Lefamulin efficacy and safety in a pooled phase 3 clinical trial population with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and common clinical comorbidities

Thomas M File Jr, Elizabeth Alexander, Lisa Goldberg, Anita F Das, Christian Sandrock, Susanne Paukner, Gregory J Moran, Thomas M File Jr, Elizabeth Alexander, Lisa Goldberg, Anita F Das, Christian Sandrock, Susanne Paukner, Gregory J Moran

Abstract

Background: Lefamulin, a first-in-class pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), was noninferior to moxifloxacin in the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 intravenous-to-oral switch study and the LEAP 2 oral-only study. Using pooled LEAP 1/2 data, we examined lefamulin efficacy/safety overall and within subgroups of patients presenting with comorbidities typical in CABP management.

Methods: In LEAP 1, adults with CABP were randomized to receive intravenous lefamulin (150 mg every 12 h) for 5‒7 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch if predefined improvement criteria were met. In LEAP 2, adults with CABP were randomized to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 h) for 5 days or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 h) for 7 days. Both studies assessed early clinical response (ECR) at 96 ± 24 h after first study drug dose and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) at test-of-cure (5‒10 days after last dose). Pooled analyses of the overall population used a 10% noninferiority margin.

Results: Lefamulin (n = 646) was noninferior to moxifloxacin (n = 643) for ECR (89.3% vs 90.5%, respectively; difference - 1.1%; 95% CI - 4.4 to 2.2); IACR success rates at test-of-cure were similarly high (≥ 85.0%). High efficacy with both lefamulin and moxifloxacin was also demonstrated across all well-represented patient subgroups, including those with advanced age, diabetes mellitus, a history of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmia) or chronic lung diseases (e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), elevated liver enzymes, or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions: Lefamulin may provide a valuable intravenous/oral monotherapy alternative to fluoroquinolones or macrolides for empiric treatment of patients with CABP, including cases of patients at risk for poor outcomes due to age or various comorbidities.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov LEAP 1 (NCT02559310; Registration Date: 24/09/2015) and LEAP 2 (NCT02813694; Registration Date: 27/06/2016).

Keywords: Antibiotic; Clinical response; Lefamulin; Pleuromutilin; Pneumonia.

Conflict of interest statement

TMF has served as a consultant for bioMérieux, Curetis, Merck, Motif BioSciences, Nabriva Therapeutics, Paratek, Pfizer, and Shionogi Inc. and received grants from Nabriva Therapeutics. SP is an employee of/stockholder in Nabriva Therapeutics plc. EA and LG were employees of/stockholders in Nabriva Therapeutics plc at the time of the analysis. AFD has served as a consultant for Achaogen, AntibioTx, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Cempra, ContraFect, IterumTx, Nabriva Therapeutics, Paratek, Tetraphase, Theravance, UTILITY, Wockhardt, and Zavante. CS has served as a consultant for Allergan and Nabriva Therapeutics, received grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources & Services Administration, and received nonfinancial support from the State of California. GJM has received grants from ContraFect and Nabriva Therapeutics.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a ECR response in the pooled ITT population, b patients meeting ECR criteria by visit in the pooled ITT population, and IACR success by visit in the pooled c mITT and d CE populations. CE clinically evaluable, ECR early clinical response, EOT end of treatment, IACR investigator assessment of clinical response, ITT intent to treat, LFU late follow-up, mITT modified ITT, TOC test of cure
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Patients with resolution of all baseline clinical signs and symptoms* of CABP by visit (pooled ITT population). *Dyspnea, cough, purulent sputum production, and chest pain. CABP community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, EOT end of treatment, ITT intent to treat, LFU late follow-up, TOC test of cure
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Subgroup analysis of a ECR in the pooled ITT population and IACR at TOC in the pooled b mITT and c CE populations. See Table 1 footnotes for subgroup definitions. ATS American Thoracic Society, CE clinically evaluable, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ECR early clinical response, IACR investigator assessment of clinical response, ITT intent to treat, mITT modified ITT, PORT Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team, SIRS systemic inflammatory response syndrome

