ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03354598Updated Jan 12, 2021Results posted

Oral Sulopenem-etzadroxil/Probenecid Versus Ciprofloxacin for Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection in Adult Women

A Phase 3 interventional study of Sulopenem-Etzadroxil/Probenecid and Ciprofloxacin in Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections, sponsored by Iterum Therapeutics, International Limited. Completed at 60 sites in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-01-12.

Sponsored by Iterum Therapeutics, International Limited · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,671
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

This is a prospective, Phase 3, randomized, multi-center, double-blind study of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulopenem-etzadroxil/probenecid versus oral ciprofloxacin for treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) in adult women

02

Conditions studied

  • Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections
03

In context

Urinary Tract Infections

803 studies on the registry are indexed under Urinary Tract Infections; 133 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 1,671 is above the median of 131 across 560 interventional studies indexed under Urinary Tract Infections.

Browse Urinary Tract Infections studies →

Lead sponsor

Iterum Therapeutics, International Limited is the lead sponsor of 9 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.

Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 5 (100%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Female patients ≥18 years of age with 24-96 hours of urinary symptoms attributable to a urinary tract infection (UTI)
  2. Two of the following signs and symptoms of uUTI: urinary frequency, urinary urgency, pain or burning micturition, suprapubic pain
  3. A mid-stream urine specimen with:

    1. a dipstick analysis positive for nitrite AND
    2. evidence of pyuria as defined by either:

    i. a dipstick analysis positive for leukocyte esterase ii. at least 10 white blood cells per cubic millimeter on microscopic analysis of unspun urine iii. White blood cell count ≥10 cells/high-powered field in the sediment of a spun urine

  4. Has given written to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Presence of signs and symptoms suggestive of acute pyelonephritis: fever (temperature > 38°Celsius), chills, costovertebral angle tenderness, flank pain, nausea, and/or vomiting
  2. Receipt of antibacterial drug therapy potentially effective as treatment of uUTI within the prior 7 days
  3. Concurrent use of non-study treatments that would have a potential effect on outcome evaluations in patients with uUTI
  4. Patients with ileal loops or urinary stoma
  5. Patients with an indwelling urinary catheter in the previous 30 days
  6. Patients with paraplegia
  7. Patients who are likely to receive ongoing antibacterial drug prophylaxis after treatment of uUTI (e.g., patients with vesico-ureteral reflux)
  8. Any history of trauma to the pelvis or urinary tract
  9. Patient's urine culture, if available at study entry, identify more than 2 microorganisms regardless of colony count or patient has a confirmed fungal UTI
  10. Patient is receiving hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis or had a renal transplant
  11. Known history of \<50 mL/min
  12. Patients known to have liver disease
  13. Patients who are pregnant, or females of child-bearing age unable to take adequate precautions
  14. Patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus
  15. Patients with history of blood dyscrasias
  16. Patients with history of uric acid kidney stones
  17. Patients with acute gouty attack
  18. Patients on chronic methotrexate therapy
  19. Patient known to be
  20. Patients with a known history of myasthenia gravis
  21. Patients who require concomitant administration of tizanidine or valproic acid
  22. Patients with a history of allergy or to carbapenems, beta-lactams, quinolones or probenecid
  23. Patient is considered unlikely to survive the 4-week study period or has a rapidly progressive or terminal illness including septic shock which is associated with a high risk of mortality
  24. History of seizures
  25. Use of any other drug in the 30 days prior to the study
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(6)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Creatinine clearance (CrCl)

How quickly the kidneys clear creatinine, a waste product, from the blood. A study may estimate it from a blood test with age, weight and sex (often by the Cockcroft–Gault formula), or measure it using blood and urine collected over a set time. Given in mL/min; higher is better.

Contraception

Ways of preventing pregnancy. “Highly effective” methods fail less than 1% of the time a year when used correctly — for example an IUD or an implant.

Criteria usually say which methods count and how long to keep using them after the last dose, sometimes for male participants too. Some studies accept a partner’s vasectomy if it was confirmed successful and that person is the participant’s only sexual partner.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

Hypersensitivity

An allergy, or another reaction of the immune system, to a substance. “Hypersensitivity to the study drug” means a known allergic reaction to it — not every side effect a medicine can have.

