Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.
Lv, Xiaoju; Alder, Jeff; Li, Li; O'Riordan, William; Rybak, Michael J; Ye, Hui; Zhang, Ruiping; Zhang, Zhongqi; Zhu, Xu; Wilcox, Mark H.
Afiliação
  • Lv X; Centre of Infectious Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China lvxj3369@163.com.
  • Alder J; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, New Jersey, USA.
  • Li L; Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
  • O'Riordan W; eStudy Site, Inc., San Diego, California, USA.
  • Rybak MJ; Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
  • Ye H; Centre of Infectious Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
  • Zhang R; Bayer HealthCare, Beijing, China.
  • Zhang Z; Bayer HealthCare, Beijing, China.
  • Zhu X; Bayer HealthCare, Beijing, China.
  • Wilcox MH; Leeds Teaching Hospitals and University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30988146
ABSTRACT
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.).
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oxazóis / Organofosfatos / Pele / Bactérias / Dermatopatias Bacterianas / Antibacterianos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oxazóis / Organofosfatos / Pele / Bactérias / Dermatopatias Bacterianas / Antibacterianos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article