References

    1. Peyrani P, Mandell L, Torres A, Tillotson GS. The burden of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the era of antibiotic resistance. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2019;13(2):139–152. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2019.1562339.
    1. McDermott KW, Elixhauser A, Sun R. Trends in hospital inpatient stays in the United States, 2005–2014: statistical brief #225. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2017.
    1. Xu J, Murphy SL, Kochanek KD, Arias E. Mortality in the United States, 2018. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. . Accessed 16 Jan 2021.
    1. Cavallazzi R, Furmanek S, Arnold FW, et al. The burden of community-acquired pneumonia requiring admission to an intensive care unit in the United States. Chest. 2020;158(3):1008–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.051.
    1. Welte T, Torres A, Nathwani D. Clinical and economic burden of community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe. Thorax. 2012;67(1):71–79. doi: 10.1136/thx.2009.129502.
    1. File TM, Marrie TJ. Burden of community-acquired pneumonia in North American adults. Postgrad Med. 2010;122(2):130–141. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2010.03.2130.
    1. Aujesky D, Fine MJ. The pneumonia severity index: a decade after the initial derivation and validation. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(suppl 3):S133–9.
    1. Amalakuhan B, Echevarria KL, Restrepo MI. Managing community acquired pneumonia in the elderly - the next generation of pharmacotherapy on the horizon. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2017;18(11):1039–1048. doi: 10.1080/14656566.2017.1340937.
    1. Ishiguro T, Takayanagi N, Yamaguchi S, et al. Etiology and factors contributing to the severity and mortality of community-acquired pneumonia. Intern Med. 2013;52(3):317–324. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.52.8830.
    1. Luna CM, Palma I, Niederman MS, et al. The impact of age and comorbidities on the mortality of patients of different age groups admitted with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13(9):1519–1526. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201512-848OC.
    1. Vardakas KZ, Kalimeris GD, Triarides NA, Falagas ME. An update on adverse drug reactions related to β-lactam antibiotics. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018;17(5):499–508. doi: 10.1080/14740338.2018.1462334.
    1. Mason JW. Antimicrobials and QT prolongation. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(5):1272–1274. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkw591.
    1. Postma DF, Spitoni C, van Werkhoven CH, et al. Cardiac events after macrolides or fluoroquinolones in patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia: post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-3630-7.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA drug safety communication: FDA reinforces safety information about serious low blood sugar levels and mental health side effects with fluoroquinolone antibiotics; requires label changes. . Accessed 16 Jan 2021.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA drug safety communication: FDA warns about increased risk of ruptures or tears in the aorta blood vessel with fluoroquinolone antibiotics in certain patients. . Accessed 27 Aug 2020.
    1. Jones SC, Budnitz DS, Sorbello A, Mehta H. US-based emergency department visits for fluoroquinolone-associated hypersensitivity reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(10):1099–1106. doi: 10.1002/pds.3499.
    1. Eyal Z, Matzov D, Krupkin M, et al. A novel pleuromutilin antibacterial compound, its binding mode and selectivity mechanism. Sci Rep. 2016;6:39004. doi: 10.1038/srep39004.
    1. Schlünzen F, Pyetan E, Fucini P, Yonath A, Harms JM. Inhibition of peptide bond formation by pleuromutilins: the structure of the 50S ribosomal subunit from Deinococcus radiodurans in complex with tiamulin. Mol Microbiol. 2004;54(5):1287–1294. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04346.x.
    1. Xenleta™ (lefamulin). Full prescribing information, Nabriva Therapeutics US, Inc., King of Prussia, PA; 2019.
    1. File TM, Jr, Goldberg L, Das A, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous-to-oral lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: the phase III Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(11):1856–1867. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz090.
    1. Alexander E, Goldberg L, Das AF, et al. Oral lefamulin vs moxifloxacin for early clinical response among adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: the LEAP 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(17):1661–1671. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.15468.
    1. Paukner S, Gelone SP, Arends SJR, Flamm RK, Sader HS. Antibacterial activity of lefamulin against pathogens most commonly causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program (2015–2016) Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(4):e02161–e2218. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02161-18.
    1. Waites KB, Crabb DM, Duffy LB, et al. In vitro activities of lefamulin and other antimicrobial agents against macrolide-susceptible and macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae from the United States, Europe, and China. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(2):e02008–e2016.
    1. Miettinen O, Nurminen M. Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med. 1985;4(2):213–226. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780040211.
    1. Wootton DG, Dickinson L, Pertinez H, et al. A longitudinal modelling study estimates acute symptoms of community acquired pneumonia recover to baseline by 10 days. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(6):1602170. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02170-2016.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Yu H, Sato R, Powers JH. Observational longitudinal study of symptom burden and time for recovery from community-acquired pneumonia reported by older adults surveyed nationwide using the CAP Burden of Illness Questionnaire. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2015;6:215–223.
    1. Metlay JP, Atlas SJ, Borowsky LH, Singer DE. Time course of symptom resolution in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Respir Med. 1998;92(9):1137–1142. doi: 10.1016/S0954-6111(98)90408-5.
    1. Lodise T, Colman S, Stein DS, et al. Post hoc assessment of time to clinical response among adults hospitalized with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia who received either lefamulin or moxifloxacin in 2 phase III randomized, double blind, double-dummy clinical trials. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(5):ofaa145. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa145.
    1. File TM, Gelone SP, Schranz J, Alexander E. Reply to Tang and Lai. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(6):1583. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1174.
    1. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: an official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(7):e45–e67. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST.
    1. Al-Khatib SM, LaPointe NM, Kramer JM, Califf RM. What clinicians should know about the QT interval. JAMA. 2003;289(16):2120–2127. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.16.2120.
    1. Avelox® (moxifloxacin hydrochloride). Full prescribing information. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Whippany, NJ; 2019.
    1. Zithromax® (azithromycin dihydrate). Full prescribing information, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY; 2019.
    1. Teflaro® (ceftaroline fosamil). Full prescribing information, Allergan USA, Inc., Madison, NJ; 2019.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Xenleta NDA/BLA multi-disciplinary review and evaluation. . Accessed 27 Aug 2020.
    1. Kaye KS, Bhowmick T, Metallidis S, et al. Effect of meropenem-vaborbactam vs piperacillin-tazobactam on clinical cure or improvement and microbial eradication in complicated urinary tract infection: the TANGO I randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(8):788–799. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0438.
    1. Wagenlehner FM, Umeh O, Steenbergen J, Yuan G, Darouiche RO. Ceftolozane-tazobactam compared with levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary-tract infections, including pyelonephritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cUTI) Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1949–1956. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62220-0.
    1. Spellberg B, Marr KA, Brass EP. Regulatory pathways for new antimicrobial agents: trade-offs to keep the perfect from being the enemy of the good. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100(6):597–599. doi: 10.1002/cpt.510.
    1. Bart SM, Farley JJ, Bala S, Amini T, Cox E. Geographic shifts in antibacterial drug clinical trial enrollment: implications for generalizability. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(8):1422–8.
    1. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(suppl 2):S27–S72. doi: 10.1086/511159.
    1. Li HY, Guo Q, Song WD, et al. Modified IDSA/ATS minor criteria for severe community-acquired pneumonia best predicted mortality. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94(36):e1474. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001474.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi