In Vitro Activity of Eravacycline against Gram-Positive Bacteria Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017.

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic being developed for the treatment of serious infections, including those caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Here, we evaluated the in vitro activities of eravacycline and comparator antimicrobial agents against a recent global collection of frequently encountered clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria. The CLSI broth microdilution method was used to determine in vitro MIC data for isolates of Enterococcus spp. (n = 2,807), Staphylococcus spp. (n = 4,331), and Streptococcus spp. (n = 3,373) isolated primarily from respiratory, intra-abdominal, urinary, and skin specimens by clinical laboratories in 37 countries on three continents from 2013 to 2017. Susceptibilities were interpreted using both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. There were no substantive differences (a >1-doubling-dilution increase or decrease) in eravacycline MIC90 values for different species/organism groups over time or by region. Eravacycline showed MIC50 and MIC90 results of 0.06 and 0.12 µg/ml, respectively, when tested against Staphylococcus aureus, regardless of methicillin susceptibility. The MIC90 values of eravacycline for Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus were equal (0.5 µg/ml). The eravacycline MIC90s for Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium were 0.06 µg/ml and were within 1 doubling dilution regardless of the vancomycin susceptibility profile. Eravacycline exhibited MIC90 results of ≤0.06 µg/ml when tested against Streptococcus pneumoniae and beta-hemolytic and viridans group streptococcal isolates. In this surveillance study, eravacycline demonstrated potent in vitro activity against frequently isolated clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria (Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus spp.), including isolates collected over a 5-year period (2013 to 2017), underscoring its potential benefit in the treatment of infections caused by common Gram-positive pathogens.

In Vitro Activity of Eravacycline against Gram-Negative Bacilli Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017.

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic developed for the treatment of serious infections, including those caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. Here, we evaluated the in vitro activities of eravacycline and comparator antimicrobial agents against a global collection of frequently encountered clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacilli. The CLSI broth microdilution method was used to determine MIC data for isolates of Enterobacterales (n = 13,983), Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 2,097), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 1,647), and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 1,210) isolated primarily from respiratory, intra-abdominal, and urinary specimens by clinical laboratories in 36 countries from 2013 to 2017. Susceptibilities were interpreted using both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates were defined by resistance to agents from ≥3 different antimicrobial classes. The MIC90s ranged from 0.25 to 1 µg/ml for Enterobacteriaceae and were 1 µg/ml for A. baumannii and 2 µg/ml for S. maltophilia, Proteus mirabilis, and Serratia marcescens Eravacycline's potency was up to 4-fold greater than that of tigecycline against genera/species of Enterobacterales, A. baumannii, and S. maltophilia The MIC90s for five of six individual genera/species of Enterobacterales and A. baumannii were within 2-fold of the MIC90s for their respective subsets of MDR isolates, while the MDR subpopulation of Klebsiella spp. demonstrated 4-fold higher MIC90s. Eravacycline demonstrated potent in vitro activity against the majority of clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacilli, including MDR isolates, collected over a 5-year period. This study further underscores the potential benefit of eravacycline in the treatment of infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens.

Considerations for Clinical Trials of Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infection in Adults.

Clinical trials for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (SAB) are broadly grouped into 2 categories: registrational trials intended to support regulatory approval of antibiotics for the treatment of SAB and strategy trials intended to inform clinicians on the best treatment options for SAB among existing antibiotics. Both types of SAB trials are urgently needed but have been limited by cost, complexity, and regulatory uncertainty. Here, we review key SAB trial design considerations for investigators, sponsors, and regulators.

Good Studies Evaluate the Disease While Great Studies Evaluate the Patient: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking Endpoint for Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infection.

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach in clinical trials to evaluate the global benefits and risks of an intervention. We developed and validated a DOOR endpoint for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (BSI) through a survey to infectious diseases clinicians and secondary analysis of trial data. METHODS: We administered a survey of 20 cases of S. aureus BSI, asking respondents to rank outcomes by global desirability. Correlations and percentage of pairwise agreement among rankings were estimated to inform development of a DOOR endpoint, which was applied to 2 prior S. aureus BSI trials. The probability that a patient randomly assigned to experimental treatment would have a better DOOR ranking than if assigned to control was estimated. Results were also analyzed using partial credit, which is analogous to scoring an academic test, assigning 100% to the most desirable outcome, 0% to the least, and "partial credit" to intermediate ranks. RESULTS: Forty-two recipients (97%) completed the survey. The DOOR endpoint fitting these rankings (r = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.94) incorporated survival plus cumulative occurrence of adverse events, cure, infectious complications, and ongoing symptoms. Tailored versions of this endpoint were applied to 2 S. aureus BSI trials, and both demonstrated no benefit of the experimental treatment using DOOR and partial credit analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Using S. aureus BSI as an exemplar, we developed a DOOR endpoint that can be used as a template for development of DOOR endpoints for other diseases. Future trials can incorporate DOOR to allow for global assessment of patient experience.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim Vs Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed to be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens: REVIVE-1.

Background: Our objective in this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim compared with vancomycin for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Methods: REVIVE-1 was a phase 3, 600-patient, double-blinded, randomized (1:1), active-controlled trial among patients with ABSSSI that compared the safety and efficacy of iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose with vancomycin 15 mg/kg, both administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint of this study was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size (early clinical response [ECR]) compared with baseline among patients randomized to iclaprim or vancomycin at the early time point (ETP), 48 to 72 hours after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Results: ECR among patients who received iclaprim and vancomycin at the ETP was 80.9% (241 of 298) of patients receiving iclaprim compared with 81.0% (243 of 300) of those receiving vancomycin (treatment difference, -0.13%; 95% confidence interval, -6.42%-6.17%). Iclaprim was well tolerated in the study, with most adverse events categorized as mild. Conclusions: Iclaprim achieved noninferiority (10% margin) at ETP compared with vancomycin and was well tolerated in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of ABSSSI. Based on these results, iclaprim appears to be an efficacious and safe treatment for ABSSSI suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02600611.

Single Intravenous Dose of Oritavancin for Treatment of Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Caused by Gram-Positive Bacteria: Summary of Safety Analysis from the Phase 3 SOLO Studies.

Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with bactericidal activity against Gram-positive organisms. Its rapid concentration-dependent bactericidal activity and long elimination half-life allow single-dose treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). SOLO I and SOLO II were randomized, double-blind studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single 1,200-mg intravenous (i.v.) dose of oritavancin versus twice-daily i.v. vancomycin for 7 to 10 days in ABSSSI patients. Safety data from both studies were pooled for safety analysis. The database comprised pooled safety data for 976 oritavancin-treated patients and 983 vancomycin-treated patients. The incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar for oritavancin (55.3, 5.8, and 3.7%, respectively) and vancomycin (56.9, 5.9, and 4.2%, respectively). The median time to onset (3.8 days versus 3.1 days, respectively) and the duration (3.0 days for both groups) of adverse events were also similar between the two groups. The most frequently reported events were nausea, headache, and vomiting. Greater than 90% of all events were mild or moderate in severity. There were slightly more infections and infestations, abscesses or cellulitis, and hepatic and cardiac adverse events in the oritavancin group; however, more than 80% of these events were mild or moderate. Subgroup analyses did not identify clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of adverse events attributed to oritavancin. A single 1,200-mg dose of oritavancin was well tolerated and had a safety profile similar to that of twice-daily vancomycin. The long elimination half-life of oritavancin compared to that of vancomycin did not result in a clinically meaningful delay to the onset or prolongation of adverse events. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01252719 and NCT01252732.).

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim versus Vancomycin for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed To Be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens (REVIVE-2 Study).

Iclaprim is a novel diaminopyrimidine antibiotic that may be an effective and safe treatment for serious skin infections. The safety and effectiveness of iclaprim were assessed in a global phase 3, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial. Six hundred thirteen adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens were randomized to iclaprim (80 mg) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg of body weight), both of which were administered intravenously every 12 h for 5 to 14 days. The primary endpoint was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size compared with that at the baseline at 48 to 72 h after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Among patients randomized to iclaprim, 78.3% (231 of 295) met this primary endpoint, whereas 76.7% (234 of 305) of those receiving vancomycin met this primary endpoint (difference, 1.58%; 95% confidence interval, -5.10% to 8.26%). This met the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin. Iclaprim was well tolerated, with most adverse events being categorized as mild. In conclusion, iclaprim was noninferior to vancomycin in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. On the basis of these results, iclaprim may be an efficacious and safe treatment for skin infections suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens. (This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02607618.).

Effect of Algorithm-Based Therapy vs Usual Care on Clinical Success and Serious Adverse Events in Patients with Staphylococcal Bacteremia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The appropriate duration of antibiotics for staphylococcal bacteremia is unknown. Objective: To test whether an algorithm that defines treatment duration for staphylococcal bacteremia vs standard of care provides noninferior efficacy without increasing severe adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized trial involving adults with staphylococcal bacteremia was conducted at 16 academic medical centers in the United States (n = 15) and Spain (n = 1) from April 2011 to March 2017. Patients were followed up for 42 days beyond end of therapy for those with Staphylococcus aureus and 28 days for those with coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had 1 or more blood cultures positive for S aureus or coagulase-negative staphylococci. Patients were excluded if they had known or suspected complicated infection at the time of randomization. Interventions: Patients were randomized to algorithm-based therapy (n = 255) or usual practice (n = 254). Diagnostic evaluation, antibiotic selection, and duration of therapy were predefined for the algorithm group, whereas clinicians caring for patients in the usual practice group had unrestricted choice of antibiotics, duration, and other aspects of clinical care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were (1) clinical success, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee and tested for noninferiority within a 15% margin; and (2) serious adverse event rates in the intention-to-treat population, tested for superiority. The prespecified secondary outcome measure, tested for superiority, was antibiotic days among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia. Results: Among the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.6 [SD, 16.8] years; 226 [44.4%] women), 480 (94.3%) completed the trial. Clinical success was documented in 209 of 255 patients assigned to algorithm-based therapy and 207 of 254 randomized to usual practice (82.0% vs 81.5%; difference, 0.5% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.2% to ∞]). Serious adverse events were reported in 32.5% of algorithm-based therapy patients and 28.3% of usual practice patients (difference, 4.2% [95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%]). Among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia, mean duration of therapy was 4.4 days for algorithm-based therapy vs 6.2 days for usual practice (difference, -1.8 days [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with staphylococcal bacteremia, the use of an algorithm to guide testing and treatment compared with usual care resulted in a noninferior rate of clinical success. Rates of serious adverse events were not significantly different, but interpretation is limited by wide confidence intervals. Further research is needed to assess the utility of the algorithm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191840.

Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections: Research Priorities, Accomplishments, and Future Directions of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

Antimicrobial resistance in gram-positive bacteria remains a challenge in infectious diseases. The mission of the Gram-Positive Committee of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) is to advance knowledge in the prevention, management, and treatment of these challenging infections to improve patient outcomes. Our committee has prioritized projects involving methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) due to the scope of the medical threat posed by these pathogens. Approved ARLG projects involving gram-positive pathogens include (1) a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study to evaluate the impact of vancomycin dosing on patient outcome in MRSA bloodstream infection (BSI); (2) defining, testing, and validating innovative assessments of patient outcomes for clinical trials of MRSA-BSI; (3) testing new strategies for "step-down" antibiotic therapy for MRSA-BSI; (4) management of staphylococcal BSIs in neonatal intensive care units; and (5) defining the impact of VRE bacteremia and daptomycin susceptibility on patient outcomes. This article outlines accomplishments, priorities, and challenges for research of infections caused by gram-positive organisms.

Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and prolonged half-life allow for single-dose treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial in which adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections received either a single intravenous dose of 1200 mg of oritavancin or a regimen of intravenous vancomycin twice daily for 7 to 10 days. Three efficacy end points were tested for noninferiority. The primary composite end point was defined as cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no need for administration of a rescue antibiotic 48 to 72 hours after administration of oritavancin. Secondary end points were clinical cure 7 to 14 days after the end of treatment, as determined by a study investigator, and a reduction in lesion size of 20% or more 48 to 72 hours after administration of oritavancin. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 475 patients who received oritavancin and 479 patients who received vancomycin. All three efficacy end points met the prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for oritavancin versus vancomycin: primary end point, 82.3% versus 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -1.6 to 8.4 percentage points); investigator-assessed clinical cure, 79.6% versus 80.0% (95% CI for the difference, -5.5 to 4.7 percentage points); and proportion of patients with a reduction in lesion area of 20% or more, 86.9% versus 82.9% (95% CI for the difference, -0.5 to 8.6 percentage points). Efficacy outcomes measured according to type of pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, were similar in the two treatment groups. The overall frequency of adverse events was also similar, although nausea was more common among those treated with oritavancin. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of oritavancin was noninferior to twice-daily vancomycin administered for 7 to 10 days for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive pathogens. (Funded by the Medicines Company; SOLO I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252719.).

A response adaptive randomization platform trial for efficient evaluation of Ebola virus treatments: A model for pandemic response.

The outbreak of Ebola virus disease in West Africa is the largest ever recorded. Numerous treatment alternatives for Ebola have been considered, including widely available repurposed drugs, but initiation of enrollment into clinical trials has been limited. The proposed trial is an adaptive platform design. Multiple agents and combinations will be investigated simultaneously. Additionally, new agents may enter the trial as they become available, and failing agents may be removed. In order to accommodate the many possible agents and combinations, a critical feature of this design is the use of response adaptive randomization to assign treatment regimens. As the trial progresses, the randomization ratio evolves to favor the arms that are performing better, making the design also suitable for all-cause pandemic preparedness planning. The study was approved by US and Sierra Leone ethics committees, and reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration. Additionally, data management, drug supply lines, and local sites were prepared. However, in response to the declining epidemic seen in February 2015, the trial was not initiated. Sierra Leone remains ready to rapidly activate the protocol as an emergency response trial in the event of a resurgence of Ebola. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380625.) In summary, we have designed a single controlled trial capable of efficiently identifying highly effective or failing regimens among a rapidly evolving list of proposed therapeutic alternatives for Ebola virus disease and to treat the patients within the trial effectively based on accruing data. Provision of these regimens, if found safe and effective, would have a major impact on future epidemics by providing effective treatment options.

Potential role for telavancin in bacteremic infections due to gram-positive pathogens: focus on Staphylococcus aureus.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is one of the most common serious bacterial infections and the most frequent invasive infection due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Treatment is challenging, particularly for MRSA, because of limited treatment options. Telavancin is a bactericidal lipoglycopeptide antibiotic that is active against a range of clinically relevant gram-positive pathogens including MRSA. In experimental animal models of sepsis telavancin was shown to be more effective than vancomycin. In clinically evaluable patients enrolled in a pilot study of uncomplicated SAB, cure rates were 88% for telavancin and 89% for standard therapy. Among patients with infection due to only gram-positive pathogens enrolled in the 2 phase 3 studies of telavancin for treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia, cure rates for those with bacteremic S. aureus pneumonia were 41% (9/22, telavancin) and 40% (10/25, vancomycin) with identical mortality rates. These data support further evaluation of telavancin in larger, prospective studies of SAB.

Single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with rapid bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and long half-life allow for single-dose treatment. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) received either a single intravenous 1200-mg dose of oritavancin or 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin. Three efficacy endpoints were tested for noninferiority: (1) primary composite endpoint at 48-72 hours (cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no rescue antibiotic); (2) investigator-assessed clinical cure 7-14 days after end of treatment; and (3) ≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48-72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 503 and 502 patients comprised the modified intent-to-treat population for oritavancin and vancomycin, respectively. All 3 efficacy endpoints met the 10% noninferiority margin: the primary composite endpoint (80.1% vs 82.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 2.0), investigator-assessed clinical cure (82.7% vs 80.5%; 95% CI, -2.6 to 7.0), and proportion of patients attaining ≥20% reduction in lesion area (85.9% vs 85.3%; 95% CI, -3.7 to 5.0) for oritavancin vs vancomycin, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the frequency of adverse events, were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single 1200-mg dose of oritavancin was noninferior to 7-10 days of vancomycin in treating ABSSSIs caused by gram-positive pathogens, and was well tolerated. Oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to multidose therapies for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01252732.

