A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of intravenous nemonoxacin malate vs. levofloxacin for community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Nemonoxacin malate is a novel non-fluorinated quinolone for oral and intravenous (IV) administration. This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-controlled clinical trial (NCT02205112) evaluated the efficacy and safety of IV nemonoxacin vs. levofloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult patients. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomised to receive 500 mg nemonoxacin or levofloxacin via IV infusion, once daily for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population. Secondary efficacy and safety were also compared between nemonoxacin and levofloxacin. RESULTS: Overall, 525 patients were randomised and treated with nemonoxacin (n = 349) or levofloxacin (n = 176). The clinical cure rate was 91.8% (279/304) for nemonoxacin and 85.7% (138/161) for levofloxacin in the mITT population (P > 0.05). The clinical efficacy of nemonoxacin was non-inferior to levofloxacin for treatment of CAP. Microbiological success rate with nemonoxacin was 88.8% (95/107) and with levofloxacin was 87.8% (43/49) (P > 0.05) at the TOC visit in the bacteriological mITT population. The incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) was 37.1% in the nemonoxacin group and 22.2% in the levofloxacin group. These AEs were mostly local reactions at the infusion site, nausea, elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (ALT/AST), and QT interval prolongation. The nemonoxacin-related AEs were mostly mild and resolved after discontinuation of nemonoxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Nemonoxacin 500 mg IV once daily for 7-14 days is effective and safe and non-inferior to levofloxacin for treating CAP in adult patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.