Evidence Hub

Impact of updated regulatory guidelines on study results in contemporary uncomplicated urinary tract infection clinical trials and implications for trial conduct and drug development: a comparative analysis with EAGLE-2 and EAGLE-3

F. Wagenlehner, Keith S. Kaye, D. Talan, Amanda J. Sheets, N. Scangarella-Oman, E. Jarvis, Jeremy Dennison, Salim Janmohamed et al.

Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 2025

Abstract

Aim To understand the impact of current regulatory guidance for non-inferiority, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) on efficacy outcomes. Methods EAGLE-2 and EAGLE-3 were phase 3, non-inferiority RCTs of oral gepotidacin (1500 mg twice daily for 5 days) vs nitrofurantoin (100 mg BID for 5 days) in females with uUTI. The composite (clinical and microbiological) primary endpoint, therapeutic response (success or failure), was assessed at test-of-cure (day 10–13) in participants with nitrofurantoin-susceptible uropathogens (≥105 colony forming units/mL). Success required symptom resolution plus microbiological eradication; missing data or additional antibacterial use were considered failure. EAGLE-2/-3 results were compared with historic nitrofurantoin RCTs and exploratory endpoints – symptom “resolution or near resolution” (one mild symptom remaining) and investigator-assessed clinical response (IACR) – were used as alternative measures of clinical success. Results Nitrofurantoin therapeutic success was substantially lower in EAGLE-2/-3 (47 %/44 %) than historic studies (61–94 %) using different endpoints. Clinical success rates based on “resolution or near resolution” of symptoms were: 78.3 %/77.2 % (EAGLE-2) and 75.7 %/75.3 % (EAGLE-3) for gepotidacin/nitrofurantoin, respectively. IACR rates were: 84.5 %/82.6 % (EAGLE-2) and 75.5 %/76.4 % (EAGLE-3) (post hoc analysis). Conclusion Differences in primary endpoint success…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

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