Telavancin hospital-acquired pneumonia trials: impact of Gram-negative infections and inadequate Gram-negative coverage on clinical efficacy and all-cause mortality.

BACKGROUND: When hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) is caused by gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens or both (mixed infections), the adequacy of gram-negative coverage (GNC) can confound the assessment of a gram-positive agent under study. This analysis examines the influence of gram-negative infections and the adequacy of GNC on clinical efficacy and all-cause mortality in the telavancin HABP/VABP phase 3 ATTAIN trials (Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia). METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated 3 patient groups from ATTAIN: (1) gram-positive-only infections, (2) gram-positive-only and mixed infections-adequate GNC, and (3) gram-negative-only infections and mixed infections with inadequate GNC. For each, clinical efficacy at test of cure and all-cause mortality at day 28 were compared for telavancin and vancomycin. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: In the ATTAIN safety population there were 16 more deaths in the telavancin arms than in the vancomycin arms. Of these, 13 were in patients with gram-negative-only infections (n = 9) or with mixed infections and inadequate GNC (n = 4) and all had estimated baseline creatinine clearances of <30ml/min. Based on this analysis, clinical response and all-cause mortality could be confounded because there were more patients with gram-negative pathogens at baseline and more patients received inadequate treatment of these gram-negative infections in the telavancin groups.

Impact of early valve surgery on outcome of Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve infective endocarditis: analysis in the International Collaboration of Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of early valve surgery (EVS) on the outcome of Staphylococcus aureus (SA) prosthetic valve infective endocarditis (PVIE) is unresolved. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between EVS, performed within the first 60 days of hospitalization, and outcome of SA PVIE within the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study. METHODS: Participants were enrolled between June 2000 and December 2006. Cox proportional hazards modeling that included surgery as a time-dependent covariate and propensity adjustment for likelihood to receive cardiac surgery was used to evaluate the impact of EVS and 1-year all-cause mortality on patients with definite left-sided S. aureus PVIE and no history of injection drug use. RESULTS: EVS was performed in 74 of the 168 (44.3%) patients. One-year mortality was significantly higher among patients with S. aureus PVIE than in patients with non-S. aureus PVIE (48.2% vs 32.9%; P = .003). Staphylococcus aureus PVIE patients who underwent EVS had a significantly lower 1-year mortality rate (33.8% vs 59.1%; P = .001). In multivariate, propensity-adjusted models, EVS was not associated with 1-year mortality (risk ratio, 0.67 [95% confidence interval, .39-1.15]; P = .15). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, multinational cohort of patients with S. aureus PVIE, EVS was not associated with reduced 1-year mortality. The decision to pursue EVS should be individualized for each patient, based upon infection-specific characteristics rather than solely upon the microbiology of the infection causing PVIE.

Telavancin for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections, a Post Hoc Analysis of the Phase 3 ATLAS Trials in Light of the 2013 FDA Guidance.

Two phase 3 ATLAS trials demonstrated noninferiority of telavancin compared with vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections. Data from these trials were retrospectively evaluated according to 2013 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. This post hoc analysis included patients with lesion sizes of ≥75 cm(2) and excluded patients with ulcers or burns (updated all-treated population; n = 1,127). Updated day 3 (early) clinical response was defined as a ≥20% reduction in lesion size from baseline and no rescue antibiotic. Updated test-of-cure (TOC) clinical response was defined as a ≥90% reduction in lesion size, no increase in lesion size since day 3, and no requirement for additional antibiotics or significant surgical procedures. Day 3 (early) clinical responses were achieved in 62.6% and 61.0% of patients receiving telavancin and vancomycin, respectively (difference, 1.7%, with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of -4.0% to 7.4%). Updated TOC visit cure rates were similar for telavancin (68.0%) and vancomycin (63.3%), with a difference of 4.8% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.3%). Adopting current FDA guidance, this analysis corroborates previous noninferiority findings of the ATLAS trials of telavancin compared with vancomycin.

