Dalbavancin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection in Patients With Obesity or Diabetes: A Subgroup Analysis of Pooled Phase 3 Clinical Trials.

Background: We assessed the efficacy and safety of dalbavancin, a long-acting lipoglycopeptide with activity against Gram-positive pathogens, for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in patients with high body mass index (BMI) and/or diabetes. Methods: Data from two phase 3 trials of dalbavancin (1000 mg intravenous [IV], day 1; 500 mg IV, day 8) versus comparator and one phase 3b trial of single-dose (1500 mg IV, day 1) versus 2-dose (1000 mg IV, day 1; 500 mg IV, day 8) dalbavancin in adults with ABSSSI were pooled and summarized separately by baseline BMI and diabetes status. Clinical success at 48 to 72 hours (≥20% reduction in lesion size), end of treatment ([EOT] day 14), and day 28 was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and microbiological ITT (microITT) populations. Safety data were reported in patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug. Results: In the dalbavancin ITT population (BMI, n = 2001; diabetes, n = 2010), at 48 to 72 hours (and EOT) clinical success was achieved in 89.3% (EOT, 90.9%) of patients with normal BMI and 78.9% to 87.6% (EOT, 91.0% to 95.2%) of patients with elevated BMI. Clinical success after dalbavancin treatment was achieved in 82.4% (EOT, 90.8%) of patients with diabetes and 86.0% (EOT, 91.6%) of patients without diabetes. Similar trends were observed for infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or methicillin-susceptible S aureus (microITT population). Conclusions: Dalbavancin is effective, with sustained clinical success rates in patients with obesity or diabetes, with a similar safety profile across patient groups.

Direct or early Discharge of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection patients from the Emergency Department/Unit: place in therapy of dalbavancin.

INTRODUCTION: Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections (ABSSSIs) are a common reason of Emergency Department (ED) access and account for a considerable number of hospital admissions and a high economic burden for the healthcare system. The long-acting lipoglycopeptides (LALs) allow for an outpatient management of subjects with ABSSSIs, still requiring parenteral therapy, but who do not need hospitalization. AREAS COVERED: The following topics were addressed: i) microbiological activity, efficacy, and safety of dalbavancin, ii) critical steps for the management of ABSSSIs in the ED (decision to hospitalize, risk of bacteremia and infection recurrence), iii) feasibility of direct/early discharge from the ED and potential advantage of dalbavancin. EXPERT OPINION: Authors' expert opinion was focused on drawing the profiles of patients who could benefit most from an antimicrobial therapy with dalbavancin in the ED and positioning this drug as a direct or early discharge strategy from the ED in order to avoid hospitalization and its complications. We have provided a therapeutic and diagnostic algorithm based on evidence from the literature and authors' expert opinion and suggest the use of dalbavancin in patients with ABSSSIs who are not eligible for oral therapies or Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy (OPAT) programs and who would have otherwise been hospitalized only for antibiotic therapy.

Outpatient care concept and potential inpatient cost savings associated with the administration of dalbavancin - A real-world data and retrospective cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) usually involves intravenous (i.v.) antibiotics requiring hospitalisation and increasing hospital costs. Since 2014, dalbavancin is approved for ABSSSIs treatment. However, evidence of its health economic impact on the German healthcare system is still limited. METHODS: Diagnosis-related groups (DRG) based cost analysis was used to evaluate real-world data (RWD) from a German tertiary care center. All patients treated with i.v. antibiotics in the Department of Dermatology and Venereology at the University Hospital of Cologne were included to detect potential cost savings from a payer perspective. Thus, for the inpatient care German diagnosis-related groups (G-DRG) tariffs, length of stay (LOS), main- and secondary DRG-diagnoses and for the outpatient setting 'Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab' (EBM) codes were evaluated. RESULTS: This retrospective study identified 480 inpatient cases treated for ABSSSI between January 2016 until December 2020. Complete cost data were available for 433 cases and the detection of long-hospital-stay patients based on surcharges for exceeding the upper limit LOS led to 125 cases (29%) including 67 females (54%) and 58 males (46%) with an overall mean age of 63.6 years; all treated for International Classification of Diseases (ICD -10th revision) code A46 'erysipelas'. A sub-analysis focussed on DRG J64B with a total of 92 cases exceeding the upper limit LOS by a median of 3 days resulted in a median surcharge of €636 (mean value €749; SD €589; IQR €459-€785) per case. In comparison, we calculated outpatient treatment costs of approximately €55 per case. Thus, further treatment of these patients in an outpatient setting before exceeding the upper limit LOS might result in a cost-saving potential of approximately €581 per case. CONCLUSION: Dalbavancin appears a cost-efficient option to reduce inpatient treatment costs by transitioning to an outpatient setting of patients with ABSSSI potentially exceeding the upper limit LOS.

