De Anda Carisa, Anuskiewicz Steven, Prokocimer Philippe, Vazquez Jose
Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Dec;96(52):e9163. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009163.
Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are a frequent cause of hospital admissions in the United States. Safe and effective outpatient treatments may lower ABSSSI-associated health care costs by reducing unnecessary hospital admissions. Using data from 2 phase 3 trials (ESTABLISH-1, NCT01170221; ESTABLISH-2, NCT01421511), this post-hoc analysis explored the efficacy and safety of tedizolid in an outpatient setting.
Subgroup analysis was performed on US outpatients (defined as patients who were not in hospital at the time of treatment initiation) with ABSSSI caused by presumed or proven gram-positive pathogens. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 6 days (n = 403) or linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days (n = 410). The primary end point was early clinical response (48-72 hours after the start of treatment). Secondary end points included investigator-assessed clinical response at end of therapy (EOT) and post-therapy evaluation (PTE; 7-14 days after therapy). Additional assessments included the patient-reported level of pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the per-pathogen favorable microbiological response rate at the PTE visit. Compliance with treatment and safety outcomes was also recorded.
Early clinical response was similar between treatment groups (tedizolid, 82.4%; linezolid, 79.0%), as was investigator-assessed clinical response at EOT (tedizolid, 87.1%; linezolid, 86.1%) and PTE (tedizolid, 83.1%; linezolid, 83.7%). Mean changes from baseline to days 10 to 13 in VAS scores were identical between treatment groups (tedizolid, -51.9 mm; linezolid, -51.9 mm). Microbiological eradication rates were generally similar in both treatment groups for all key pathogens. Patients in both groups had favorable response at PTE. More tedizolid-treated patients (89.3%) than linezolid-treated patients (77.3%) were compliant with treatment. The most frequently reported drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (tedizolid, 10.7%; linezolid, 13.8%), diarrhea (tedizolid, 4.5%; linezolid, 5.9%), and headache (tedizolid, 5.5%; linezolid, 4.4%). Treatment discontinuation rates were low for both treatment groups (tedizolid, 0.7%; linezolid, 1.0%).
Short-course therapy with tedizolid can successfully treat patients with ABSSSI caused by presumed or proven gram-positive pathogens in an outpatient setting.
急性细菌性皮肤及皮肤结构感染(ABSSSI)是美国住院治疗的常见原因。安全有效的门诊治疗可通过减少不必要的住院来降低与ABSSSI相关的医疗费用。利用两项3期试验(ESTABLISH - 1,NCT01170221;ESTABLISH - 2,NCT01421511)的数据,这项事后分析探讨了特地唑胺在门诊环境中的疗效和安全性。
对由推定或已证实的革兰氏阳性病原体引起ABSSSI的美国门诊患者(定义为开始治疗时不住院的患者)进行亚组分析。患者被随机分配接受每日一次200毫克的磷酸特地唑胺治疗6天(n = 403)或每日两次600毫克的利奈唑胺治疗10天(n = 410)。主要终点是早期临床反应(治疗开始后48 - 72小时)。次要终点包括研究者评估的治疗结束时(EOT)和治疗后评估(PTE;治疗后7 - 14天)的临床反应。额外评估包括使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)患者报告的疼痛程度以及PTE访视时每种病原体的良好微生物学反应率。还记录了治疗依从性和安全性结果。
治疗组之间的早期临床反应相似(特地唑胺,82.4%;利奈唑胺,79.0%),EOT时(特地唑胺,87.1%;利奈唑胺,86.1%)和PTE时(特地唑胺,83.1%;利奈唑胺,83.7%)研究者评估的临床反应也相似。治疗组从基线到第10至13天VAS评分的平均变化相同(特地唑胺,-51.9毫米;利奈唑胺,-51.9毫米)。所有关键病原体在两个治疗组中的微生物根除率总体相似。两组患者在PTE时均有良好反应。接受特地唑胺治疗的患者(89.3%)比接受利奈唑胺治疗的患者(77.3%)治疗依从性更好。最常报告的与药物相关的治疗中出现的不良事件是恶心(特地唑胺,10.7%;利奈唑胺,13.8%)、腹泻(特地唑胺,4.5%;利奈唑胺,5.9%)和头痛(特地唑胺,5.5%;利奈唑胺,4.4%)。两个治疗组的治疗中断率都很低(特地唑胺,0.7%;利奈唑胺,1.0%)。
在门诊环境中,特地唑胺短程治疗可成功治疗由推定或已证实的革兰氏阳性病原体引起的ABSSSI患者。