Analysis of the phase 3 ESTABLISH trials of tedizolid versus linezolid in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, was evaluated in two noninferiority phase 3 acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection trials. The data from individual trials showed its noninferior efficacy compared to that of linezolid and a favorable tolerability profile. To evaluate potential differences, the pooled data were analyzed. The patients received 200 mg of tedizolid once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid twice daily for 10 days. Efficacy was evaluated at 48 to 72 h (primary endpoint), on days 11 to 13 (end of therapy [EOT]), and 7 to 14 days after the EOT (posttherapy evaluation). Treatment-emergent adverse events and hematologic and clinical laboratory parameters were collected. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups: 852/1,333 (64%) patients were from North America, and the majority of infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid (early clinical responses, 81.6% versus 79.4%, respectively). The early responses remained relatively consistent across various host/disease factors and severity measures. Nausea was the most frequently reported adverse event (tedizolid, 8.2%; linezolid, 12.2%; P=0.02), with onset occurring primarily during the first 6 days. Fewer tedizolid than linezolid patients had platelet counts of <150,000 cells/mm3 at the EOT (tedizolid, 4.9%; linezolid, 10.8%; P=0.0003) and during the postbaseline period through the last day of active drug visit (tedizolid, 6.4%; linezolid, 12.6%; P=0.0016). Efficacy was achieved with a 6-day once-daily course of therapy with the option of an intravenous/oral regimen, and fewer low platelet counts and gastrointestinal side effects were reported with tedizolid than with linezolid, all of which aligns well with antimicrobial stewardship principles. (These studies have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.).

An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) places a tremendous burden on the health care system. Understanding relative resource utilization associated with different antimicrobials is important for decision making by patients, health care providers, and payers. METHODS: The authors conducted an open-label, pragmatic, randomized (1:1) clinical study (N = 250) to compare the effectiveness of daptomycin with that of vancomycin for treatment of patients hospitalized with cSSSI caused by suspected or documented methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. The primary study end point was infection-related length of stay (IRLOS). Secondary end points included health care resource utilization, cost, clinical response, and patient-reported outcomes. Patient assessments were performed daily until the end of antibiotic therapy or until hospital discharge, and at 14 days and 30 days after discharge. RESULTS: No difference was found for IRLOS, total LOS, and total inpatient cost between cohorts. Hospital LOS contributed 85.9% to the total hospitalization cost, compared with 6.4% for drug costs. Daptomycin showed a nonsignificant trend toward a higher clinical success rate, compared with vancomycin, at treatment days 2 and 3. In the multivariate analyses, vancomycin was associated with a lower likelihood of day 2 clinical success (odds ratio [OR] = 0.498, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.249-0.997; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study did not provide conclusive evidence of the superiority of one treatment over the other in terms of clinical, economic, or patient outcomes. The data suggest that physician and patient preference, rather than drug acquisition cost, should be the primary driver of initial antibiotic selection for hospitalized patients with cSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01419184 (Date: August 16, 2011).

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an evolving pathogen.

The horizontal transmission of methicillin resistance to Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospital and community settings, and growing prevalence of these strains, presents a significant clinical challenge to the management of serious infections worldwide. While infection control initiatives have stemmed the rising prevalence, MRSA remains a significant pathogen. More recently, evidence that MRSA is becoming resistant to glycopeptides and newer therapies raises concern about the use of these therapies in clinical practice. Vancomycin resistance has become evident in select clinical settings through rising MICs, growing awareness of heteroresistance, and emergence of intermediate-resistant and fully resistant strains. While resistance to linezolid and daptomycin remains low overall, point mutations leading to resistance have been described for linezolid, and horizontal transmission of cfr-mediated resistance to linezolid has been reported in clinical isolates. These resistance trends for newer therapies highlight the ongoing need for new and more potent antimicrobial therapies.