Search

Ivermectin has been used since the 1980s as an anthelmintic and antiectoparasite agent worldwide. Currently, the only available oral formulation is tablets designed for adult patients. A patient‐friendly orodispersible tablet formulation designed for pediatric use (CHILD‐IVITAB) has been developed and is entering early phase clinical trials. To inform the pediatric program of CHILD‐IVITAB, 16 healthy adults were enrolled in a phase I, single‐center, open‐label, randomized, 2‐period, crossover, single‐dose trial which aimed to compare palatability, tolerability, and bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of CHILD‐IVITAB and their variability against the marketed ivermectin tablets (STROMECTOL) at a single dose of 12 mg in a fasting state. Palatability with CHILD‐IVITAB was considerably enhanced as compared to STROMECTOL. Both ivermectin formulations were well tolerated and safe. Relative bioavailability of CHILD‐IVITAB compared to STROMECTOL was estimated as the ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC 0‐∞, and AUC0‐last, which were 1.52 [90% CI: 1.13‐2.04], 1.27 [0.99‐1.62], and 1.29 [1.00‐1.66], respectively. Maximum drug concentrations occurred earlier with the CHILD‐IVITAB formulation, with a median Tmax at 3.0 h [range 2.0‐4.0 h] versus 4.0 h [range 2.0‐5.0 h] with STROMECTOL (P =.004). With CHILD‐IVITAB, variability in exposure was cut in half (coefficient of variation: 37% vs 70%) compared to STROMECTOL. Consistent with a more controlled absorption process, CHILD‐IVITAB was associated with reduced variability in drug exposure as compared to STROMECTOL. Together with a favorable palatability and tolerability profile, these findings motivate for further clinical studies to evaluate benefits of such a patient‐friendly ODT formulation in pediatric patients with a parasitic disease, including infants and young children <15 kg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The indications of daptomycin have been extended to off-label indications including prosthesis-related infection, and bone and joint infection (BJI). However, efficacy and safety have not been thoroughly demonstrated compared with the standard of care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the treatment effect of daptomycin and glycopeptides for complicated infections. Materials and methods MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing daptomycin and standard of care for Gram-positive infections, published until 30 June 2021. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological success. The main safety outcome was any severe adverse event (SAE) (grade  ≥3). Results Overall, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 1095 patients. Six (75%) were in complicated skin and soft-structure infections, one (12.5%) in bacteraemia and one (12.5%) in a BJI setting. Six RCTs used vancomycin as a comparator and two used either vancomycin or teicoplanin. All-cause mortality and clinical cure were not different between groups. The microbiological cure rate was superior in patients who received daptomycin [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01–1.35)]. The risk of SAEs [RR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.36–0.90)] was lower in the daptomycin arm. Conclusions While daptomycin is associated with a significantly lower risk of SAEs and a better microbiological eradication, substantial uncertainty remains about the best treatment strategy in the absence of good-quality evidence, especially in bacteraemia and endocarditis where further RCTs should be conducted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]