Dale N Gerding1, Oliver A Cornely2, Simon Grill3, Hilke Kracker3, Anne Claire Marrast3, Carl Erik Nord4, George H Talbot5, Martha Buitrago6, Iulian Gheorghe Diaconescu7, Claudia Murta de Oliveira8, Liliana Preotescu9, John Pullman10, Thomas J Louie11, Mark H Wilcox12. 1. Edward Hines Jr Veterans Administration Hospital, Hines, IL, USA. Electronic address: dale.gerding2@va.gov. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases, Clinical Trials Centre Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Allschwil, Switzerland. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Talbot Advisors, Anna Maria, FL, USA. 6. Snake River Research, Idaho Falls, ID, USA. 7. Victor Babes Clinical Hospital of Infectious Diseases and Pneumophysiology, Craiova, Romania. 8. Santa Casa de Belo Horizonte, Serviço de Controle de Infecção Hospitalar, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 9. Matei Bals National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Bucharest, Romania. 10. Mercury Street Medical Group, Butte, MT, USA. 11. Foothills Medical Center, Alberta Health Services & University of Calgary, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, AB, Canada. 12. Microbiology, Old Medical School, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Cadazolid is a novel quinoxolidinone antibiotic developed for treating Clostridium difficile infection. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of cadazolid compared with vancomycin in patients with C difficile infection. METHODS: IMPACT 1 and IMPACT 2 were identically designed, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trials. IMPACT 1 was done in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the USA, and IMPACT 2 was done in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, the UK, and the USA. Patients (aged 18 years or older) with mild-to-moderate or severe C difficile infection (diarrhoea with positive glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A or B enzyme immunoassays) were randomly assigned (1:1) with a randomisation list stratified by centre and C difficile infection episode type (block size of four), and allocation was masked to investigators and participants. Patients received either oral cadazolid 250 mg twice daily with vancomycin-matching placebo capsule four times daily or oral vancomycin 125 mg four times a day with cadazolid-matching placebo suspension twice daily for 10 days, with 30 days of follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome was non-inferiority (margin -10%) of cadazolid versus vancomycin for clinical cure in the modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Clinical cure was defined as resolution of diarrhoea with no additional treatment for C difficile infection. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01987895 (IMPACT 1) and NCT01983683 (IMPACT 2). FINDINGS: Between March 28, 2014, and March 24, 2017, for IMPACT 1, and Dec 13, 2013, and May 2, 2017, for IMPACT 2, 1263 participants were randomly assigned to receive cadazolid (306 in IMPACT 1 and 298 in IMPACT 2) or vancomycin (326 in IMPACT 1 and 311 in IMPACT 2). In the modified intention-to-treat population in IMPACT 1, 253 (84%) of 302 had clinical cure in the cadazolid group versus 271 (85%) of 318 in the vancomycin group. In IMPACT 2, 235 (81%) of 290 versus 258 (86%) of 301 had clinical cure. In the per-protocol population, 247 (88%) of 282 versus 264 (92%) of 288 had clinical cure in IMPACT 1 and 214 (87%) of 247 versus 237 (92%) of 259 in IMPACT 2. Non-inferiority for clinical cure to vancomycin was shown in IMPACT 1 but not in IMPACT 2 (IMPACT 1 treatment difference: -1·4 [95% CI -7·2 to 4·3] for modified intention to treat and -4·1 [-9·2 to 1·0] for per protocol; IMPACT 2: -4·7 [-10·7 to 1·3] for modified intention to treat and -4·9 [-10·4 to 0·6] for per protocol). The safety and tolerability profiles of the two antibiotics were similar. INTERPRETATION:Cadazolid was safe and well tolerated but did not achieve its primary endpoint of non-inferiority to vancomycin for clinical cure in one of two phase 3 C difficile infection trials. Therefore, further commercial development of cadazolid for C difficile infection is unlikely. FUNDING: Actelion Pharmaceuticals.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Cadazolid is a novel quinoxolidinone antibiotic developed for treating Clostridium difficile infection. