Stevens D L, Smith L G, Bruss J B, McConnell-Martin M A, Duvall S E, Todd W M, Hafkin B
Infectious Diseases Section, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Boise, Idaho, USA.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000 Dec;44(12):3408-13. doi: 10.1128/AAC.44.12.3408-3413.2000.
This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial compared the efficacy and safety of linezolid, an oxazolidinone, with those of oxacillin-dicloxacillin in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections. A total of 826 hospitalized adult patients were randomized to receive linezolid (600 mg intravenously [i.v.]) every 12 h or oxacillin (2 g i.v.) every 6 h; following sufficient clinical improvement, patients were switched to the respective oral agents (linezolid [600 mg orally] every 12 h or dicloxacillin [500 mg orally] every 6 hours). Primary efficacy variables were clinical cure rates in both the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and clinically evaluable (CE) patients and microbiological success rate in microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in the ITT population. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups in the 819 ITT patients. In the ITT population, the clinical cure rates were 69.8 and 64.9% in the linezolid and oxacillin-dicloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.141; 95% confidence interval -1.58 to 11. 25). In 298 CE linezolid-treated patients, the clinical cure rate was 88.6%, compared with a cure rate of 85.8% in 302 CE patients who received oxacillin-dicloxacillin. In 143 ME linezolid-treated patients, the microbiological success rate was 88.1%, compared with a success rate of 86.1% in 151 ME patients who received oxacillin-dicloxacillin. Both agents were well tolerated; most adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity. No serious drug-related adverse events were reported in the linezolid group. These data support the use of linezolid for the treatment of adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections.
这项随机、双盲、多中心试验比较了恶唑烷酮类药物利奈唑胺与苯唑西林 - 双氯西林治疗复杂性皮肤和软组织感染患者的疗效及安全性。共826例住院成年患者被随机分为两组,一组每12小时静脉注射利奈唑胺(600mg),另一组每6小时静脉注射苯唑西林(2g);待临床症状充分改善后,患者分别换用各自的口服制剂(利奈唑胺每12小时口服600mg或双氯西林每6小时口服500mg)。主要疗效变量包括意向性治疗(ITT)人群和临床可评估(CE)患者的临床治愈率,以及微生物学可评估(ME)患者的微生物学成功率。在ITT人群中评估安全性和耐受性。819例ITT患者中,各治疗组的人口统计学和基线特征相似。在ITT人群中,利奈唑胺组和苯唑西林 - 双氯西林组的临床治愈率分别为69.8%和64.9%(P = 0.141;95%置信区间为 -1.58至11.25)。在298例接受利奈唑胺治疗的CE患者中,临床治愈率为88.6%,而在302例接受苯唑西林 - 双氯西林治疗的CE患者中,治愈率为85.8%。在143例接受利奈唑胺治疗的ME患者中,微生物学成功率为88.1%,而在151例接受苯唑西林 - 双氯西林治疗的ME患者中,成功率为86.1%。两种药物耐受性均良好;大多数不良事件为轻至中度。利奈唑胺组未报告严重的药物相关不良事件。这些数据支持利奈唑胺用于治疗成人复杂性皮肤和软组织感染。