Potential role of new-generation antibiotics in 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:
01 04 2021
01 04 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
4
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To summarize the available results of primary analyses from high-quality randomized studies of either recently approved or possible future agents for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In the last 2 decades, several novel agents have been approved for the treatment of ABSSSI, that are also active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to already available agents, further molecules are in clinical development that could become available for treating ABSSSI in the forthcoming future. The current and future availability of several new-generation antibiotics will allow to modulate therapeutic choices not only on efficacy but also on other relevant factors such as the combination of the drug safety profile and the comorbidities of any given patient, the expected adherence to outpatient therapy, and the possibilities of early discharge or avoiding hospitalization by means of oral formulations, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, or single-dose administration of long-acting intravenous agents. With the advent of new-generation antibiotics, all these factors are becoming increasingly essential for tailoring treatment to individual patients in line with the principles of personalized medicine, and for optimizing the use of healthcare resources.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33395093
doi: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000708
pii: 00001432-202104000-00007
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
109-117Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Esposito S, Bassetti M, Concia E, et al. Diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI). A literature review and consensus statement: an update. J Chemother 2017; 29:197–214.
Esposito S, Noviello S, Leone S. Epidemiology and microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2016; 29:109–115.
Russo A, Concia E, Cristini F, et al. Current and future trends in antibiotic therapy of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2016; 22: (Suppl 2): S27–S36.
Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:e10–e52.
Esposito S, De Simone G, Pan A, et al. Epidemiology and microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections: preliminary results of a national registry. J Chemother 2019; 31:9–14.
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.
Dryden M, Andrasevic AT, Bassetti M, et al. Managing skin and soft-tissue infection and nosocomial pneumonia caused by MRSA: a 2014 follow-up survey. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2015; 45: (Suppl 1): S1–S14.
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.
Garau J, Blasi F, Medina J, et al. Early response to antibiotic treatment in European patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections: analysis of the REACH study. BMC Infect Dis 2015; 15:78.
Bassetti M, Magnasco L, Del Puente F, Giacobbe DR. Role of new antibiotics in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2020; 33:110–120.
Golan Y. Current treatment options for acute skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68:S206–S212.
Bassetti M, Eckmann C, Peghin M, et al. When to switch to an oral treatment and/or to discharge a patient with skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2018; 31:163–169.
Stargardt T, Eckmann C, Bouza E, et al. Attitudes of physicians from 10 European countries on adherence and how treatment modalities in ABSSSI affect adherence: results from a Delphi survey. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2018; 37:1611–1618.
Bassetti M, Del Puente F, Magnasco L, Giacobbe DR. Innovative therapies for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus : advances in phase I and II trials. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2020; 29:495–506.
Jaffa RK, Pillinger KE, Roshdy D, et al. Novel developments in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2019; 20:1493–1502.
Bai B, Hu K, Li H, et al. Effect of tedizolid on clinical Enterococcus isolates: in vitro activity, distribution of virulence factor, resistance genes and multilocus sequence typing. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2018; 365: doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnx284.
doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnx284
Karlowsky JA, Hackel MA, Bouchillon SK, et al. In vitro activities of tedizolid and comparator antimicrobial agents against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus collected in 12 countries from 2014 to 2016. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 89:151–157.
Bensaci M, Sahm D. Surveillance of tedizolid activity and resistance: in vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens collected over 5 years from the United States and Europe. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 87:133–138.
Lee Y, Hong SK, Choi S, et al. In vitro activity of tedizolid against gram-positive bacteria in patients with skin and skin structure infections and hospital-acquired pneumonia: a Korean multicenter study. Ann Lab Med 2015; 35:523–530.
Barber KE, Smith JR, Raut A, Rybak MJ. Evaluation of tedizolid against Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, daptomycin or linezolid. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71:152–155.
Chen H, Yang Q, Zhang R, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of the novel oxazolidinone tedizolid and comparator agents against Staphylococcus aureus and linezolid-resistant Gram-positive pathogens: a multicentre study in China. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014; 44:276–277.
Rybak JM, Roberts K. Tedizolid phosphate: a next-generation oxazolidinone. Infect Dis Ther 2015; 4:1–14.
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.
Brown-Elliott BA, Wallace RJ Jr. In vitro susceptibility testing of tedizolid against nontuberculous mycobacteria. J Clin Microbiol 2017; 55:1747–1754.
Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Tyrrell KL, et al. The underappreciated in vitro activity of tedizolid against Bacteroides fragilis species, including strains resistant to metronidazole and carbapenems. Anaerobe 2017; 43:1–3.
Molina-Torres CA, Barba-Marines A, Valles-Guerra O, et al. Intracellular activity of tedizolid phosphate and ACH-702 versus Mycobacterium tuberculosis infected macrophages. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2014; 13:13.
Vera-Cabrera L, Gonzalez E, Rendon A, et al. In vitro activities of DA-7157 and DA-7218 against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Nocardia brasiliensis . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:3170–3172.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Frampton JE. Ceftaroline fosamil: a review of its use in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections and community-acquired pneumonia. Drugs 2013; 73:1067–1094.
