P Daley1, T Louie2, J E Lutz3, S Khanna4, U Stoutenburgh5, M Jin5, A Adedoyin5, L Chesnel5, D Guris5, K B Larson5, Y Murata5. 1. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada. 2. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. St Charles Health System, Bend, OR, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The available treatment options for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are limited by high recurrence rates. Surotomycin was a novel bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide in development to treat CDI that demonstrated non-inferiority to vancomycin in a Phase 2 trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess surotomycin safety and clinical response (non-inferiority versus vancomycin) at the end of treatment (EOT) of CDI. Additionally, to assess surotomycin response over time and sustained response at 30-40 days post-EOT (superiority versus vancomycin). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CDI were randomized (1:1) to receive twice-daily oral surotomycin 250 mg alternating with twice-daily placebo or four-times-daily oral vancomycin 125 mg for 10 days in this Phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, international trial. Clinical response over time and sustained clinical response were monitored until the end of the trial, through a follow-up period of 30-40 days. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01598311. RESULTS: A total of 285 and 292 patients with confirmed CDI were randomized to receive surotomycin and vancomycin, respectively. Surotomycin-associated clinical response at EOT was non-inferior to vancomycin (surotomycin/vancomycin: 83.4%/82.1%; difference 1.4%, 95% CI - 4.9, 7.6). Following treatment with surotomycin, both clinical response over time (stratified log-rank test, P = 0.277) and sustained clinical response (63.3%/59.0%; difference 4.3%, 95% CI - 3.6, 12.2) did not demonstrate superiority versus vancomycin at end of trial. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Surotomycin demonstrated non-inferiority to vancomycin for CDI clinical response at EOT. Surotomycin did not demonstrate superiority to vancomycin for clinical response over time or sustained clinical response rate.
BACKGROUND: The available treatment options for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are limited by high recurrence rates. Surotomycin was a novel bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide in development to treat CDI that demonstrated non-inferiority to vancomycin in a Phase 2 trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess surotomycin safety and clinical response (non-inferiority versus vancomycin) at the end of treatment (EOT) of CDI. Additionally, to assess surotomycin response over time and sustained response at 30-40 days post-EOT (superiority versus vancomycin). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CDI were randomized (1:1) to receive twice-daily oral surotomycin 250 mg alternating with twice-daily placebo or four-times-daily oral vancomycin 125 mg for 10 days in this Phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, international trial. Clinical response over time and sustained clinical response were monitored until the end of the trial, through a follow-up period of 30-40 days. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01598311. RESULTS: A total of 285 and 292 patients with confirmed CDI were randomized to receive surotomycin and vancomycin, respectively. Surotomycin-associated clinical response at EOT was non-inferior to vancomycin (surotomycin/vancomycin: 83.4%/82.1%; difference 1.4%, 95% CI - 4.9, 7.6). Following treatment with surotomycin, both clinical response over time (stratified log-rank test, P = 0.277) and sustained clinical response (63.3%/59.0%; difference 4.3%, 95% CI - 3.6, 12.2) did not demonstrate superiority versus vancomycin at end of trial. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Surotomycin demonstrated non-inferiority to vancomycin for CDI clinical response at EOT. Surotomycin did not demonstrate superiority to vancomycin for clinical response over time or sustained clinical response rate.
Authors: Caroline Diorio; Paula D Robinson; Roland A Ammann; Elio Castagnola; Kelley Erickson; Adam Esbenshade; Brian T Fisher; Gabrielle M Haeusler; Susan Kuczynski; Thomas Lehrnbecher; Robert Phillips; Sandra Cabral; L Lee Dupuis; Lillian Sung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ravi K R Marreddy; Xiaoqian Wu; Madhab Sapkota; Allan M Prior; Jesse A Jones; Dianqing Sun; Kirk E Hevener; Julian G Hurdle Journal: ACS Infect Dis Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 5.084
Authors: Angie M Jarrad; Mark A T Blaskovich; Anggia Prasetyoputri; Tomislav Karoli; Karl A Hansford; Matthew A Cooper Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 5.640