S Harbarth1, E von Dach2, L Pagani3, M Macedo-Vinas4, B Huttner5, F Olearo6, S Emonet7, I Uçkay6. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland Infection Control Program, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland stephan.harbarth@hcuge.ch. 2. Infection Control Program, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland Division of Infectious Diseases, Centre Hospitalier d'Annecy, Annecy, France. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland Centro Nacional de Quemados, Hospital de Clinicas, Facultad de Medicina, Montevideo, Uruguay. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland Infection Control Program, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland. 6. Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The therapeutic arsenal for MRSA infections is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of a combination of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid alone for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-centre, non-inferiority trial comparing trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (160 mg/800 mg three times daily) plus rifampicin (600 mg once a day) versus linezolid (600 mg twice a day) alone in adult patients with various types of MRSA infection. Patients were allocated 1:1 to either regimen. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 6 weeks after the end of treatment (non-inferiority margin 20%) assessed by both ITT and PP analyses. Secondary outcomes included the microbiologically documented persistence of MRSA in clinical cultures, mortality and adverse events. The study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00711854). RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients were randomized to one of the two treatment arms between January 2009 and December 2013 and were included in the ITT analysis. Of these 56/75 (74.7%) in the linezolid group and 59/75 (78.7%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group experienced clinical success (risk difference 4%, 95% CI -9.7% to 17.6%). The results were confirmed by the PP analysis, with 54/66 (81.8%) cured patients in the linezolid group versus 52/59 (88.1%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group (risk difference 6.3%, 95% CI -6.8% to 19.2%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes, including microbiologically documented failure. Four adverse drug reactions attributed to the study medication occurred in the linezolid group versus nine in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with linezolid, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin seems to be non-inferior in the treatment of MRSA infection.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The therapeutic arsenal for MRSA infections is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of a combination of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid alone for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-centre, non-inferiority trial comparing trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (160 mg/800 mg three times daily) plus rifampicin (600 mg once a day) versus linezolid (600 mg twice a day) alone in adult patients with various types of MRSA infection. Patients were allocated 1:1 to either regimen. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 6 weeks after the end of treatment (non-inferiority margin 20%) assessed by both ITT and PP analyses. Secondary outcomes included the microbiologically documented persistence of MRSA in clinical cultures, mortality and adverse events. The study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00711854). RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients were randomized to one of the two treatment arms between January 2009 and December 2013 and were included in the ITT analysis. Of these 56/75 (74.7%) in the linezolid group and 59/75 (78.7%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group experienced clinical success (risk difference 4%, 95% CI -9.7% to 17.6%). The results were confirmed by the PP analysis, with 54/66 (81.8%) cured patients in the linezolid group versus 52/59 (88.1%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group (risk difference 6.3%, 95% CI -6.8% to 19.2%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes, including microbiologically documented failure. Four adverse drug reactions attributed to the study medication occurred in the linezolid group versus nine in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with linezolid, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin seems to be non-inferior in the treatment of MRSA infection.
Authors: D O Andrey; P François; C Manzano; E J Bonetti; S Harbarth; J Schrenzel; W L Kelley; A Renzoni Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Ying Zhang; Yan Wang; Mieke L Van Driel; Treasure M McGuire; Tao Zhang; Yuzhu Dong; Yang Liu; Leichao Liu; Ruifang Hao; Lu Cao; Jianfeng Xing; Yalin Dong Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Tobias Siegfried Kramer; Frank Schwab; Michael Behnke; Sonja Hansen; Petra Gastmeier; Seven Johannes Sam Aghdassi Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Laurene Deconinck; Aurélien Dinh; Christophe Nich; Thomas Tritz; Morgan Matt; Olivia Senard; Simon Bessis; Thomas Bauer; Martin Rottman; Jérome Salomon; Frédérique Bouchand; Benjamin Davido Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240