A&L Clinical Research, Miami, FL, USA.
Instituto Medico Platense, La Plata, Argentina.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Apr;16(4):421-30. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00017-7. Epub 2016 Feb 5.
Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and treatment recommendations, each with specific limitations, vary globally. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of solithromycin, a novel macrolide, with moxifloxacin for treatment of CABP.
We did this global, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin America, Europe, and South Africa. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with clinically and radiographically confirmed pneumonia of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based central block randomisation procedure (block size of four), to receive either oral solithromycin (800 mg on day 1, 400 mg on days 2-5, placebo on days 6-7) or oral moxifloxacin (400 mg on days 1-7). Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, PORT risk class (II vs III or IV), and medical history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study sponsor, investigators, staff, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was early clinical response, defined as an improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, chest pain, sputum production, dyspnoea) with no worsening in any symptom at 72 h after the first dose of study drug, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT-01756339.
Between Jan 3, 2013, and Sept 24, 2014, we randomly assigned 860 patients to receive solithromycin (n=426) or moxifloxacin (n=434). Patients were followed up to days 28-35 after first dose. Solithromycin was non-inferior to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response: 333 (78·2%) patients had an early clinical response in the solithromycin group versus 338 (77·9%) patients in the moxifloxacin group (difference 0·29, 95% CI -5·5 to 6·1). Both drugs had a similar safety profile. 43 (10%) of 155 treatment-emergent adverse events in the solithromycin group and 54 (13%) of 154 such events in the moxifloxacin group were deemed to be related to study drug. The most common adverse events, mostly of mild severity, were gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhoea (18 [4%] patients in the solithromycin group vs 28 [6%] patients in the moxifloxacin group), nausea (15 [4%] vs 17 [4%] patients) and vomiting (ten [2%] patients in each group); and nervous system disorders, including headache (19 [4%] vs 11 [3%] patients) and dizziness (nine [2%] vs seven [2%] patients).
Oral solithromycin was non-inferior to oral moxifloxacin for treatment of patients with CABP, showing the potential to restore macrolide monotherapy for this indication.
Cempra.
社区获得性细菌性肺炎(CABP)是发病率和死亡率的主要原因,且治疗建议因地域而异,各有其局限性。我们旨在比较新型大环内酯类药物索利霉素与莫西沙星治疗 CABP 的疗效和安全性。
我们在北美、拉丁美洲、欧洲和南非的 114 个中心进行了这项全球性、双盲、双模拟、随机、阳性对照、非劣效性试验。临床和影像学确诊为肺炎的患者(年龄≥18 岁),肺炎结局研究团队(PORT)风险分类 II、III 或 IV 级,通过基于互联网的中央区组随机化程序(区组大小为 4),以 1:1 的比例随机分配,分别接受口服索利霉素(第 1 天 800mg,第 2-5 天 400mg,第 6-7 天安慰剂)或口服莫西沙星(第 1-7 天 400mg)。随机化按地理区域、PORT 风险分类(II 级与 III 级或 IV 级)和哮喘或慢性阻塞性肺疾病病史进行分层。研究发起者、研究者、工作人员和患者对分组情况均不知情。主要结局是早期临床反应,定义为在首次服用研究药物后 72 小时内至少有四个症状(咳嗽、胸痛、咳痰、呼吸困难)中的两个症状改善,且任何症状均无恶化,且具有 10%的非劣效性边界。主要分析为意向治疗。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT-01756339。
2013 年 1 月 3 日至 2014 年 9 月 24 日,我们随机分配 860 例患者接受索利霉素(n=426)或莫西沙星(n=434)治疗。患者随访至首次给药后 28-35 天。索利霉素在实现早期临床反应方面不劣于莫西沙星:索利霉素组 333 例(78.2%)患者和莫西沙星组 338 例(77.9%)患者达到早期临床反应(差值 0.29,95%CI-5.5 至 6.1)。两种药物均具有相似的安全性特征。索利霉素组 155 例治疗中出现的不良事件中,43 例(10%)被认为与研究药物有关,莫西沙星组 154 例此类事件中,54 例(13%)被认为与研究药物有关。最常见的不良事件,大多为轻度,包括胃肠道疾病,包括腹泻(索利霉素组 18 例[4%],莫西沙星组 28 例[6%])、恶心(索利霉素组 15 例[4%],莫西沙星组 17 例[4%])和呕吐(每组 10 例[2%]);以及神经系统疾病,包括头痛(索利霉素组 19 例[4%],莫西沙星组 11 例[3%])和头晕(索利霉素组 9 例[2%],莫西沙星组 7 例[2%])。
口服索利霉素治疗社区获得性细菌性肺炎不劣于口服莫西沙星,这可能恢复了该适应症下大环内酯类药物的单药治疗。
Cempra。