Novel techniques in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infection.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Global antibiotic resistance is compromising the management of soft tissue infection and Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection (ABSSI). This review describes a novel topical treatment Reactive Oxygen (RO) gel which could compliment and in some situations replace systemic antibiotics. RECENT FINDINGS: A novel topical treatment RO gel could have an important role in treatment, infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship. RO is highly antimicrobial against Gram positive and negative bacteria, by slow release of oxygen radicals over a prolonged period of up to 72 h. It prevents and breaks down biofilm and may support healing by cellular signalling. Much clinical investigation remains to be delivered on RO therapy but there seem few disadvantages in its use and early clinical evaluations are extremely promising. SUMMARY: Managing complicated skin and soft tissue infections require more than just antibiotic treatment. Soft tissue infection healing is often compromised by underlying comorbidities and pathology and increasingly the presence of highly antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. This has been highlighted particularly in war and trauma soft tissue infection. The fundamentals of soft tissue infection repair require early surgical drainage and debridement, correction of compromised physiology and treatment of underlying conditions and appropriate antimicrobial treatment. RO therapy could be an important advance.

Autochthonous tick-borne encephalitis in the United Kingdom: A second probable human case and local eco-epidemiological findings.

Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is a neurotropic flaviviral disease. TBE was previously thought to be absent from the United Kingdom. We report the second probable case of United Kingdom-acquired TBE and demonstrate deer TBE-serocomplex seropositivity in the surrounding area, providing further evidence of the presence of TBE in England.

Impact of Underlying Comorbidities on Outcomes of Patients Treated with Ceftaroline Fosamil for Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Pooled Results from Three Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: In three phase III randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline fosamil was shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). This exploratory analysis evaluated the impact of underlying comorbidities on clinical outcomes in patients with cSSTI pooled from these three studies. METHODS: CANVAS 1 and 2 and COVERS evaluated ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h [q12h]; 600 mg every 8 h [q8h; COVERS]) versus vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g q12h each [CANVAS 1 and 2]; vancomycin 15 mg/kg q12h and aztreonam 1 g q8h [COVERS]) in hospitalized adults with cSSTI. The primary efficacy variable in each trial was clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Subgroup analyses were performed on the pooled clinically evaluable (CE) population, exploring the impact of age and various baseline comorbidities. RESULTS: Overall, 1808 patients were included in the CE population (1005 ceftaroline fosamil; 803 vancomycin plus aztreonam). Clinical cure rates at TOC were 89.7% (ceftaroline fosamil) and 90.8% (vancomycin plus aztreonam) (difference [95% confidence interval] - 1.13 [- 3.87, 1.67]). Clinical response rates were similar between treatment groups, regardless of age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years), and in subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, cancer/malignancy, renal impairment, and obesity; within these subgroups, efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with those of the overall cSSTI population. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with cSSTI and underlying comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CANVAS 1, NCT00424190 and CANVAS 2, NCT00423657 (both trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 18/01/2007); COVERS, NCT01499277 (first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 26/12/2011).

Treatment outcomes of secondary bacteraemia in patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil: pooled results from six phase III clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory pooled analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil and comparators across six phase III clinical trials in adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) and secondary bacteraemia. METHODS: In each trial, FOCUS 1 and 2 (CAP), Asia CAP trial, CANVAS 1 and 2 (cSSTI) and COVERS (cSSTI), patients were randomised to ceftaroline fosamil [600 mg q12h by 1-h i.v. infusion, except in COVERS (600 mg q8h by 2-h i.v. infusion), adjusted for renal function] or comparator. Efficacy assessments included clinical and microbiological responses at test-of-cure visit [microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population]. Safety outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The pooled mMITT population comprised 1976 patients, of whom 138 had baseline bacteraemia (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 72; comparator, n = 66). Predominant baseline blood pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 29), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 19) and other streptococci (n = 12). Clinical cure rates in bacteraemic patients were 55/72 (76.4%) and 51/66 (77.3%) for ceftaroline fosamil and comparators, respectively, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 822/966 (85.1%) and 717/872 (82.2%). Favourable microbiological response rates in bacteraemic patients were 56/72 (77.8%) for ceftaroline fosamil and 54/66 (81.8%) for comparators, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 825/966 (85.4%) and 719/872 (82.5%). Adverse events in bacteraemic patients were consistent with the known ceftaroline fosamil safety profile or the underlying indications. CONCLUSION: These pooled clinical and microbiological efficacy data demonstrate generally favourable outcomes for ceftaroline fosamil in patients with CAP or cSSTI and secondary bacteraemia. [Trial Registration: NCT00621504, NCT00509106; NCT01371838; NCT00424190, NCT00423657; NCT01499277].

Update on the epidemiology of healthcare-acquired bacterial infections: focus on complicated skin and skin structure infections.

Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a threat to patient safety and cause substantial medical and economic burden in acute care and long-term care facilities. Risk factors for HCAIs include patient characteristics, the type of care and the setting. Local surveillance data and microbiological characterization are crucial tools for guiding antimicrobial treatment and informing efforts to reduce the incidence of HCAI. Skin and soft tissue infections, including superficial and deep incisional surgical site infections, are among the most frequent HCAIs. Other skin and soft tissue infections associated with healthcare settings include vascular access site infections, infected burns and traumas, and decubitus ulcer infections.

The clinical presentation, treatment and outcome of serologically confirmed paediatric Lyme disease in the Republic of Ireland over a 5-year period: a retrospective cohort study.

Lyme disease (LD) is the most common tick-borne illness in Europe. Population-based studies in European children are few. This study aimed to assess the incidence, clinical presentation, treatment and outcome of serologically confirmed paediatric LD in the Republic of Ireland over a 5-year period. A retrospective review of records from accredited laboratories performing Borrelia burgdorferi serological testing was undertaken. Proformas were distributed to clinicians of children and adolescents with positive Lyme serology. Data were requested regarding clinical presentation, treatment and outcome. Updated NICE guidelines were used to classify clinical cases. Serology testing for B. burgdorferi was performed on 2908 samples. Sixty-three (2.2%) children were two-tier positive, generating a crude annual incidence rate of 1.15/100,000. Proformas were returned for 55 (87%) and 47 met clinical and laboratory criteria for LD. Twenty-seven (57%) presented with non-focal symptoms (erythema migrans and/or influenza-like symptoms), and 20 (43%) with focal symptoms (cranial nerve involvement, 11; CNS involvement, 8; arthritis, 1). Median age at presentation was 8.2 (2.5-17.9) years. Seventeen (36%) acquired LD overseas. Twenty-five (83%) of the remaining 30 children acquired infection in the West/Northwest of Ireland. Full resolution of symptoms was reported in 97% of those with available data. Serologically confirmed LD in children is relatively rare in the Republic of Ireland. Ninety-eight percent of children tested were seronegative. Of the seropositive cases, 40% could have been diagnosed based on clinical findings alone. Neurological presentations (40%) were common. Full resolution of symptoms occurred in almost all (97%) where data were available.

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care: narrative review of C reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) and antibacterial use in patients who present with symptoms of RTI.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to be a global problem and continues to be addressed through national strategies to improve diagnostics, develop new antimicrobials and promote antimicrobial stewardship. Patients who attend general (ambulatory) practice with symptoms of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are invariably assessed by some sort of clinical decision rule (CDR). However, CDRs rely on a cluster of non-specific clinical observations. A narrative review of the literature was undertaken to ascertain the value of C reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) to guide antibacterial prescribing in adult patients presenting to general practitioner (GP) practices with symptoms of RTI. Studies that were included were Cochrane reviews, systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, cohort studies and economic evaluations. An overwhelming number of studies demonstrated that the use of CRP tests in patients presenting with RTI symptoms reduces index antibacterial prescribing. GPs and patients report a good acceptability for a CRP POCT and economic evaluations show cost-effectiveness of CRP POCT over existing RTI management in primary care. POCTs increase diagnostic precision for GPs in the better management of patients with RTI. With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, patients will expect greater precision in diagnosing and managing their illnesses. Adopting systems that markedly reduce antibiotic consumption is a no-brainer for governments that are struggling to address the rise in AMR.

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of the Phase 3 COVERS Randomized Trial of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam.

AIM: Exploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Adults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm2) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5-14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS. RESULTS: Overall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections in the Phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Introduction. Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to Gram-positive pathogens.Aim. This analysis evaluates patients with wound infections from two Phase 3 trials of ABSSSI.Methodology. Six-hundred-two patients with wound infections from two Phase 3, double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active controlled trials (REVIVE-1/-2) were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of iclaprim 80 mg compared with vancomycin 15 mg kg-1 administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was to determine whether iclaprim was non-inferior (10 % margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20 % reduction from baseline in lesion size 48-72 h after starting study drug (early clinical response [ECR]). Safety was assessed.Results. In REVIVE-1, ECR was 83.5 % with iclaprim versus 79.7 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 3.77%, 95 % CI -4.50%, 12.04%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 82.7 % with iclaprim versus 76.3 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 6.38%, 95 % CI -3.35%, 16.12%). In the pooled dataset, iclaprim had similar ECR rates compared with vancomycin among wound infection patients (83.2 % vs 78.2 %) with a treatment difference of 5.01 % (95 % CI -1.29%, 11.32%). The safety profile was similar in iclaprim- and vancomycin-treated patients, except for a higher incidence of diarrhea with vancomycin (n=17) compared with iclaprim (n=6) and fatigue with iclaprim (n=17) compared with vancomycin (n=8).Conclusion. Based on early clinical response, iclaprim achieved non-inferiority to vancomycin with a similar safety profile in patients with wound infections suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for wound infections.

Study of general practitioner consultations for tick bites at high, medium and low incidence areas for Lyme borreliosis in England and Wales.

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is a tick-borne disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex. In Europe, it is predominately transmitted by the sheep tick, Ixodes ricinus. Compared with other European countries, the United Kingdom (UK) is considered to have a low incidence of LB, although this varies regionally. To determine whether an association exists between tick bite consultations and LB incidence in the UK, retrospective questionnaires were sent to general practitioners (GPs) in high (Wiltshire), medium (Cumbria) and low (Wales) incidence areas. During 2011, the greatest incidence of consultations for tick bites was reported by GPs in Cumbria (204 consultations per 100,000 inhabitants), followed by Wiltshire (160 per 100,000 population) and Wales (54 per 100,000 population). In Wiltshire and Cumbria, GPs predominantly provided advice on tick removal, whilst Welsh GPs mostly advised patients on tick bite prevention. Focusing on Cumbria during 2011-2013, 72.5% of GPs removed ticks from patients (incidence of 101 consultations per 100,000 population), and more GPs diagnosed LB based on clinical features than laboratory-confirmed diagnoses. To date, this is the first study to investigate the incidence of tick bite consultations and LB in England and Wales.

Rapid Rule Out of Culture-Negative Bloodstream Infections by Use of a Novel Approach to Universal Detection of Bacteria and Fungi.

BACKGROUND: Currently it can take up to 5 days to rule out bloodstream infection. With the low yield of blood cultures (approximately 10%), a significant number of patients are potentially exposed to inappropriate therapy that can lead to adverse events. More rapid rule out can accelerate deescalation or cessation of antimicrobial therapy, improving patient outcomes. METHODS: A method is described, termed enzymatic template generation and amplification (ETGA), that universally and sensitively detects DNA polymerase activity liberated from viable bacteria and fungi isolated from blood culture samples as a measure of bloodstream infection. ETGA was applied in a diagnostic test format to identify negative blood cultures after an overnight incubation. Performance data for a prototype (Cognitor) and automated (Magnitor) version of the test are presented. RESULTS: The Cognitor manual assay displayed analytical reactivity for a panel of the 20 most prevalent causes of bloodstream infection, with a detection range of 28-9050 CFU/mL. Validation with 1457 clinical blood cultures showed a negative predictive value of 99.0% compared to blood culture incubation for 5 days. Magnitor showed an improved detection range of 1-67 CFU/mL, allowing for detection of bacteria-supplemented blood cultures after 2-8 h incubation, and Candida albicans-supplemented blood cultures at 16-22 h, 5-15 h faster than blood culture. Removing an aliquot from a blood culture bottle and replacing the bottle into the incubator was shown not to result in contaminating organisms being introduced. CONCLUSIONS: The described method displays excellent breadth and detection for microbial cells and demonstrates the capability of confirming negative blood cultures after an overnight incubation in a blood culture instrument.

Correction to: The early identification of disease progression in patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department: a multi-centre derivation and validation study.

In the publication of this article [1], there are two errors in contributing author affiliations. This has now been included in this correction article.

The early identification of disease progression in patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department: a multi-centre derivation and validation study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of validated tools to assess potential disease progression and hospitalisation decisions in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a suspected infection. This study aimed to identify suitable blood biomarkers (MR-proADM, PCT, lactate and CRP) or clinical scores (SIRS, SOFA, qSOFA, NEWS and CRB-65) to fulfil this unmet clinical need. METHODS: An observational derivation patient cohort validated by an independent secondary analysis across nine EDs. Logistic and Cox regression, area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess performance. Disease progression was identified using a composite endpoint of 28-day mortality, ICU admission and hospitalisation > 10 days. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-five derivation and 896 validation patients were analysed with respective 28-day mortality rates of 7.1% and 5.0%, and hospitalisation rates of 77.9% and 76.2%. MR-proADM showed greatest accuracy in predicting 28-day mortality and hospitalisation requirement across both cohorts. Patient subgroups with high MR-proADM concentrations (≥ 1.54 nmol/L) and low biomarker (PCT < 0.25 ng/mL, lactate < 2.0 mmol/L or CRP < 67 mg/L) or clinical score (SOFA < 2 points, qSOFA < 2 points, NEWS < 4 points or CRB-65 < 2 points) values were characterised by a significantly longer length of hospitalisation (p < 0.001), rate of ICU admission (p < 0.001), elevated mortality risk (e.g. SOFA, qSOFA and NEWS HR [95%CI], 45.5 [10.0-207.6], 23.4 [11.1-49.3] and 32.6 [9.4-113.6], respectively) and a greater number of disease progression events (p < 0.001), compared to similar subgroups with low MR-proADM concentrations (< 1.54 nmol/L). Increased out-patient treatment across both cohorts could be facilitated using a derivation-derived MR-proADM cut-off of < 0.87 nmol/L (15.0% and 16.6%), with decreased readmission rates and no mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting to the ED with a suspected infection, the blood biomarker MR-proADM could most accurately identify the likelihood of further disease progression. Incorporation into an early sepsis management protocol may therefore aid rapid decision-making in order to either initiate, escalate or intensify early treatment strategies, or identify patients suitable for safe out-patient treatment.

Ceftaroline fosamil therapy in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections with systemic inflammatory signs: A retrospective dose comparison across three pivotal trials.

This post-hoc analysis compared the pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12 (q12h) versus every 8 hours (q8h) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSI) and signs of sepsis. Clinical outcomes at test-of-cure in patients with ABSSSI and systemic inflammatory signs/systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as well as ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against baseline pathogens were compared between the COVERS trial (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q8h, 2-h infusion) and the CANVAS 1 and 2 trials (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h, 1-h infusion). Ceftaroline exposure among patients in COVERS with or without markers of sepsis was compared using population pharmacokinetic modelling. In COVERS, 62% (312/506) and 41% (208/506) of ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients had ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS, respectively, compared with 55% (378/693) and 22% (155/693), respectively, in the CANVAS trials. Clinical cure rates for the modified intent-to-treat population in COVERS and CANVAS were similar for ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients with ≥1 sign of sepsis [82% (255/312) and 85% (335/394)] and for those with SIRS [84% (168/199) and 85% (131/155)]. Ceftaroline MIC distributions were similar across trials. Sepsis did not affect predicted individual steady-state ceftaroline exposure. Clinical cure rates in patients with ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS were comparable for both ceftaroline fosamil dosage regimens. Pathogen susceptibilities to ceftaroline were similar across trials. Ceftaroline exposure was not affected by disease severity. Ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h is a robust dosage regimen for most ABSSSI patients with sepsis [ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01499277, NCT00424190, NCT00423657].

