Cargando…
Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections
BACKGROUND: Within the last decade, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a frequent cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options are being investigated for these infections. METHODS: We report an integrated analysis of 2 randomized, controll...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6669297/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31367742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz396 |
_version_ | 1783440344010981376 |
---|---|
author | Abrahamian, Fredrick M Sakoulas, George Tzanis, Evan Manley, Amy Steenbergen, Judith Das, Anita F Eckburg, Paul B McGovern, Paul C |
author_facet | Abrahamian, Fredrick M Sakoulas, George Tzanis, Evan Manley, Amy Steenbergen, Judith Das, Anita F Eckburg, Paul B McGovern, Paul C |
author_sort | Abrahamian, Fredrick M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Within the last decade, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a frequent cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options are being investigated for these infections. METHODS: We report an integrated analysis of 2 randomized, controlled studies involving omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline, and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study 1 (OASIS-1) initiated patients on intravenous omadacycline or linezolid, with the option to transition to an oral formulation after day 3. OASIS-2 was an oral-only study of omadacycline versus linezolid. RESULTS: In total, 691 patients received omadacycline and 689 patients received linezolid. Infection types included wound infection in 46.8% of patients, cellulitis/erysipelas in 30.5%, and major abscess in 22.7%. Pathogens were identified in 73.2% of patients. S. aureus was detected in 74.7% and MRSA in 32.4% of patients in whom a pathogen was identified. Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid using the Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint of early clinical response (86.2% vs 83.9%; difference 2.3, 95% confidence interval –1.5 to 6.2) and using the European Medicines Agency primary endpoint of investigator-assessed clinical response at the posttreatment evaluation. Clinical responses were similar across different infection types and infections caused by different pathogens. Treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly described as mild or moderate, were reported by 51.1% of patients receiving omadacycline and 41.2% of those receiving linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was effective and safe in ABSSSI. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02378480 and NCT02877927. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6669297 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66692972019-08-05 Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Abrahamian, Fredrick M Sakoulas, George Tzanis, Evan Manley, Amy Steenbergen, Judith Das, Anita F Eckburg, Paul B McGovern, Paul C Clin Infect Dis Supplement Articles BACKGROUND: Within the last decade, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a frequent cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options are being investigated for these infections. METHODS: We report an integrated analysis of 2 randomized, controlled studies involving omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline, and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study 1 (OASIS-1) initiated patients on intravenous omadacycline or linezolid, with the option to transition to an oral formulation after day 3. OASIS-2 was an oral-only study of omadacycline versus linezolid. RESULTS: In total, 691 patients received omadacycline and 689 patients received linezolid. Infection types included wound infection in 46.8% of patients, cellulitis/erysipelas in 30.5%, and major abscess in 22.7%. Pathogens were identified in 73.2% of patients. S. aureus was detected in 74.7% and MRSA in 32.4% of patients in whom a pathogen was identified. Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid using the Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint of early clinical response (86.2% vs 83.9%; difference 2.3, 95% confidence interval –1.5 to 6.2) and using the European Medicines Agency primary endpoint of investigator-assessed clinical response at the posttreatment evaluation. Clinical responses were similar across different infection types and infections caused by different pathogens. Treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly described as mild or moderate, were reported by 51.1% of patients receiving omadacycline and 41.2% of those receiving linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was effective and safe in ABSSSI. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02378480 and NCT02877927. Oxford University Press 2019-08-15 2019-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6669297/ /pubmed/31367742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz396 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in anymedium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Supplement Articles Abrahamian, Fredrick M Sakoulas, George Tzanis, Evan Manley, Amy Steenbergen, Judith Das, Anita F Eckburg, Paul B McGovern, Paul C Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections |
title | Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections |
title_full | Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections |
title_fullStr | Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections |
title_full_unstemmed | Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections |
title_short | Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections |
title_sort | omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections |
topic | Supplement Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6669297/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31367742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz396 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abrahamianfredrickm omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections AT sakoulasgeorge omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections AT tzanisevan omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections AT manleyamy omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections AT steenbergenjudith omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections AT dasanitaf omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections AT eckburgpaulb omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections AT mcgovernpaulc omadacyclineforacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfections |