae (92.1%S), K. pneumoniae (86.2%-89.4%S), and E. coli. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Project description:Whether categories of family history of diabetes can act as independent risk factors for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM-1, -2) has not yet been established, and neither has it been established how categories of body mass index (BMI) affect these relationships. A group of 912 women without chronic diseases, recruited in the first trimester, was investigated: 125 (13.7%) women developed GDM-1 (treated with diet); 21 (2.3%) women developed GDM-2 (treated with insulin); and a control group consisted of 766 non-diabetic women. A multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate adjusted odds ratios (AOR (95% confidence intervals)) of GDM-1 and GDM-2 for declared diabetes in the parents or grandparents (separately). These relationships were investigated in the whole cohort and subgroups of pre-pregnancy BMI. (1) Some categories of the family history were independent risk factors of GDM-1 or GDM-2. Compared to 'absence of diabetes in the family', women with diabetes in the father had a 3.68-fold increase in GDM-1 risk (AOR-b = 3.68 (2.23-6.07)), and women with diabetes in the mother had a 2.13-fold increase in GDM-1 risk (AOR-b = 2.13 (1.1-4.14)) and a 4.73-fold increase in GDM-2 risk (AOR-b = 4.73 (1.26-17.77)). Women with diabetes in the grandmother had a 2.34-fold increase in GDM-1 risk (AOR-b = 2.34 (1.29-4.24)). (2) The cumulative assessment of diabetes in the parents and/or grandparents was not related to the intensification of the risk of GDM, except for the increased risk of GDM-1 for diabetes in both mother and grandmothers simultaneously (AOR-b = 8.80 (1.16-66.57)), however, this group was very small. (3) The analyses in the subgroups of BMI categories showed that diabetes in the father was also an independent risk factor of GDM in the subgroup of pregnant women with normal BMI. In the subgroups of overweight and/or obesity, the risk of GDM for paternal and maternal diabetes was approximately twice as high as compared to the results of pregnant women with normal BMIs. Additionally, apart from the maternal influence of diabetes, the results suggest a significant influence of diabetes in the father on the risk of GDM, even (interestingly) in lean pregnant women.

Project description:BackgroundOmadacycline is an oral and intravenous (IV) once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic that is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). It has broad-spectrum activity against common causative pathogens of ABSSSI, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Omadacycline has been shown to be noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of adults with ABSSSI across 2 phase 3 clinical trials. To date, no studies have assessed the budget impact for omadacycline in the treatment of ABSSSI.ObjectivesTo estimate the potential budget impact of introducing omadacycline as a treatment option in patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with ABSSSI from the hospital perspective (Medicare payer) in the United States. The ED's and observation units were assumed to be hospital-owned.MethodsThe base case of this decision model-based analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hospital for a theoretical cohort of 1 million covered Medicare members over a 3-year time horizon. Scenario analyses included the economic impact of (1) shifting inpatient care to the outpatient setting with omadacycline and (2) reducing hospital length of stay (LOS) among hospitalized patients with omadacycline IV to oral therapy relative to the current inpatient standard of care. Costs are presented in 2017 US dollars with no adjustments for inflation, based on the cost model estimates.ResultsThe annual total incremental cost following the introduction of omadacycline as a treatment of ABSSSI was $11,168, $39,918, and $88,777 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The incremental cost per member treated (cost per case) rose by $0.49, $1.74, and $3.86 over 3 years. Reducing hospital LOS by 1 day among hospitalized patients with omadacycline resulted in incremental costs of $4311, $15,231, and $33,919 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Under the assumption that patients may be discharged sooner when an oral formulation of the same drug with which they are being treated is available, reducing hospital LOS by 2 days reduced costs by $2546, $9455, and $20,939 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Shifting inpatient care to the outpatient setting with omadacycline reduced costs by $38,777, $139,885, and $310,784 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively.ConclusionThis hypothetical, model-based study determined that omadacycline would result in a modest increase in total cost over 3 years when introduced as a treatment for ABSSSI in adults who present to the ED for their care.