Investigational drug or device

A drug or device being studied in a clinical trial.

It may be new, or already approved and being studied for another use, dose or form. Criteria often leave out people who took part in another study of one within a recent period, commonly 30 days or five half-lives.

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
1,671 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Sulopenem-etzadroxil/probenecid

    Sulopenem-etzadroxil/probenecid 500 mg PO twice daily for 5 days

    Drug: Sulopenem-Etzadroxil/Probenecid

  • Active comparator
    Ciprofloxacin

    Ciprofloxacin 250 mg PO administered twice daily for 3 days

    Drug: Ciprofloxacin

Interventions

  • DrugSulopenem-Etzadroxil/Probenecid

    Drug pages: Sulopenem etzadroxil · Probenecid

    Treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection

  • Treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection

    Also known as: Cipro

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Participants With Overall Success

    Overall Success: Clinical Success (resolution of uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) symptoms present at study entry and no new symptoms) AND Microbiologic success (eradication of the baseline pathogen)

    Time frame: Day 12+/-1 day

  2. Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Susceptible (Micro-MITTS) Participants With Overall Success

    Overall Success is Clinical Success (resolution of uUTI symptoms present at study entry and no new uUTI symptoms) AND Microbiologic success (eradication of the baseline pathogen)

    Time frame: Day 12 +/- 1 day

Secondary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Patients With Microbiologic Success

    Microbiologic success is defined as eradication of the baseline pathogen (\<1000 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/mL) at the Test of Cure visit

    Time frame: Day 12+/-1 day

Other outcomes

  1. Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat (Micro-MITT) Participants With Overall Success

    Overall Success is Clinical Success (resolution of uUTI symptoms present at study entry and no new uUTI symptoms) AND Microbiologic success (eradication of the baseline pathogen)

    Time frame: 12 +/- 1 day

07

Results

Posted Dec 17, 2020

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneSulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacin
Started835836
Microbiologic modified intent to treat resistant (micro-mittr) participants147139
Microbiologic modified intent to treat susceptible (micro-mitts) participants370415
Microbiologic modified intent to treat (micro-mitt) participants517554
Modified intent to treat (mitt) participants785794
Intent to treat (itt) participants787803
Safety participants833827
Completed755761
Not completed8075

Outcome measures

PrimaryPercentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Participants With Overall Success

Overall Success: Clinical Success (resolution of uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) symptoms present at study entry and no new symptoms) AND Microbiologic success (eradication of the baseline pathogen)

Time frame:
Day 12+/-1 day
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Participants With Overall Success
percentage of participantsSulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacin
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Participants With Overall Success62.636.0
PrimaryPercentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Susceptible (Micro-MITTS) Participants With Overall Success

Overall Success is Clinical Success (resolution of uUTI symptoms present at study entry and no new uUTI symptoms) AND Microbiologic success (eradication of the baseline pathogen)

Time frame:
Day 12 +/- 1 day
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Susceptible (Micro-MITTS) Participants With Overall Success
percentage of participantsSulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacin
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Susceptible (Micro-MITTS) Participants With Overall Success66.878.6
SecondaryPercentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Patients With Microbiologic Success

Microbiologic success is defined as eradication of the baseline pathogen (\<1000 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/mL) at the Test of Cure visit

Time frame:
Day 12+/-1 day
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Patients With Microbiologic Success
percentage of participantsSulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacin
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat Resistant (Micro-MITTR) Patients With Microbiologic Success74.149.6
Other pre-specifiedPercentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat (Micro-MITT) Participants With Overall Success

Overall Success is Clinical Success (resolution of uUTI symptoms present at study entry and no new uUTI symptoms) AND Microbiologic success (eradication of the baseline pathogen)

Time frame:
12 +/- 1 day
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat (Micro-MITT) Participants With Overall Success
percentage of participantsSulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacin
Percentage of Microbiologic Modified Intent to Treat (Micro-MITT) Participants With Overall Success65.667.9

