Skip to main content

Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Huang, DB; Corey, GR; Holland, TL; Lodise, T; O'Riordan, W; Wilcox, MH; File, TM; Dryden, M; Balser, B; Desplats, E; Torres, A
Published in: Int J Antimicrob Agents
August 2018

Iclaprim, a diaminopyrimidine antimicrobial, was compared with vancomycin for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two studies (REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2). Here, the efficacy and tolerability of iclaprim in a pooled analysis of results from both studies was explored. REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2 were phase 3, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, active-controlled, non-inferiority (margin of 10%) trials, each designed to enrol 600 patients with ABSSSI using identical study protocols. Iclaprim 80 mg and vancomycin 15 mg/kg were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction from baseline in lesion size [early clinical response (ECR)] at the early time point (ETP) (48-72 h after starting study drug) in the intent-to-treat population. In REVIVE-1, ECR at the ETP was 80.9% with iclaprim versus 81.0% with vancomycin (treatment difference -0.13%, 95% CI -6.42% to 6.17%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 78.3% with iclaprim versus 76.7% with vancomycin (treatment difference 1.58%, 95% CI -5.10% to 8.26%). The pooled ECR was 79.6% with iclaprim versus 78.8% with vancomycin (treatment difference 0.75%, 95% CI -3.84 to 5.35%). Iclaprim and vancomycin were comparable for the incidence of mostly mild adverse events, except for a higher incidence of elevated serum creatinine with vancomycin (n = 7) compared with iclaprim (n = 0). Iclaprim achieved non-inferiority compared with vancomycin for ECR at the ETP and secondary endpoints with a similar safety profile in two phase 3 studies for treatment of ABSSSI suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. [Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02600611 and NCT02607618.].

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Int J Antimicrob Agents

DOI

EISSN

1872-7913

Publication Date

August 2018

Volume

52

Issue

2

Start / End Page

233 / 240

Location

Netherlands

Related Subject Headings

  • Vancomycin
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Streptococcus pyogenes
  • Streptococcal Infections
  • Staphylococcus aureus
  • Staphylococcal Infections
  • Skin Diseases, Bacterial
  • Pyrimidines
  • Patient Safety
  • Middle Aged
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Huang, D. B., Corey, G. R., Holland, T. L., Lodise, T., O’Riordan, W., Wilcox, M. H., … Torres, A. (2018). Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 52(2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.05.012
Huang, David B., G Ralph Corey, Thomas L. Holland, Thomas Lodise, William O’Riordan, Mark H. Wilcox, Thomas M. File, et al. “Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.Int J Antimicrob Agents 52, no. 2 (August 2018): 233–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.05.012.
Huang, David B., et al. “Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.Int J Antimicrob Agents, vol. 52, no. 2, Aug. 2018, pp. 233–40. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.05.012.
Huang DB, Corey GR, Holland TL, Lodise T, O’Riordan W, Wilcox MH, File TM, Dryden M, Balser B, Desplats E, Torres A. Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018 Aug;52(2):233–240.

Published In

Int J Antimicrob Agents

DOI

EISSN

1872-7913

Publication Date

August 2018

Volume

52

Issue

2

Start / End Page

233 / 240

Location

Netherlands

Related Subject Headings

  • Vancomycin
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Streptococcus pyogenes
  • Streptococcal Infections
  • Staphylococcus aureus
  • Staphylococcal Infections
  • Skin Diseases, Bacterial
  • Pyrimidines
  • Patient Safety
  • Middle Aged