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 2012. Braz J Infect Dis 2015; 19:596–603.
Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH, et al. 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–iv51.
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.
Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH, et al. 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.
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.
Furtek KJ, Kubiak DW, Barra M, et al. High incidence of neutropenia in patients with prolonged ceftaroline exposure. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71:2010–2013.
LaVie KW, Anderson SW, O’Neal HR Jr, et al. Neutropenia associated with long-term ceftaroline use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:264–269.
Varada NL, Sakoulas G, Lei LR, Chua J. Agranulocytosis with ceftaroline high-dose monotherapy or combination therapy with clindamycin. Pharmacotherapy 2015; 35:608–612.
Saravolatz LD, Stein GE. Delafloxacin: a new antimethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus fluoroquinolone. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68:1058–1062.
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:e00772–e00817.
O’Riordan W, McManus A, Teras J, et al. 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. 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.
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.
Lodise T, Corey R, Hooper D, Cammarata S. Safety of delafloxacin: focus on adverse events of special interest. Open Forum Infect Dis 2018; 5:ofy220.
Barber KE, Bell AM, Wingler MJB, et al. Omadacycline enters the ring: a new antimicrobial contender. Pharmacotherapy 2018; 38:1194–1204.
Montravers P, Tran-Dinh A, Tanaka S. The role of omadacycline in skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2018; 31:148–154.
Huband MD, Pfaller MA, Shortridge D, Flamm RK. Surveillance of omadacycline activity tested against clinical isolates from the United States and Europe: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Programme, 2017. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2019; 19:56–63.
O’Riordan W, Cardenas C, Shin E, et al. 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.
Zhanel GG, Esquivel J, Zelenitsky S, et al. Omadacycline: a novel oral and intravenous aminomethylcycline antibiotic agent. Drugs 2020; 80:285–313.
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.
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.
Marbury T, Dowell JA, Seltzer E, Buckwalter M. Pharmacokinetics of dalbavancin in patients with renal or hepatic impairment. J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 49:465–476.
Kmeid J, Kanafani ZA. Oritavancin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: an evidence-based review. Core Evid 2015; 10:39–47.
Saravolatz LD, Stein GE. Oritavancin: a long-half-life lipoglycopeptide. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61:627–632.
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.
Corey GR, Good S, Jiang H, et al. 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. Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2180–2190.
Redell M, Moeck G, Lucasti C, et al. A real-world patient registry for oritavancin demonstrates efficacy and safety consistent with the phase 3 SOLO Program. Open Forum Infect Dis 2018; 5:ofy051.
Flamm RK, Duncan LR, Hamed KA, et al. Ceftobiprole activity against bacteria from skin and skin structure infections in the United States from 2016 through 2018. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020; 64:e02566–e02519.
Giacobbe DR, De Rosa FG, Del Bono V, et al. Ceftobiprole: drug evaluation and place in therapy. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2019; 17:689–698.
Noel GJ, Bush K, Bagchi P, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with vancomycin plus ceftazidime for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:647–655.
European Medicines AgencyRefusal of the marketing authorisation for Zeftera (ceftobiprole). 2010; Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/smop-initial/questions-answers-recommendation-refusal-marketing-authorisation-zeftera_en-0.pdf . [Cited 17 October 2020].
Overcash JS, Kim C, Keech R, et al. Ceftobiprole compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: results of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial (TARGET). Clin Infect Dis 2020; doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa974.
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa974
Noviello S, Huang DB, Corey GR. Iclaprim: a differentiated option for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2018; 16:793–803.
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.
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.
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 2018; 62:e02580–e02517.
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 plc. MotifBio receives complete response letter from the FDA. 2019. Available from: https://www.motifbio.com/news/motif-bio-receives-complete-response-letter-from-the-fda/ . [Cited 18 October 2020].
Sonis ST, Korczak B,Brilacidin, host defence peptide mimetic, one of a new class of immunomodulatory agents that can target multiple disease indications. Presented at: 25th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), 25–28 April 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kowalski RP, Romanowski EG, Yates KA, Mah FS. An independent evaluation of a novel peptide mimetic, brilacidin (PMX30063), for ocular antiinfective. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2016; 32:23–27.
Mensa B, Howell GL, Scott R, DeGrado WF. Comparative mechanistic studies of brilacidin, daptomycin, and the antimicrobial peptide LL16. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:5136–5145.
Jorgensen DM, Scott RW, O’Riordan WA,A randomized, double-blind study comparing single-dose and short-course brilacidin to daptomycin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin & skin structure infections (ABSSSI).Presented at: 25th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), 25–28 April 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bax BD, Chan PF, Eggleston DS, et al. Type IIA topoisomerase inhibition by a new class of antibacterial agents. Nature 2010; 466:935–940.
Bulik CC, Okusanya OO, Lakota EA, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation of gepotidacin against Gram-positive organisms using data from murine infection models. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61:e00115–16.