Contezolid in complicated skin and soft tissue infection.

Contezolid (MRX-I, Youxitai) is an oral oxazolidinone drug being developed by MicuRx Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China. It was approved by China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in June 2021, attaining its first approval for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). It is also under clinical development for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in the U.S. after receiving qualified infectious disease product (QIDP) classification and fast track status by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2018. Contezolid is effective against a broad range of Gram-positive bacteria including activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE). It provides a major benefit over the most popular drug of its class, linezolid (Zyvox), by offering an improved safety profile and minimal effects concerning myelosuppression and monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibition, two independent adverse events limiting linezolid use in the clinic. The recommended dosage regimen of contezolid is 800 mg every 12 hours for 7-14 days with regular food intake and it can be extended if required. At the mentioned dose under fed conditions, satisfactory efficacy against MRSA with a 90%; or higher cumulative fraction of response and probability of target attainment was achieved. Additionally, contezolid also exhibits activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium abscessus.

A Multicentre, Prospective, and Retrospective Registry to Characterize the Use, Effectiveness, and Safety of Dalbavancin in German Clinical Practice.

The antibiotic dalbavancin is approved for intravenous treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. This study aimed to observe the use, effectiveness, and safety of dalbavancin in clinical practice in Germany. It was a multicentre, prospective, and retrospective registry and consecutively enrolled patients treated with dalbavancin. Each patient was observed from the first to the last dose of dalbavancin, with a 30-day follow-up. Patient inclusion was planned for 2 years, but was terminated early due to low recruitment. All analyses were descriptive. Between November 2018 and December 2019, nine patients were enrolled. Only three patients were treated for the approved indication. Outcome was assessed by the physicians as 'success' in five (55.6%) patients, 'failure' in one (11.1%) patient, and non-evaluable in three (33.3%) patients. Although the success rate of dalbavancin was lower than reported previously, this may be due to the severity of underlying infections and patients' high Charlson Comorbidity Index. None of the two reported adverse events were considered related to dalbavancin. These findings were in line with real-world data for dalbavancin from other countries, supporting the drug's positive benefit-risk profile and suggesting frequent off-label use in German routine practice.

Anti-MRSA quinolones for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTS: This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) quinolones for treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant articles from inception to 21 July 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA quinolones with other antibiotics for treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included. A total of 1,264 and 1,307 participants received the anti-MRSA quinolone-based study group and the control group. In the study group receiving anti-MRSA quinolone-based treatment, 935, 246, and 83 patients received delafloxacin, levonadifloxacin, and acorafloxacin, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the clinical cure rate at test of cure between the study and control groups (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.29; I2 = 0%). In patients with MRSA-associated ABSSSIs, the clinical cure rate (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.71-1.65; I2 = 0%) and microbiological response rate (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.48-3.21; I2 = 0%) of anti-MRSA quinolones were similar to those of other antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of anti-MRSA quinolone-based treatment is comparable to that of other anti-MRSA antibiotics for treating ABSSSIs.

Anti-MRSA Cephalosporin versus Vancomycin-Based Treatment for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatment in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Turning Research into Practice, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles from inception to 15 June 2020. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin with those of vancomycin-based regimens in treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were clinical response at the test-of-cure assessments and risk of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Eight RCTs were enrolled. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatments (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23; I2 = 0%). Except for major cutaneous abscesses in which anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was associated with a lower clinical response rate than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97; I2 = 0%), other subgroup analyses according to the type of cephalosporin (ceftaroline or ceftobiprole), type of infection, and different pathogens did not show significant differences in clinical response. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was only associated with a higher risk of nausea than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.85; I2 = 0%). In treating ABSSSIs, the clinical efficacy of anti-MRSA cephalosporin is comparable to that of vancomycin-based treatment, except in major cutaneous abscesses. In addition to nausea, anti-MRSA cephalosporin was as tolerable as vancomycin-based treatment.

