Literature DB >> 29530544

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid versus linezolid in patients with skin and soft tissue infections in Japan - Results of a randomised, multicentre phase 3 study.

Hiroshige Mikamo1, Yoshio Takesue2, Yuji Iwamoto3, Takahiko Tanigawa3, Masaharu Kato3, Yoko Tanimura3, Shigeru Kohno4.   

Abstract

The objective of this open-label, randomised (i.e. 2:1 ratio), Phase 3 study was to compare the efficacy and safety of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg, once-daily treatment with that of linezolid 600 mg, twice-daily treatment for 7-14 days in Japanese adult patients (N = 125) with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) and/or for 7-21 days for those with SSTI-related bacteraemia, caused by confirmed or highly suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Primary outcome was clinical cure rate at test-of-cure (TOC, in SSTI: 7-14 days, in bacteraemia: 4-6 weeks after end-of-therapy [EOT]) time point in the microbiologically evaluable MRSA (ME-MRSA) population (N = 39). Secondary endpoints were clinical and microbiological response rates at EOT. Safety parameters were evaluated in the safety analysis population up to follow up. Data analysis was descriptive in nature. Baseline characteristics of patients were similar between treatment groups. At TOC in the ME-MRSA population, clinical cure rate was similar in tedizolid phosphate (92.6%) and linezolid (88.9%) groups. At EOT, clinical cure (tedizolid phosphate: 93.1%, linezolid: 90.0%) and microbiological success (tedizolid phosphate: 93.1%, linezolid: 100.0%) rates were similar in the ME-MRSA population. Both treatments were well tolerated; overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in tedizolid phosphate (79.5%) and linezolid (75.6%) treatment groups were similar. Drug-related TEAEs were numerically lower with tedizolid phosphate versus linezolid (30.1%; 39.0%, respectively), as well as gastrointestinal (21.7%; 26.8%) and myelosuppression-related (2.4%; 22.0%) TEAEs. One death occurred in the linezolid group. Tedizolid phosphate may be an appropriate antibiotic for the treatment of SSTIs in Japanese adult patients. International clinical trial registration number: NCT01967225. Japanese clinical trial registration number: JapicCTI-132308.
Copyright © 2018 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gram-positive bacteria; Japanese; Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Oxazolidinone; Skin and soft tissue infection; Tedizolid phosphate

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29530544     DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.01.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Infect Chemother        ISSN: 1341-321X            Impact factor:   2.211


  11 in total

1.  Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Hardware-Associated Vertebral Osteomyelitis with Oritavancin plus Ampicillin.

Authors:  Samira Dahesh; Brian Wong; Victor Nizet; George Sakoulas; Truc T Tran; Samuel L Aitken
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  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 3.  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

Review 4.  Skin and sepsis: contribution of dermatology to a rapid diagnosis.

Authors:  A Pulido-Pérez; E Bouza; M Bergón-Sendín; R Suárez-Fernández; P Muñoz-Martín
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 3.553

5.  Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.

Authors:  Xiaoju Lv; Jeff Alder; Li Li; William O'Riordan; Michael J Rybak; Hui Ye; Ruiping Zhang; Zhongqi Zhang; Xu Zhu; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.

Authors:  Matteo Bassetti; Nadia Castaldo; Alessia Carnelutti; Maddalena Peghin; Daniele Roberto Giacobbe
Journal:  Core Evid       Date:  2019-07-05

7.  Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Shao-Huan Lan; Wei-Ting Lin; Shen-Peng Chang; Li-Chin Lu; Chien-Ming Chao; Chih-Cheng Lai; Jui-Hsiang Wang
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-04

Review 8.  Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Tedizolid.

Authors:  Khalid Iqbal; Aliki Milioudi; Sebastian Georg Wicha
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 9.  Antibacterial activity of recently approved antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fei Liu; Sajad Rajabi; Chunhua Shi; Ghazale Afifirad; Nazanin Omidi; Ebrahim Kouhsari; Saeed Khoshnood; Khalil Azizian
Journal:  Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 6.781

10.  Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin, Linezolid, Tedizolid, and Daptomycin in Treating Patients with Suspected or Proven Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jingjuan Feng; Feng Xiang; Jian Cheng; Yeli Gou; Jun Li
Journal:  Infect Dis Ther       Date:  2021-06-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.