Evidence Hub

512. Efficacy of Gepotidacin versus Nitrofurantoin in a Nitrofurantoin Not Susceptible Population: A Pooled Analysis of the EAGLE-2 and EAGLE-3 Randomized Controlled Trials in Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection

Jeremy Dennison, Amanda J. Sheets, S. Watts, N. Scangarella-Oman, Deborah L. Butler, John Breton, Salim Janmohamed

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2025

Abstract

Abstract Background Two Phase 3 trials (EAGLE-2 [NCT04020341]/EAGLE-3 [NCT04187144]) showed that gepotidacin, a first-in-class triazaacenaphthylene antibacterial, was non-inferior to nitrofurantoin (NTF) in treating uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) caused by NTF-susceptible (NTF-S) qualifying uropathogens (≥ 105 CFU/mL).1 This study evaluates gepotidacin efficacy in the pooled EAGLE-2/3 microbiological intent-to-treat (micro-ITT) NTF not susceptible (NTF-NS) population. Methods In EAGLE-2/3, female patients aged ≥ 12 years with ≥ 2 uUTI symptoms received oral gepotidacin (1500mg) or NTF (100mg) twice-daily for 5 days.1 In this study, therapeutic, clinical and microbiological response (defined in tables) at test-of-cure (Day 10–13) were assessed in the pooled EAGLE-2/3 micro-ITT NTF-NS and NTF-S populations and across patient subgroups. Results Of the 1421 micro-ITT patients, 220 (15%) had NTF-NS uropathogens and 1201 (85%) had NTF-S uropathogens. The most common baseline uropathogens were Escherichia coli (90%) in the NTF-S population, and Klebsiella pneumoniae (31%), Proteus mirabilis (26%), and E. coli (24%) in the NTF-NS population (Table 1). Across key subgroups, the proportion of patients with NTF-NS uropathogens was broadly similar to the overall population (except Hispanic/Latinx, Black race and US subgroups which were numerically higher; Figure 1). For efficacy outcomes, treatment differences were higher in the NTF-NS vs the NTF-S population, and, as…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free