A Collaborative Model for Endpoint Development for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

Office of New Drugs.
Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 8.89). 06/2012; 55(8):1122-3. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis567
Source: PubMed

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "Beyond the US approval processes, the new guidance adopted by the FDA for ABSSSI becomes different from that currently stipulated by European regulatory agencies, and this lack of harmonization is a definite and costly challenge for sponsors seeking multinational approval of new antibiotics. Further revisions and refinements to this guidance, including the development of patient-reported outcome measures, are currently in progress and are expected to further facilitate the development of new antibiotics for ABSSSI[9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the conduct of clinical trials for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) has changed the framework for clinical trial design and conduct. Notable changes included new disease state definitions, new primary endpoint definitions and the timing of assessments at these endpoints, and updated guidance on patient inclusion/exclusion criteria. Supportive evidence and statistical justification for the proposed noninferiority margins were described in detail. Although the updated guidelines are still considered drafts and have been adopted in some trials, they serve as the basis for study protocol discussions between pharmaceutical companies and the FDA in advancing the development of promising new agents. Not only will the new trial designs impact researchers and sponsors responsible for drug development programs, but they will also affect healthcare providers participating in clinical trials and the ways in which clinicians develop patient treatment plans based on the results of those trials. This review provides a summary of key changes that will impact future clinical trial design and outcomes.
    Preview · Article · Jan 2014 · Clinical Infectious Diseases
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The development of antimicrobial drugs has evolved from observational case reports to complex randomized prospective clinical trials in specific treatment indications. Beginning around the year 2000, the US FDA has evolved its approach on study design and other study characteristics, which has made the conduct of these studies more difficult and the outcomes for sponsors more risky. This has contributed to the decline in the discovery and development of new antimicrobials, which are needed to address the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to existing marketed products. This study reviews the historical basis for the current regulatory climate including the various crises that have led to considerable political pressures on the agency. Recent efforts to resolve development uncertainties and to provide economic incentives for future antimicrobial drug development are presented.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2012 · Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), including cellulitis or erysipelas, major cutaneous abscesses, and wound infections, can be life-threatening and may require surgery and hospitalization. Increasingly, ABSSSIs are associated with drug-resistant pathogens, and many antimicrobial agents have adverse effects restricting their use. Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone in development for the treatment of ABSSSIs. To establish the noninferiority of tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid in treating ABSSSIs and compare the safety of the 2 agents. The Efficacy and Safety of 6-day Oral Tedizolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections vs 10-day Oral Linezolid Therapy (ESTABLISH-1) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial that was conducted from August 2010 through September 2011 at 81 study centers in North America, Latin America, and Europe. The intent-to-treat analysis set consisted of data from 667 adults aged 18 years or older with ABSSSIs treated with tedizolid phosphate (n = 332) or linezolid (n = 335). A 200 mg once daily dose of oral tedizolid phosphate for 6 days or 600 mg of oral linezolid every 12 hours for 10 days. The primary efficacy outcome was early clinical response at the 48- to 72-hour assessment (no increase in lesion surface area from baseline and oral temperature of ≤37.6°C, confirmed by a second temperature measurement within 24 hours). A 10% noninferiority margin was predefined. In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the early clinical treatment response rates were 79.5% (95% CI, 74.8% to 83.7%) of 332 patients in the tedizolid phosphate group and 79.4% (95% CI, 74.7% to 83.6%) of 335 patients in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of 0.1% [95% CI, -6.1% to 6.2%]). The sustained clinical treatment response rates at the end of treatment (day 11) were 69.3% (95% CI, 64.0% to 74.2%) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 71.9% (95% CI, 66.8% to 76.7%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -2.6% [95% CI, -9.6% to 4.2%]). Results of investigator-assessed clinical treatment success rates at a posttherapy evaluation visit (1-2 weeks after the end-of-treatment visit) were 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3% to 89.1%) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 86.0% (95% CI, 81.8% to 89.5%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -0.5% [95% CI, -5.8% to 4.9%), and were similar for 178 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from the primary lesion. Tedizolid phosphate was a statistically noninferior treatment to linezolid in early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours after initiating therapy for an ABSSSI. Tedizolid phosphate may be a reasonable alternative to linezolid for treating ABSSSI. Identifier: NCT01170221.
    Preview · Article · Feb 2013 · JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association
Show more