Role of new antibiotics in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.
Journal
Current opinion in infectious diseases
ISSN: 1473-6527
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8809878
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
19
2
2020
medline:
1
5
2021
entrez:
19
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To summarize the available efficacy and safety data of novel agents for treating acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSI), focusing on those active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). There are now several agents active against MRSA that are approved for the treatment of ABSSSI, including tedizolid, ceftaroline, dalbavancin, telavancin, oritavancin, delafloxacin, and omadacycline. In addition, iclaprim has completed phase-3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Considering the similar efficacy that arose from direct comparisons in phase-3 RCTs, in order to adopt the best approach for treating ABSSSI on patient-tailored basis, the different safety profiles and formulations of the different available agents should be balanced by taking into account the specific features of each treated patient in terms of baseline comorbidities, related risk of toxicity, need for hospitalization, possibility of early discharge, and expected adherence to outpatient oral therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32068643
doi: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000631
pii: 00001432-202004000-00004
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
110-120Références
Esposito S, Noviello S, Leone S. Epidemiology and microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2016; 29:109–115.
Garau J, Ostermann H, Medina J, et al. REACH study group. Current management of patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections across Europe (2010–2011): assessment of clinical practice patterns and real-life effectiveness of antibiotics from the REACH study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013; 19:E377–E385.
Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Warner M, et al. Pathogens of skin and skin-structure infections in the UK and their susceptibility to antibiotics, including ceftaroline. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70:2844–2853.
Bassetti M, Nicco E, Mikulska M. Why is community-associated MRSA spreading across the world and how will it change clinical practice? Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009; 34: (Suppl 1): S15–S19.
Chua K, Laurent F, Coombs G, et al. Antimicrobial resistance: not community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA)! A clinician's guide to community MRSA - its evolving antimicrobial resistance and implications for therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52:99–114.
Bassetti M, Peghin M, Castaldo N, Giacobbe DR. The safety of treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Expert opinion on drug safety 2019; 18:635–650.
Bassetti M, Castaldo N, Carnelutti A, et al. Tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy. Core Evid 2019; 14:31–40.
Rybak JM, Roberts K. Tedizolid phosphate: a next-generation oxazolidinone. Infect Dis Ther 2015; 4:1–14.
Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR, et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, noninferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14:696–705.
Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E, et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA 2013; 309:559–569.
Moran GJ, De Anda C, Das AF, et al. Efficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in injection drug users: analysis of two clinical trials. Infect Dis Ther 2018; 7:509–522.
Ortiz-Covarrubias A, Fang E, Prokocimer PG, et al. Efficacy, safety, tolerability and population pharmacokinetics of tedizolid, a novel antibiotic, in Latino patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Braz J Infect Dis 2016; 20:184–192.
De Anda C, Anuskiewicz S, Prokocimer P, Vazquez J. Outpatient treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) with tedizolid phosphate and linezolid in patients in the United States: subgroup analysis of 2 randomized phase 3 trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e9163.
Joseph WS, Culshaw D, Anuskiewicz S, et al. Tedizolid and linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections of the lower extremity versus non-lower-extremity infectionspooled analysis of two phase 3 trials. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2017; 107:264–271.
Lv X, Alder J, Li L, et al. Efficacy and safety of tedizolid phosphate versus linezolid in a randomized phase 3 trial in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019; 63:pii: e02252-18.
Mikamo H, Takesue Y, Iwamoto Y, et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid versus linezolid in patients with skin and soft tissue infections in Japan - results of a randomised, multicentre phase 3 study. J Infect Chemother 2018; 24:434–442.
Lodise TP, Fang E, Minassian SL, Prokocimer PG. Platelet profile in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections receiving tedizolid or linezolid: findings from the Phase 3 ESTABLISH clinical trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:7198–7204.
Flanagan S, Bartizal K, Minassian SL, et al. In vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies of tedizolid to assess the potential for peripheral or central monoamine oxidase interactions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:3060–3066.
Farrell DJ, Castanheira M, Mendes RE, et al. In vitro activity of ceftaroline against multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae: a review of published studies and the AWARE Surveillance Program (2008–2010). Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55: (Suppl 3): S206–S214.