Adverse events

Collected over From the time of informed consent through the final visit, an average of 28 days.. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Sulopenem-etzadroxil/Probenecid1/833 (0.1%)6/833 (0.7%)103/833 (12.4%)
Ciprofloxacin0/827 (0%)2/827 (0.2%)21/827 (2.5%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 11
Most frequent serious events
EventSulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacin
DiarrhoeaGastrointestinal disorders0/8331/827
Bile duct stoneHepatobiliary disorders0/8331/827
PneumoniaInfections and infestations0/8331/827
Abdominal pain upperGastrointestinal disorders1/8330/827
small intestine obstructionGastrointestinal disorders1/8330/827
chest painGeneral disorders1/8330/827
pyelonephritis acuteInfections and infestations1/8330/827
urosepsisInfections and infestations1/8330/827
lung adenocarcinomaNeoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)1/8330/827
presuncopeNervous system disorders1/8330/827
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventSulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacin
DiarrheaGastrointestinal disorders103/83321/827

Baseline characteristics

Intent to Treat (ITT) Participants

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Sulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacinTotal
Mean49.8 ± 18.850.0 ± 19.149.9 ± 19.0
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Sulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacinTotal
Female7878031590
Male000
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Sulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacinTotal
Hispanic or Latino253232485
Not Hispanic or Latino5295701099
Unknown or Not Reported516
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Sulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacinTotal
United States448441889
Ukraine144137281
Russia195225420
Diabetes
Diabetes(Participants)Sulopenem-etzadroxil/ProbenecidCiprofloxacinTotal
Count of participants93106199
08

Study locations

60 sites
  • Medical Facility
    Birmingham, Alabama 35242, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Phoenix, Arizona 85032, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Tolleson, Arizona 85353, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Cerritos, California 90703, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Chula Vista, California 91911, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Fullerton, California 92835, United States
  • Medical Facility
    La Mesa, California 91942, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Los Angeles, California 90057, United States
  • Medical Facility
    San Diego, California 92108, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Sylmar, California 91342, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Washington, District of Columbia 20011, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Bradenton, Florida 34209, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Clearwater, Florida 33761, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Doral, Florida 33166, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Edgewater, Florida 32132, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Hialeah, Florida 33012, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33319, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami Springs, Florida 33166, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33126, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33135, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33144, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33145, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33155, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33165, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33172, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Miami, Florida 33173, United States
  • Medical Facility
    New Port Richey, Florida 34653, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Ormond Beach, Florida 32174, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Palmetto Bay, Florida 33157, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Saint Petersburg, Florida 33711, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Winter Haven, Florida 33880, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Atlanta, Georgia 30312, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Norcross, Georgia 30092, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Perry, Georgia 31069, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Metairie, Louisiana 70115, United States
  • Medical Facility
    New Orleans, Louisiana 70115, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Las Vegas, Nevada 89109, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Las Vegas, Nevada 89121, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Brooklyn, New York 11215, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Raleigh, North Carolina 27612, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Hugo, Oklahoma 74743, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Easley, South Carolina 29640, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Lancaster, South Carolina 29720, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29572, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Austin, Texas 78705, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Austin, Texas 78735, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Carrollton, Texas 75010, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Corpus Christi, Texas 78414, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Dallas, Texas 75204, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Houston, Texas 77029, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Houston, Texas 77036, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Pearland, Texas 77584, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Plano, Texas 75024, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Sugar Land, Texas 77478, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Bountiful, Utah 84010, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Saint George, Utah 84790, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84109, United States
  • Medical Facility
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84121, United States
  • Medical Facility
    South Jordan, Utah 84095, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 12, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03354598
Lead sponsor
Iterum Therapeutics, International Limited
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 28, 2017
Start date
Aug 1, 2018
Primary completion
Jan 16, 2020
Completion
Jan 20, 2020
Results posted
Dec 17, 2020
Last update
Jan 12, 2021

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drugs tested here: Sulopenem etzadroxil · Probenecid

Start the discussion