Efficacy and safety of oritavancin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oritavancin (ORI) versus comparators for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) based on available clinical studies. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from database inception to 28 July 2020 to identify clinical studies assessing the efficacy and safety of ORI and comparator antibiotics for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Primary efficacy outcome, investigator-assessed clinical cure, lesion size reduction ≥20%, additional post-treatment antibiotics, and 30-day emergency room (ER) visits and readmission were assessed as efficacy outcomes. Adverse events (AEs) and mortality were assessed as safety outcomes. I2 statistic was calculated for heterogeneity, and a fixed-effects or random-effects model was used for estimation of the risk ratio (RR). RESULTS: A total of 9213 patients from two randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and four cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. ORI was statistically non-inferior to control agents in all efficacy and safety outcomes. Moreover, ORI significantly reduced the occurrence of 30-day readmission (RR = 0.42; P = 0.0004) and drug-related AEs (RR = 0.78; P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, ORI also had a lower rate of 30-day ER visits in the outpatient setting (RR = 0.34; P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: ORI was not inferior to comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Meanwhile, it showed advantages in reducing the rate of readmission and drug-related AEs. More high-quality and large-scale RCTs are required to further confirm the efficacy and safety of ORI. [Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020201942].

Radiolabeled Tedizolid Phosphate Liposomes for Topical Application: Design, Characterization, and Evaluation of Cellular Binding Capacity.

Nowadays, the incidence of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) is increasing. The increased bioavailability and reduced drug resistance of antibiotics are crucial to obtain a more effective treatment response in these infections. These favorable properties could be achieved by different drug delivery systems such as liposomes. In this study, nanosized, radiolabeled tedizolid phosphate liposomal formulations were prepared and evaluated with their in vitro cellular binding capacity and biocompatible profile for topical treatment of ABSSSI. Liposomes were characterized by evaluation of their visual inspection, particle size (about 190-270 nm), zeta potential value (around 0), and encapsulation efficiency (nearly 10%). The release rate of tedizolid phosphate from liposomes was also studied using dialysis membranes and evaluated kinetically. The stability of formulations was observed at three different temperatures and humidity conditions for 28 days. Afterward, liposomes were labeled with 99mTc, and the optimal amount of reducing agent (stannous chloride) was determined as 500 µg in this direct labeling procedure. All liposome formulations were successfully radiolabeled with high efficiency and exhibited high radiochemical purity (> 80%) during 6 h in different media. Furthermore, the cellular bindings of liposomal formulations were evaluated in human skin fibroblast cells by measuring the radioactivity. Higher radioactivity values were obtained in CCD-1070Sk cells incubated by liposome formulations compared to sodium pertechnetate. This finding suggested that liposomal formulation increased the cellular binding of radioactivity. By the result of our study, nanosized, tedizolid phosphate encapsulated liposome formulation was found to be a favorable carrier system in the treatment of ABSSSI.

Levonadifloxacin arginine salt to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection due to S. aureus including MRSA.

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) are one of the most common types of infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The standard of care for ABSSSI includes glycopeptides such as vancomycin, teicoplanin, oxazolidinones and fluoroquinolones, which are potent broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. Unfortunately, due to indiscriminate utilization, resistance to these agents is rising and identification of novel agents is an urgent unmet medical need. In this context, levonadifloxacin (WCK-771) is a novel, hydrate arginine salt of nadifloxacin with improved bactericidal activity against MRSA as well as fluoroquinolone-resistant S. aureus by targeting bacterial DNA supercoiling enzymes DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV. Levonadifloxacin displays a broad-spectrum bactericidal activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, atypical bacteria, anaerobic bacteria and bioterror pathogens with a very low frequency of mutation. Levonadifloxacin also displays improved activity under low pH biofilm environments. The drug has successfully completed phase I, phase II and phase III clinical trials in India. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a Qualified Infectious Disease Product (QIDP) designation to levonadifloxacin for the treatment of MRSA infections in August 2014.

