|Articles|December 10, 2019

Sulopenem Narrowly Misses Primary End Point in Phase 3 cIAI Study

The difference in outcomes was 4.7% with a 95% confidence interval on that difference of -10.3% to 1.0%. This fell short of non-inferiority which required that the lower limit of the difference in the outcome rates be >-10%.

Interim Therapeutics has announced topline results from a phase 3 trial evaluating sulopenem for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). According to the new results, the agent “narrowly missed” the primary end point.

Sulopenem is a novel penem anti-infective that has both oral and intravenous formulations. The novel agent has demonstrated in vitro activity against gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria resistant to other antibiotics. The agent was evaluated in the phase 3 Sulopenem for Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (SURE) clinical trial.

The multicenter, double-blind study randomized patients to receive either intravenous sulopenem once daily for at least 5 days followed by oral sulopenem/probenecid twice daily to complete 7-10 total days of treatment, or intravenous ertapenem once daily for at least 5 days followed by oral ciprofloxacin twice daily along with oral metronidazole 4 times daily or, for those patients with ciprofloxacin-resistant organism at baseline, amoxicillin-clavulanate twice daily.

The primary US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) end point was clinical response on day 28 in the micro-modified intent-to-treat population. According to the statement used by Iterum Therapeutics, the difference in outcomes was 4.7% (sulopenem 85.5%, ertapenem 90.2%) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) on that difference of -10.3% to 1.0%. This fell short of non-inferiority which required that the lower limit of the difference in the outcome rates be >-10%.

However, in an analysis designed to address any imbalances in patients with “indeterminate” outcomes at test of cure, the difference in outcomes was 4.7% (95% CI: -9.9% to 0.5%).

Of the 668 patients in safety population, 6.0% and 5.1% of individuals in the sulopenem and ertapenem reported treatment-related adverse events, respectively. The most common adverse events were diarrhea at 4.5% and 2.4%, respectively. Serious adverse events that were not related to treatment were seen in 7.5% of patients on sulopenem and 3.6% of patients on ertapenem.

The investigators note that discontinuations were uncommon but occurred in 1.5% of patients on sulopenem and 2.1% of patients on ertapenem.

“While the difference in the primary outcome is one patient shy of the target of -10%, imputing an outcome for the patients with missing data and the secondary supporting analyses, both at the end of treatment as well as the test of cure, provide support for the potential of sulopenem in the treatment of multi-drug resistant infections,” Michael Dunne, MD, chief scientific officer at Iterum Therapeutics said in the company’s statement.

Dunne also noted that over 10% of patients in this study had a gram-negative pathogen that was resistant to quinolones and β-lactams which are most commonly used asstep down therapy for cIAI.

“We believe that these topline results, while narrowly missing the primary endpoint, provide data that emphasize the potential for sulopenem to help address the growing challenge of antibiotic resistance,” Corey Fishman, chief executive officer of Iterum Therapeutics said in a the statement.

Sulopenem is being evaluated in phase 3 clinical trials for uncomplicated urinary tract infections, complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections.

The FDA has granted Special Protocol Agreements and Qualified Infectious Disease Product designations for sulopenem. This was accomplished in accordance with the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now (GAIN) Act, which provides 5 years of additional regulatory exclusivity and expedited fast track FDA review.


Related to this article

How The Food Safety Surveillance Infrastructure Works in the US
In the first episode of our news series looking at the food safety network, Lynette Johnston, PhD, offers insights into how the federal government surveillance infrastructure operates, and how epidemiologists serve as food detectives in determining bacterial pathogens and potential foodborne outbreaks.
Ebola and the Ongoing Tale of US Failures
In mid-May, as the world was still grappling with an unexpected hantavirus outbreak aboard a tourism vessel, news broke of an Ebola outbreak in the Ituri Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo spanning at least 3 health zones, including Bunia, Rwampara, and Mongbwalu.
This Week's Top 5 Infectious Disease News Stories: September 12-September 18, 2026
In this week's top infectious disease stories, a Pennsylvania teen became the state's fourth measles death in weeks, the CDC reported a 17% summer surge in rabies exposure calls, new research revisited whether cefepime raises mortality risk, a multihospital review examined ceftriaxone's safety after state alerts, and examining Legionella pneumonia diagnostics.
Measles Update: September 18, 2026
The latest CDC numbers show a 5.37% increase of measles cases from week-to-week. In Pennsylvania, the fourth measles-related death was reported in 2026. Additionally, the CDC has made a change in the way it will report deaths.
CDC Responds to Surge in Rabies Exposures
A "Clinician Outreach" from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in April anticipated an increase in rabies exposures, and the striking surge in case reports this summer prompted a recent health advisory alert from the federal agency.
New Diagnositics for Legionella Pneumonia May Streamline Care Continuum
Reported cases of Legionnaires’ disease have been on the rise for the past decade, and identifying Legionella bacteria requires specialized testing in the microbiology lab. Here is a clinical overview of Legionella bacteria, including required testing, treatment, and reporting to public health officials.
Ceftriaxone Safety: Separating Signal From Risk
A retrospective multihospital study found that severe adverse events occurred at similarly low rates with ceftriaxone and other IV cephalosporins suggesting there is no evidence to support avoiding ceftriaxone despite recent health department safety alerts.