Suppr超能文献

一项随机、评价者盲、2 期研究比较了奥马环素与利奈唑胺治疗复杂性皮肤和皮肤结构感染的安全性和疗效。

A randomized, evaluator-blind, phase 2 study comparing the safety and efficacy of omadacycline to those of linezolid for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections.

机构信息

Paratek Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Nov;56(11):5650-4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00948-12. Epub 2012 Aug 20.

Abstract

A randomized, investigator-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial involving patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) compared the safety and efficacy of omadacycline, a broad-spectrum agent with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), to those of linezolid (with or without aztreonam). Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline (100 mg intravenously [i.v.] once a day [QD] with an option to transition to 200 mg orally QD) or linezolid (600 mg i.v. twice daily [BID] with an option to transition to 600 mg orally BID) at 11 U.S. sites. Patients suspected or documented to have infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria were given aztreonam (2 g i.v. every 12 h [q12h]) if randomized to linezolid or matching placebo infusions if randomized to omadacycline. Adverse events were reported in 46 (41.4%) omadacycline-treated and 55 (50.9%) linezolid-treated patients. Adverse events related to treatment were assessed by investigators in 24 (21.6%) omadacycline-treated and 33 (30.6%) linezolid-treated patients. The gastrointestinal tract was most commonly involved, with adverse events reported in 21 (18.9%) patients exposed to omadacycline and 20 (18.5%) exposed to linezolid. Rates of successful clinical response in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and clinical evaluable (CE) populations favored omadacycline (ITT, 88.3% versus 75.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 22.9; CE, 98.0% versus 93.2%; 95% CI, -1.7 to 11.3). For microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients with S. aureus infections, the clinical success rates were 97.2% (70/72) in omadacycline-treated and 92.7% (51/55) in linezolid-treated patients. This phase 2 experience supports conclusions that omadacycline is well tolerated in cSSSI patients and that this aminomethylcycline has potential to be an effective treatment for serious skin infections.

摘要

一项涉及复杂性皮肤和皮肤结构感染(cSSSI)患者的随机、研究者盲法、多中心 2 期临床试验比较了 omadacycline(一种对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)具有活性的广谱药物)与利奈唑胺(联合或不联合氨曲南)的安全性和疗效。患者以 1:1 的比例随机分为 omadacycline(100 mg 静脉注射[IV],每天一次[QD],可选择转换为 200 mg 口服 QD)或利奈唑胺(600 mg IV,每天两次[BID],可选择转换为 600 mg 口服 BID),在 11 个美国地点进行。如果随机分配到利奈唑胺,疑似或确诊为革兰氏阴性菌感染的患者给予氨曲南(2 g IV,每 12 小时[q12h]);如果随机分配到 omadacycline,则给予匹配的安慰剂输注。46 名(41.4%)接受 omadacycline 治疗的患者和 55 名(50.9%)接受利奈唑胺治疗的患者报告了不良事件。研究者评估了 24 名(21.6%)接受 omadacycline 治疗和 33 名(30.6%)接受利奈唑胺治疗的患者与治疗相关的不良事件。胃肠道最常受累,21 名(18.9%)接受 omadacycline 治疗的患者和 20 名(18.5%)接受利奈唑胺治疗的患者报告了不良事件。在意向治疗(ITT)和临床可评估(CE)人群中,omadacycline 治疗的临床应答率较高(ITT:88.3%比 75.9%;95%置信区间[CI],1.9 至 22.9;CE:98.0%比 93.2%;95%CI,-1.7 至 11.3)。对于金黄色葡萄球菌感染的微生物可评估(ME)患者,omadacycline 治疗组的临床成功率为 97.2%(70/72),利奈唑胺治疗组为 92.7%(51/55)。这项 2 期经验支持以下结论:omadacycline 在 cSSSI 患者中耐受良好,并且这种氨甲基环素有可能成为治疗严重皮肤感染的有效药物。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

3
Linezolid-associated serotonin toxicity: a systematic review.利奈唑胺相关的 5-羟色胺毒性:系统评价。
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023 Jul;79(7):875-883. doi: 10.1007/s00228-023-03500-9. Epub 2023 May 2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验