Hoban D, Biedenbach D, Sahm D, et al. Activity of ceftaroline and comparators against pathogens isolated from skin and soft tissue infections in Latin America - results of AWARE surveillance. Braz J Infect Dis 2015; 19:596–603.
Jorgenson MR, DePestel DD, Carver PL. Ceftaroline fosamil: a novel broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Pharmacother 2011; 45:1384–1398.
Dryden M, Zhang Y, Wilson D, et al. A Phase III, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection with systemic inflammatory response or underlying comorbidities. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71:3575–3584.
Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH, et al. CANVAS 1 investigators. CANVAS 1: the first Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65: (Suppl 4): iv41–51.
Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH, et al. CANVAS 2 investigators. CANVAS 2: the second phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65: (Suppl 4): iv53–iv65.
Claeys KC, Zasowski EJ, Trinh TD, et al. Open-label randomized trial of early clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil versus vancomycin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections at risk of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. Infect Dis Ther 2019; 8:199–208.
Friedland HD, O’Neal T, Biek D, et al. CANVAS 1 and 2: analysis of clinical response at day 3 in two phase 3 trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:2231–2236.
File TM Jr, Wilcox MH, Stein GE. Summary of ceftaroline fosamil clinical trial studies and clinical safety. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55: (Suppl 3): S173–S180.
Smith JR, Roberts KD, Rybak MJ. Dalbavancin: a novel lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with extended activity against gram-positive infections. Infect Dis Ther 2015; 4:245–258.
Jones RN, Stilwell MG, Sader HS, et al. Spectrum and potency of dalbavancin tested against 3322 Gram-positive cocci isolated in the United States Surveillance Program (2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 54:149–153.
Boucher HW, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, et al. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus daily conventional therapy for skin infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2169–2179.
Leuthner KD, Buechler KA, Kogan D, et al. Clinical efficacy of dalbavancin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Ther Clin Risk Manag 2016; 12:931–940.
Ramdeen S, Boucher HW. Dalbavancin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015; 16:2073–2081.
Jauregui LE, Babazadeh S, Seltzer E, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of once-weekly dalbavancin versus twice-daily linezolid therapy for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:1407–1415.
Dunne MW, Puttagunta S, Giordano P, et al. A randomized clinical trial of single-dose versus weekly dalbavancin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62:545–551.
Gonzalez PL, Rappo U, Akinapelli K, et al. Treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection with single-dose dalbavancin in persons who inject drugs. Drugs Context 2018; 7:212559.
Das B, Sarkar C, Das D, et al. Telavancin: a novel semisynthetic lipoglycopeptide agent to counter the challenge of resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Ther Adv Infect Dis 2017; 4:49–73.
Duncan LR, Sader HS, Smart JI, et al. Telavancin activity in vitro tested against a worldwide collection of Gram-positive clinical isolates (2014). J Global Antimicrob Resist 2017; 10:271–276.
Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE, et al. Assessment of Telavancin in Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections Study. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:1683–1693.
Wilson SE, O’Riordan W, Hopkins A, et al. ATLAS Investigators. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections associated with surgical procedures. Am J Surg 2009; 197:791–796.
Chuan J, Zhang Y, He X, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of telavancin for treatment of infectious disease: are we clearer? Front Pharmacol 2016; 7:330.
Brade KD, Rybak JM, Rybak MJ. Oritavancin: a new lipoglycopeptide antibiotic in the treatment of gram-positive infections. Infect Dis Ther 2016; 5:1–15.
Duncan LR, Sader HS, Flamm RK, et al. Oritavancin in vitro activity against contemporary Staphylococcus aureus isolates responsible for invasive community- and healthcare-associated infections among patients in the United States (2013–2014). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2016; 86:303–306.
O’Connor R, Baines SD, Freeman J, Wilcox MH. In vitro susceptibility of genotypically distinct and clonal Clostridium difficile strains to oritavancin. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62:762–765.
Corey GR, Good S, Jiang H, et al. SOLO II Investigators. Single-dose oritavancin versus 7–10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60:254–262.
Corey GR, Kabler H, Mehra P, et al. SOLO I Investigators. Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2180–2190.
Deck DH, Jordan JM, Holland TL, et al. Single-dose oritavancin treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: SOLO trial efficacy by eron severity and management setting. Infect Dis Ther 2016; 5:353–361.
Lodise TP, Redell M, Armstrong SO, et al. Efficacy and safety of oritavancin relative to vancomycin for patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in the outpatient setting: results from the SOLO Clinical Trials. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017; 4:ofw274.
Corey GR, Loutit J, Moeck G, et al. SOLO I and SOLO II investigators. Single intravenous dose of oritavancin for treatment of acute skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria: summary of safety analysis from the phase 3 SOLO Studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018; 62:pii: e01919-17.
McCurdy S, Lawrence L, Quintas M, et al. In vitro activity of delafloxacin and microbiological response against fluoroquinolone-susceptible and nonsusceptible staphylococcus aureus isolates from two phase 3 studies of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61: pii: e00772-17.
pii: e00772-17
Righi E, Carnelutti A, Vena A, Bassetti M. Emerging treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: focus on intravenous delafloxacin. Infect Drug Resist 2018; 11:479–488.
O’Riordan W, McManus A, Teras J, et al. PROCEED Study Group. A Comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravenous followed by oral delafloxacin with vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a phase 3, multinational, double-blind, randomized study. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 67:657–666.
Pullman J, Gardovskis J, Farley B, et al. PROCEED Study Group. Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72:3471–3480.
Giordano PA, Pogue JM, Cammarata S. Analysis of pooled phase III efficacy data for delafloxacin in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68:S223–S232.
Bassetti M, Hooper D, Tillotson G. Analysis of pooled phase 3 safety data for delafloxacin in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68:S233–S240.
Macone AB, Caruso BK, Leahy RG, et al. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:1127–1135.
Gallagher JC. Omadacycline: a modernized tetracycline. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 69: (Suppl 1): S1–S5.
Honeyman L, Ismail M, Nelson ML, et al. Structure-activity relationship of the aminomethylcyclines and the discovery of omadacycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59:7044–7053.
Tanaka SK, Steenbergen J, Villano S. Discovery, pharmacology, and clinical profile of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic. Bioorg Med Chem 2016; 24:6409–6419.
Heidrich CG, Mitova S, Schedlbauer A, et al. The novel aminomethylcycline omadacycline has high specificity for the primary tetracycline-binding site on the bacterial ribosome. Antibiotics (Basel) 2016; 5: pii: E32.
pii: e32
Bassetti M, Righi E. Enriching the antibiotic armamentarium for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19:1037–1039.
O’Riordan W, Cardenas C, Shin E, et al. OASIS-2 Investigators. Once-daily oral omadacycline versus twice-daily oral linezolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (OASIS-2): a phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, noninferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19:1080–1090.
O’Riordan W, Green S, Overcash JS, et al. Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:528–538.
Watkins RR, Deresinski S. Omadacycline: a novel tetracycline derivative with oral and intravenous formulations. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 69:890–896.
Noviello S, Magnet S, Hawser S, Huang DB. In vitro activity of iclaprim against isolates in two phase 3 clinical trials (REVIVE-1 and -2) for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019; 63: pii: e02239-18.
pii: e02239-18
Sader HS, Fritsche TR, Jones RN. Potency and bactericidal activity of iclaprim against recent clinical gram-positive isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:2171–2175.
Schneider P, Hawser S, Islam K. Iclaprim, a novel diaminopyrimidine with potent activity on trimethoprim sensitive and resistant bacteria. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2003; 13:4217–4221.
Huang DB, Hawser S, Gemmell CG, Sahm DF. In vitro activity of iclaprim against methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus nonsusceptible to daptomycin, linezolid, or vancomycin: a pilot study. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2017; 2017:3948626.
Holland TL, O’Riordan W, McManus A, et al. A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens (REVIVE-2 Study). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62: pii: e02580-17.
pii: e02580-17
Huang DB, O’Riordan W, Overcash JS, et al. A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous iclaprim vs vancomycin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens: REVIVE-1. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 66:1222–1229.
MotifBio receives complete response letter from the FDA [Accessed 12 October 2019]. Available at: https://www.motifbio.com/news/motif-bio-receives-complete-response-letter-from-the-fda/.
MotifBio meeting with U.S. FDA held as planned [Accessed 12 October 2019]. Available at: https://www.motifbio.com/news/motif-bio-meeting-with-u-s-fda-held-as-planned/.