Antimicrobial stewardship in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: An international Delphi consensus.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this survey was to identify a set of actions aimed to improve the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) and the implementation of some principles of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in this setting. METHODS: A list of 76 statements for which there was a lack of clarity were generated by an expert panel and were validated by a group of experts. The questionnaire was administered to 112 experts in infectious diseases or microbiology. Participants were asked to vote on a list of statements. An agreement threshold of 66% was required to reach consensus. RESULTS: Overall, 57 responders participated in the survey. Positive consensus was reached on the fact that ABSSSIs represent a significant cause of infection in the emergency department, are frequently associated with increased hospital stay and are mainly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The panellists strongly supported collection of samples from purulent infections by needle aspiration as well as collection of blood cultures in the presence of signs/symptoms of systemic infection. The importance of source control and prompt adequate microbiological documentation, the objective to reduce the length of hospital stay, the choice of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic and the role of new therapeutic options (e.g. long-acting drugs) in improving compliance also reached a positive consensus. CONCLUSION: This Delphi survey provides useful indicators for the implementation of AMS principles in the clinical management of ABSSSI and offers interesting elements of discussion about the barriers existing in Europe for optimal implementation of AMS programmes.

Effectiveness of Shorter Versus Longer Durations of Therapy for Common Inpatient Infections Associated With Bacteremia: A Multicenter, Propensity-Weighted Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines for pneumonia (PNA), urinary tract infection (UTI), and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) do not address treatment duration for infections associated with bacteremia. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients receiving shorter (5-9 days) versus longer (10-15 days) duration of antibiotics. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of inpatients with uncomplicated PNA, UTI, or ABSSSI and associated bacteremia. The primary outcome was clinical failure, a composite of rehospitalization, reinitiation of antibiotics, or all-cause mortality within 30 days of antibiotic completion. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-related adverse effects necessitating change in therapy. A propensity score-weighted logistic regression model was used to mitigate potential bias associated with nonrandom assignment of treatment duration. RESULTS: Of 408 patients included, 123 received a shorter treatment duration (median 8 days) and 285 received a longer duration (median 13 days). In the propensity-weighted analysis, the probability of the primary outcome was 13.5% in the shorter group and 11.1% in the longer group (average treatment effect, 2.4%; odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], .65-2.40; P = .505). However, shorter courses were associated with higher probability of restarting antibiotics (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01-2.61; P = .046) and C. difficile infection (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.21-7.59; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Shorter courses of antibiotic treatment for PNA, UTI, and ABSSSI with bacteremia were not associated with increased overall risk of clinical failure; however, prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of shorter treatment durations.

Dalbavancin Reduces Hospital Stay and Improves Productivity for Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: The ENHANCE Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Admissions for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are often prolonged because of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Use of a long-acting IV antibiotic may reduce length of stay (LOS) on a hospitalist service. The ENHANCE ABSSSI trial sought to determine the impact on LOS and work productivity in patients treated with a long-acting IV antibiotic, dalbavancin, vs. usual care at an urban tertiary-care center. METHODS: A single-center, pre- vs. post-period pragmatic trial at Weill-Cornell Medical Center assessed usual care for consecutively enrolled admitted ABSSSI patients during an observational period (pre-period). Identification and treatment of eligible admitted ABSSSI patients with dalbavancin were implemented in the post-period. Those with life-threatening infections, requiring multiple antibiotics/intensive care, or with unstable comorbidities were excluded. Outcomes were assessed over a 44-day follow-up period. RESULTS: Of 48 and 43 patients enrolled, respectively, in the pre- and post-periods, mean infection-related LOS was reduced in the post-period (3.2 days vs. 4.8 days; P = 0.003). Similar results were found in an adjusted LOS analysis. Work productivity and activity impairment outcomes significantly improved in the post-period (P ≤ 0.01). Complete response rates were similar: 50% (pre-period) and 57% (post-period). Among AEs identified, 17% (n = 7) were found to have possible causal relation to dalbavancin in the post-period. Few AEs were serious (n = 3; 7% post-period versus n = 1; 2% pre-period). CONCLUSION: After implementing the ENHANCE ABSSSI pathway, LOS was significantly reduced by almost 2 days, with potential improvements in work productivity and ability to complete daily activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03233438. FUNDING: Allergan plc.

Dalbavancin Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Target Attainment Analysis.

Dalbavancin is indicated for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by susceptible gram-positive microorganisms. This analysis represents the update of the population pharmacokinetics (popPK) modeling and target attainment simulations performed with data from the single-dose safety and efficacy study and an unrelated but substantial revision of the preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target (fAUC/MIC, free area under concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ratio). A 3-compartment distribution model with first-order elimination provided an appropriate fit, with typical dalbavancin clearance of 0.05 L/h and total volume of distribution of ∼15 L. Impact of intrinsic factors was modest, although statistically significant (P < .05) relationships with total clearance were found for the following covariates: creatinine clearance, weight, and albumin - dose adjustment was only indicated for severe renal impairment. Under the new nonclinical target, simulations of the popPK model projected that >99% of subjects would achieve the nonclinical target at MIC values up to and including 2 mg/L.

