FNIH’s submission to the HABP/VABP docket

Dear All:

After a multi-year gestation period (my notes on this project go back to 2012!!), a comment on the FDA draft HABP/VABP guidance document has now been submitted by the FNIH (Foundation for the NIH) Biomarkers Consortium HABP/VABP Project Team and posted online. Links to the docket and document are below my signature.

The document is substantial and you should plan to review it in detail if you are interested in studies of Noscomial Pneumonia. I have excerpted below my signature the summary recommendations.

At a high level, the key points are that (a) VABP and ventilated HABP may be studied together, (b) non-ventilated HABP is meaningfully different, (c) all-cause mortality at day 14-28 remains a valid endpoint but also (d) the Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) for Toxic/Septic Shock can be used to create a “mortality plus” endpoint that incorporates SAEs & AEs from that SMQ.

Interestingly, it turned out that non-ventilated HABP seems amenable to study with the same symptom-based tool that we use for CABP.

Frustratingly (and despite its obvious biological relevance), the available data on improvement in oxygenation were inadequate to support meaningful analysis. We were all eager for a way to validate this as an endpoint, but the required data were not collected in sufficient detail in the studies avaialble for analysis. The project team recommends that such data be gathered in future trials and perhaps this can be revisited.

Overall, this docket submission is expected to be a substantial boost to finalization by FDA of its guidance on conducting HABP-VABP trials. Establishing the acceptable performance of the “mortality plus” strategy is important as this helps ensure an event rate high enough to allow to allow use of the fixed 10% NI margin recommended for HABP-VABP trials.

It’s a work of many hands, but I would be remiss if I failed to say that the entire commmunity owes thanks to George Talbot for his exemplary leadership of this project. Thank you, George!!

All best wishes,

–jr

John H. Rex, MD | Chief Medical Officer, F2G Ltd. | Chief Strategy Officer, CARB-X | Expert-in-Residence, Wellcome Trust. Follow me on Twitter: @JohnRex_NewAbx


The FDA docket:https://www.regulations.gov/docket?rpp=10&po=0&D=FDA-2010-D-0589
FNIH’s submission in the docket:https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2010-D-0589-0027

Summary of Recommendations
1.  VABP and ventilated HABP appear to be similar syndromes that can readily be studied together. Patients with non-ventilated HABP have a lower mortality rate, and this difference should be anticipated if a study seeks to pool data across all three categories of nosocomial pneumonia.

  1. Enriching clinical trials for HABP and VABP with older patients who have higher APACHE Il scores will increase the rate of ACM. When this enrichment cannot be performed, the ACM event rate may be low enough that a fixed NI margin cannot be justified and an odds ratio approach to analysis may be needed. To avoid this statistical eventuality, sponsors could pre-specify a “mortality-plus” primary outcome parameter by incorporating SAEs and AES from the Toxic/Septic Shock SMQ. The same NI margin can be used for analysis of a 28-day ACM endpoint as for a 28-day endpoint comprising ACM plus AES or SAEs as defined by the Toxic/Septic Shock SMQ.
  2. For studies of non-ventilated HABP, the data demonstrate that patient symptoms can be collected and occur with a high enough frequency to allow an endpoint similar to that for trials of CABP. Analysis of resolution of symptoms at Study Days 5-7 appears reasonable. Since the data on symptom resolution in non-ventilated HABP support development of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument, which is currently ongoing, the current FNIH effort will not pursue validation of a symptom-based endpoint in nonventilated HABP.
  3. Sponsors of future trials in these indications should collect the following data:
    1. For VABP and ventilated HABP, oxygenation and ventilation, especially positive end-expiratory pressure settings;
    2. For non-ventilated HABP, symptoms and symptom resolution until Days 7—14; and
    3. Prior antibiotic usage.
  4. If mortality-plus is not used as a primary endpoint, sponsors of future trials in any of these indications should include secondary analyses of the utility of the mortality-plus endpoint based on AES and SAEs from the Toxic/Septic Shock SMQ.

Share

ENABLE-2 funding now includes Hit Identification & Validation

Dear All, I wrote on 25 Aug 2023 about the ENABLE-2 program and its support for hit-to-lead compound development. As a reminder, that program is focused on molecules with the potential to be direct-acting therapies for one or more of the following priority pathogens: ESBL-producing/carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (E. coli, K. pneumoniae), P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, or vancomycin-resistant E. faecium. Adding to that program, there is now an ENABLE-2

NIAID/DMID thinking for FY2026: Antibacterials, Phage, and Antifungals

Dear All, NIAID’s DMID (Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases) recently held a council meeting during which they proposed program concepts that encompassed both antibacterial therapies (including phage) as well as antifungal therapies for funding in FY 2026 (the year that would run from 1 Oct 2025 to 30 Sep 2026). There is no guarantee that

WHO Antibacterial Pipeline Review: Update thru 31 Dec 2023

Dear All, WHO have released an update through 31 Dec 2023 of their ongoing series of antibacterial pipeline reviews! Here are the links you need: The report: 2023 Antibacterial agents in clinical and preclinical development: an overview and analysis and a press release about the report. Infographics: Key facts and recommendations from the 2023 antibacterial agents in clinical

The (confusing!) language of AMR: ChatGPT tries to help!

Dear All (Wonkish alert! Not technical but lengthy … so settle in and enjoy the ride!): Regular readers will know of my fascination with language: e.g., this 20 Feb 2020 newsletter entitled “Language Matters: CRE vs. CPE; SDD vs. I; And MDR, XDR, PDR, UDR vs. DTR.” How about that for acronymics taken to Olympian

Scroll to Top