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of cadazolid compared with vancomycin in patients with C difficile infection. METHODS: IMPACT 1 and IMPACT 2 were identically designed, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trials. IMPACT 1 was done in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the USA, and IMPACT 2 was done in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, the UK, and the USA. Patients (aged 18 years or older) with mild-to-moderate or severe C difficile infection (diarrhoea with positive glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A or B enzyme immunoassays) were randomly assigned (1:1) with a randomisation list stratified by centre and C difficile infection episode type (block size of four), and allocation was masked to investigators and participants. Patients received either oral cadazolid 250 mg twice daily with vancomycin-matching placebo capsule four times daily or oral vancomycin 125 mg four times a day with cadazolid-matching placebo suspension twice daily for 10 days, with 30 days of follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome was non-inferiority (margin -10%) of cadazolid versus vancomycin for clinical cure in the modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Clinical cure was defined as resolution of diarrhoea with no additional treatment for C difficile infection. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01987895 (IMPACT 1) and NCT01983683 (IMPACT 2). FINDINGS: Between March 28, 2014, and March 24, 2017, for IMPACT 1, and Dec 13, 2013, and May 2, 2017, for IMPACT 2, 1263 participants were randomly assigned to receive cadazolid (306 in IMPACT 1 and 298 in IMPACT 2) or vancomycin (326 in IMPACT 1 and 311 in IMPACT 2). In the modified intention-to-treat population in IMPACT 1, 253 (84%) of 302 had clinical cure in the cadazolid group versus 271 (85%) of 318 in the vancomycin group. In IMPACT 2, 235 (81%) of 290 versus 258 (86%) of 301 had clinical cure. In the per-protocol population, 247 (88%) of 282 versus 264 (92%) of 288 had clinical cure in IMPACT 1 and 214 (87%) of 247 versus 237 (92%) of 259 in IMPACT 2. Non-inferiority for clinical cure to vancomycin was shown in IMPACT 1 but not in IMPACT 2 (IMPACT 1 treatment difference: -1·4 [95% CI -7·2 to 4·3] for modified intention to treat and -4·1 [-9·2 to 1·0] for per protocol; IMPACT 2: -4·7 [-10·7 to 1·3] for modified intention to treat and -4·9 [-10·4 to 0·6] for per protocol). The safety and tolerability profiles of the two antibiotics were similar. INTERPRETATION:Cadazolid was safe and well tolerated but did not achieve its primary endpoint of non-inferiority to vancomycin for clinical cure in one of two phase 3 C difficile infection trials. Therefore, further commercial development of cadazolid for C difficile infection is unlikely. FUNDING: Actelion Pharmaceuticals.
Authors: Alain Scaiola; Marc Leibundgut; Daniel Boehringer; Patrick Caspers; Daniel Bur; Hans H Locher; Georg Rueedi; Daniel Ritz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jacob McPherson; Chenlin Hu; Khurshida Begum; Weiqun Wang; Chris Lancaster; Anne J Gonzales-Luna; Caroline Loveall; Michael H Silverman; M Jahangir Alam; Kevin W Garey Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: E Bouza; J M Aguado; L Alcalá; B Almirante; P Alonso-Fernández; M Borges; J Cobo; J Guardiola; J P Horcajada; E Maseda; J Mensa; N Merchante; P Muñoz; J L Pérez Sáenz; M Pujol; E Reigadas; M Salavert; J Barberán Journal: Rev Esp Quimioter Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 1.553
Authors: Kurt Selle; Joshua R Fletcher; Hannah Tuson; Daniel S Schmitt; Lana McMillan; Gowrinarayani S Vridhambal; Alissa J Rivera; Stephanie A Montgomery; Louis-Charles Fortier; Rodolphe Barrangou; Casey M Theriot; David G Ousterout Journal: mBio Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 7.867
Authors: Jacek Czepiel; Marcela Krutova; Assaf Mizrahi; Nagham Khanafer; David A Enoch; Márta Patyi; Aleksander Deptuła; Antonella Agodi; Xavier Nuvials; Hanna Pituch; Małgorzata Wójcik-Bugajska; Iwona Filipczak-Bryniarska; Bartosz Brzozowski; Marcin Krzanowski; Katarzyna Konturek; Marcin Fedewicz; Mateusz Michalak; Lorra Monpierre; Philippe Vanhems; Theodore Gouliouris; Artur Jurczyszyn; Sarah Goldman-Mazur; Dorota Wultańska; Ed J Kuijper; Jan Skupień; Grażyna Biesiada; Aleksander Garlicki Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-13