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

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77-1.19, I2 = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64-1.27, I2 = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42-2.03, I2 = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66-2.51, I2 = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49-2.90, I2 = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.

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

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. twice daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was early clinical response rate at 48 to 72 h. Secondary endpoints included programmatic and investigator-assessed outcomes at end-of-therapy (EOT) and posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visits. Safety was also evaluated. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 75.3% of tedizolid-treated patients and 79.9% of linezolid-treated patients were early responders (treatment difference, -4.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.2, 2.2). After exclusion of patients who never received the study drug (tedizolid, n = 8; linezolid, n = 1; modified ITT), comparable early response rates were observed (tedizolid, 77.4%; linezolid, 80.1%; treatment difference, -2.7%; 95% CI, -9.4, 3.9). Secondary endpoints showed high and similar clinical success rates in the ITT and clinically evaluable (CE) populations at EOT and PTE visits (e.g., CE-PTE for tedizolid, 90.4%; for linezolid, 93.5%). Both drugs were well tolerated, and no death occurred. Eight patients experienced phlebitis with tedizolid while none did with linezolid; hence, drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in a slightly higher proportion in the tedizolid (20.9%) arm than in the linezolid arm (15.8%). The study demonstrated that tedizolid in a primarily Asian population was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for ABSSSI patients. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02066402.).

Open-Label Randomized Trial of Early Clinical Outcomes of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections at Risk of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

INTRODUCTION: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) remain among the most common infectious processes seen in the clinical setting. For patients with complicated ABSSSIs deemed to require intravenous antibiotics, vancomycin remains the mainstay therapy. Ceftaroline has been shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin and may result in faster resolution of signs of infection. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized trial of ceftaroline versus vancomycin for the treatment of adult patients admitted for management of ABSSSIs from April 2012 to May 2016; 166 patients in the clinically evaluable (CE) group were needed to determine a 20% difference in primary outcome of clinical response at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics. Clinical response was defined as cessation of spread of lesion and improvement in systemic signs/symptoms of infection. A secondary outcome was a ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled in the intention-to-treat (ITT) group and 108 were CE. Among CE patients, 54 were randomized to ceftaroline and 54 to vancomycin. Baseline characteristics were similar except patients in the ceftaroline arm were older and had a non-significantly higher degree of comorbidities (median Charlson score 2 vs. 4, respectively). Cellulitis was the most common type of ABSSSI (85.2% vs. 79.6%, respectively). Rapid diagnostic testing of available cultures (n = 55) demonstrated high agreement with clinical microbiology for identification of Staphylococcus aureus (100%) and MRSA (100%). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of day 2 or 3 clinical response (50.0% vs. 51.9%). CONCLUSION: Early clinical response between vancomycin- and ceftaroline-treated ABSSSIs was similar. Patients with ABSSSIs rarely remained hospitalized for > 2-3 days, thus limiting our ability to critically assess clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02582203. FUNDING: Allergan plc.

Opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections who are unsuitable for beta-lactam antibiotics: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this prospective, observational study was to describe the treatment, severity assessment and healthcare resources required for management of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections who were unsuitable for beta-lactam antibiotic treatments. METHODS: Patients were enrolled across five secondary care National Health Service hospitals. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection and were considered unsuitable for beta-lactam antibiotics (e.g. confirmed/suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, beta-lactam allergy). Data regarding diagnosis, severity of the infection, antibiotic treatment and patient management were collected. RESULTS: 145 patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection were included; 79% (n = 115) patients received greater than two antibiotic regimens; median length of the first antibiotic regimen was 2 days (interquartile range of 1-5); median time to switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was 4 days (interquartile range of 3-8, n = 72/107); 25% (n = 10/40) patients with Eron class 1 infection had systemic inflammatory response syndrome, suggesting they were misclassified. A higher proportion of patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome received treatment in an inpatient setting, and their length of stay was prolonged in comparison with patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome. CONCLUSION: There exists an urgent need for more focused antimicrobial stewardship strategies and tools for standardised clinical assessment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection severity in patients who are unsuitable for beta-lactam antibiotics. This will lead to optimised antimicrobial treatment strategies and ensure effective healthcare resource utilisation.