Cargando…

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 Philip...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lv, Xiaoju, Alder, Jeff, Li, Li, O’Riordan, William, Rybak, Michael J., Ye, Hui, Zhang, Ruiping, Zhang, Zhongqi, Zhu, Xu, Wilcox, Mark H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Microbiology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6591607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30988146
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02252-18
_version_ 1783429760677838848
author Lv, Xiaoju
Alder, Jeff
Li, Li
O’Riordan, William
Rybak, Michael J.
Ye, Hui
Zhang, Ruiping
Zhang, Zhongqi
Zhu, Xu
Wilcox, Mark H.
author_facet Lv, Xiaoju
Alder, Jeff
Li, Li
O’Riordan, William
Rybak, Michael J.
Ye, Hui
Zhang, Ruiping
Zhang, Zhongqi
Zhu, Xu
Wilcox, Mark H.
author_sort Lv, Xiaoju
collection PubMed
description 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.)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6591607
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Society for Microbiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65916072019-07-17 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. Antimicrob Agents Chemother Clinical Therapeutics 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.) American Society for Microbiology 2019-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6591607/ /pubmed/30988146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02252-18 Text en Copyright © 2019 Lv et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Clinical Therapeutics
Lv, Xiaoju
Alder, Jeff
Li, Li
O’Riordan, William
Rybak, Michael J.
Ye, Hui
Zhang, Ruiping
Zhang, Zhongqi
Zhu, Xu
Wilcox, Mark H.
Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection
title Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection
title_full Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection
title_fullStr Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection
title_short Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection
title_sort efficacy and safety of tedizolid phosphate versus linezolid in a randomized phase 3 trial in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection
topic Clinical Therapeutics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6591607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30988146
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02252-18
work_keys_str_mv AT lvxiaoju efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT alderjeff efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT lili efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT oriordanwilliam efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT rybakmichaelj efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT yehui efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT zhangruiping efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT zhangzhongqi efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT zhuxu efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection
AT wilcoxmarkh efficacyandsafetyoftedizolidphosphateversuslinezolidinarandomizedphase3trialinpatientswithacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfection