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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |