Paratek Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Nov;56(11):5650-4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00948-12. Epub 2012 Aug 20.
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.
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。