Surveillance of iclaprim activity: in vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive skin infection pathogens collected from 2015 to 2016 from North America and Europe.

Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine, which inhibits bacterial dihydrofolate reductase, and surveillance data prior to 2006 suggested that iclaprim was active against Gram-positive pathogens including emerging drug-resistant pathogens. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, we undertook testing iclaprim and comparators against 931 Gram-positive clinical isolates from the United States and Europe collected between 2015 and 2016. Susceptibility testing was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) interpretations were based on CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing criteria. MIC50/MIC90 was 0.03/0.12 for all Staphylococcus aureus, 0.06/0.06 for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, 0.03/0.12 for methicillin-resistant S. aureus, 0.12/0.5 for Streptococcus agalactiae, ≤0.015/≤0.015 for Streptococcus anginosus, 0.03/0.06 for Streptococcus dysgalactiae, and ≤0.015 /0.03 µg/mL for Streptococcus pyogenes. Iclaprim was active against a contemporary collection (2015-2016) of Gram-positive bacteria isolated from the skin or soft tissue from patients with SSSI from the United States and Europe.

Lyme disease: diagnosis and management.

Lyme disease (borreliosis) is a tick-borne bacterial infection caused by the spirochaete Borrelia burgdoferi, transmitted by hard-backed Ixodes ticks. Actual numbers of cases are increasing and it appears that the distribution across the UK is widening; however, it occurs most frequently in area of woodland, with temperate climate. It typically presents in mid to late summer. Lyme disease is a multisystem disease. The nervous system is the second most commonly affected system after the skin. Other systemic manifestations, such as carditis, keratitis, uveitis and inflammatory arthritis, rarely occur in European Lyme disease. In 2018, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has updated its guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Lyme disease. Here, we highlight important aspects of this guidance and provide a more detailed review of the clinical spectrum of neuroborreliosis, illustrated by cases we have seen.

Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.

Iclaprim, a diaminopyrimidine antimicrobial, was compared with vancomycin for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two studies (REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2). Here, the efficacy and tolerability of iclaprim in a pooled analysis of results from both studies was explored. REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2 were phase 3, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, active-controlled, non-inferiority (margin of 10%) trials, each designed to enrol 600 patients with ABSSSI using identical study protocols. Iclaprim 80 mg and vancomycin 15 mg/kg were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction from baseline in lesion size [early clinical response (ECR)] at the early time point (ETP) (48-72 h after starting study drug) in the intent-to-treat population. In REVIVE-1, ECR at the ETP was 80.9% with iclaprim versus 81.0% with vancomycin (treatment difference -0.13%, 95% CI -6.42% to 6.17%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 78.3% with iclaprim versus 76.7% with vancomycin (treatment difference 1.58%, 95% CI -5.10% to 8.26%). The pooled ECR was 79.6% with iclaprim versus 78.8% with vancomycin (treatment difference 0.75%, 95% CI -3.84 to 5.35%). Iclaprim and vancomycin were comparable for the incidence of mostly mild adverse events, except for a higher incidence of elevated serum creatinine with vancomycin (n = 7) compared with iclaprim (n = 0). Iclaprim achieved non-inferiority compared with vancomycin for ECR at the ETP and secondary endpoints with a similar safety profile in two phase 3 studies for treatment of ABSSSI suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. [Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02600611 and NCT02607618.].