Literature DB >> 24909499

Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

Gregory J Moran1, Edward Fang2, G Ralph Corey3, Anita F Das4, Carisa De Anda2, Philippe Prokocimer5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New antibiotics are needed to treat infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria. Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial drug designed to provide enhanced activity against Gram-positive pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous to oral tedizolid for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.
METHODS: ESTABLISH-2 was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done between Sept 28, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, at 58 centres in nine countries. Patients (aged ≥12 years) with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (cellulitis or erysipelas, major cutaneous abscess, or wound infection) that had a minimum lesion area of 75 cm(2) and were suspected or documented to be associated with a Gram-positive pathogen, were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with block randomisation, to receive intravenous once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for 6 days) or twice-daily linezolid (600 mg for 10 days), with optional oral step-down. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and type of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection. The primary endpoint was early clinical response (≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48-72 h compared with baseline), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01421511.
FINDINGS: 666 patients were randomly assigned to receive tedizolid (n=332) or linezolid (n=334). 283 (85%) patients in the tedizolid group and 276 (83%) in the linezolid group achieved early clinical response (difference 2·6%, 95% CI -3·0 to 8·2), meeting the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Gastrointestinal adverse events were less frequent with tedizolid than linezolid, taking place in 52 (16%) of 331 patients and 67 (20%) of 327 patients in the safety population. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of study drug were reported by one (<1%) patient in the tedizolid group and four (1%) patients in the linezolid group.
INTERPRETATION: Intravenous to oral once-daily tedizolid 200 mg for 6 days was non-inferior to twice-daily linezolid 600 mg for 10 days for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Tedizolid could become a useful option for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections in the hospital and outpatient settings. FUNDING: Cubist Pharmaceuticals.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24909499     DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70737-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis        ISSN: 1473-3099            Impact factor:   25.071


  95 in total

1.  Clinical Response of Tedizolid versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections by Severity Measure Using a Pooled Analysis from Two Phase 3 Double-Blind Trials.

Authors:  Taylor Sandison; Carisa De Anda; Edward Fang; Anita F Das; Philippe Prokocimer
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 2.  Development of novel antibacterial drugs to combat multiple resistant organisms.

Authors:  Matteo Bassetti; Elda Righi
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 3.  Management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections with a focus on patients at high risk of treatment failure.

Authors:  Abraham Pulido-Cejudo; Mario Guzmán-Gutierrez; Abel Jalife-Montaño; Alejandro Ortiz-Covarrubias; Jose Luis Martínez-Ordaz; Héctor Faustino Noyola-Villalobos; Luis Mauricio Hurtado-López
Journal:  Ther Adv Infect Dis       Date:  2017-08-31

Review 4.  [New antibiotics prior to approval: is this the end of the innovative stagnation?].

Authors:  J R Bogner
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 0.743

5.  Tedizolid phosphate.

Authors:  Dennis J Cada; Kyle Ingram; Danial E Baker
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2014-11

6.  Short-course Antibiotic Therapy-Replacing Constantine Units With "Shorter Is Better".

Authors:  Noah Wald-Dickler; Brad Spellberg
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Reply to Hardalo et al., "Myelosuppression with Oxazolidinones: Are There Differences?"

Authors:  Aisling R Caffrey; Erica Yookyung Lee
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Myelosuppression with Oxazolidinones: Are There Differences?

Authors:  Cathy Hardalo; Thomas P Lodise; Carisa De Anda
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 9.  [New antibiotics - standstill or progress].

Authors:  J Rademacher; T Welte
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 10.  Considerations and Caveats in Combating ESKAPE Pathogens against Nosocomial Infections.

Authors:  Yu-Xuan Ma; Chen-Yu Wang; Yuan-Yuan Li; Jing Li; Qian-Qian Wan; Ji-Hua Chen; Franklin R Tay; Li-Na Niu
Journal:  Adv Sci (Weinh)       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 16.806

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.