Primary Outcomes From a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Trial of Surotomycin in Subjects With Clostridium difficile Infection

Abstract Background Although the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is increasing, available CDI treatment options are limited in terms of sustained response after treatment. This phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of surotomycin, a novel bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide, versus oral vancomycin in subjects with CDI. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, international trial, subjects with CDI confirmed by a positive toxin result were randomized to receive surotomycin (250 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg 4 times daily) orally for 10 days. The primary endpoints were clinical response at end of treatment and evaluation of surotomycin safety. The key secondary endpoints were clinical response over time and sustained clinical response through a 30- to 40-day follow-up period. Clostridium difficile infection recurrence during follow-up and time to diarrhea resolution were also analyzed. Results In total, 570 subjects were randomized and had confirmed CDI; 290 subjects received surotomycin and 280 subjects received vancomycin. Surotomycin clinical cure rates at end of treatment (surotomycin/vancomycin: 79.0%/83.6%; difference of −4.6%; 95% confidence interval, −11.0 to 1.9]), clinical response over time (stratified log-rank test, P = .832), and sustained clinical response at end of trial (Day 40–50) (60.6%/61.4%; difference of −0.8%; 95% CI, −8.8 to 7.1) in the microbiological modified intent to treat population did not meet noninferiority or superiority criteria versus vancomycin. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Conclusions Surotomycin failed to meet the criteria for noninferiority versus vancomycin for the primary and key secondary endpoints in this trial.

[1]  T. Louie,et al.  Surotomycin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection: Phase 2, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority, multicentre trial. , 2016, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[2]  O. Dekkers,et al.  European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. , 2016, Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[3]  E. Goldstein,et al.  Impact of Surotomycin on the Gut Microbiota of Healthy Volunteers in a Phase 1 Clinical Trial , 2016, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[4]  Lisa G Winston,et al.  Burden of Clostridium difficile Infection in the United States , 2015 .

[5]  V. Young,et al.  Clostridium difficile and the microbiota. , 2014, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[6]  Kelly R. Reveles,et al.  The rise in Clostridium difficile infection incidence among hospitalized adults in the United States: 2001-2010. , 2014, American journal of infection control.

[7]  Fernanda C. Lessa,et al.  Current Status of Clostridium difficile Infection Epidemiology , 2012, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[8]  D. Snydman,et al.  Activity of a Novel Cyclic Lipopeptide, CB-183,315, against Resistant Clostridium difficile and Other Gram-Positive Aerobic and Anaerobic Intestinal Pathogens , 2012, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[9]  K. Garey,et al.  High Horn's index score predicts poor outcomes in patients with Clostridium difficile infection. , 2011, The Journal of hospital infection.

[10]  Pamela Sears,et al.  Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  D. Gerding,et al.  Clostridium difficile infection caused by the epidemic BI/NAP1/027 strain. , 2009, Gastroenterology.

[12]  C. Kelly,et al.  Clostridium difficile--more difficult than ever. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.