Biedenbach DJ, Bouchillon SK, Hackel M, et al. In vitro activity of gepotidacin, a novel triazaacenaphthylene bacterial topoisomerase inhibitor, against a broad spectrum of bacterial pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:1918–1923.
Gibson EG, Bax B, Chan PF, Osheroff N. Mechanistic and structural basis for the actions of the antibacterial gepotidacin against Staphylococcus aureus gyrase. ACS Infect Dis 2019; 5:570–581.
O’Riordan W, Tiffany C, Scangarella-Oman N, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of gepotidacin (GSK2140944) in the treatment of patients with suspected or confirmed Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61:e02095–16.
Scangarella-Oman NE, Ingraham KA, Tiffany CA, et al. In vitro activity and microbiological efficacy of gepotidacin from a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, dose-ranging study in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020; 64:e01302–19.
Flamm RK, Rhomberg PR, Kaplan N, et al. Activity of Debio1452, a FabI inhibitor with potent activity against Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp., including multidrug-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59:2583–2587.
Hafkin B, Kaplan N, Murphy B. Efficacy and safety of AFN-1252, the first Staphylococcus -specific antibacterial agent, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, including those in patients with significant comorbidities. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 60:1695–1701.
Wittke F, Vincent C, Chen J, et al. Afabicin, a first-in-class antistaphylococcal antibiotic, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: clinical noninferiority to vancomycin/linezolid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020; 64:e00250–20.
CrystalGenomics, Inc. Crystalgenomics reports positive top-line data from phase 2a study of CG400549 in patients with complicated acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA. 2013. Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/crystalgenomics-reports-positive-top-line-data-from-phase-2a-study-of-cg400549-in-patients-with-complicated-acute-bacterial-skin-and-skin-structure-infections-caused-by-mrsa-185870042.html . [Cited 18 October 2020].
Korea Biomedical Reviews. Crystal genomics confirms safety of super-bacteria antibiotic candidate. 2020. Available from: http://www.koreabiomed.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=8709 . [Cited 18 October 2020].
Blais J, Lewis SR, Krause KM, Benton BM. Antistaphylococcal activity of TD-1792, a multivalent glycopeptide-cephalosporin antibiotic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:1584–1587.
Stryjewski ME, Potgieter PD, Li YP, et al. TD-1792 versus vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:5476–5483.
Ma Z, Lynch AS. Development of a dual-acting antibacterial agent (TNP-2092) for the treatment of persistent bacterial infections. J Med Chem 2016; 59:6645–6657.
TenNor Therapeutics. TenNor Therapeutics reported phase II top-line results for TNP-2092. 2019. Available: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tennor-therapeutics-reported-phase-ii-top-line-results-for-tnp-2092-300955216.html . [Cited 18 October 2020].
Bassetti M, Merelli M, Temperoni C, Astilean A. New antibiotics for bad bugs: where are we? Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2013; 12:22.
Lemaire S, Kosowska-Shick K, Appelbaum PC, et al. Cellular pharmacodynamics of the novel biaryloxazolidinone radezolid: studies with infected phagocytic and nonphagocytic cells, using Staphylococcus aureus , Staphylococcus epidermidis , Listeria monocytogenes , and Legionella pneumophila . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54:2549–2559.
Clinicaltrials.gov. Safety and efficacy study of oxazolidinones to treat uncomplicated skin infections. 2014. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00646958 . [Cited 18 October 2020].
Li CR, Zhai QQ, Wang XK, et al. In vivo antibacterial activity of MRX-I, a new oxazolidinone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:2418–2421.
MicuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. MicuRx Pharmaceuticals reports positive top-line results from a US Phase 2 ABSSSI Clinical Trial of novel antibiotic contezolid acefosamil. 2019. Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190909005015/en/ . [Cited 18 October 2020].
MicuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. MicuRX announces positive top-line results from phase 3 trial of contezolid (MRX-I) in adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infection. 2019. Available from: https://www.trialsitenews.com/micurx-announces-positive-topline-results-from-phase-3-trial-of-contezolid-mrx-i-in-adults-with-complicated-skin-and-soft-tissue-infection-2/ . [Cited 18 October 2020].
Dillon C, Guarascio AJ, Covvey JR. Lefamulin: a promising new pleuromutilin antibiotic in the pipeline. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2019; 17:5–15.
Sader HS, Biedenbach DJ, Paukner S, et al. Antimicrobial activity of the investigational pleuromutilin compound BC-3781 tested against Gram-positive organisms commonly associated with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:1619–1623.
Prince WT, Ivezic-Schoenfeld Z, Lell C, et al. Phase II clinical study of BC-3781, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, in treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:2087–2094.
Appalaraju B, Baveja S, Baliga S, et al. In vitro activity of a novel antibacterial agent, levonadifloxacin, against clinical isolates collected in a prospective, multicentre surveillance study in India during 2016–18. J Antimicrob Chemother 2020; 75:600–608.
Bhatia A, Mastim M, Shah M, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel broad-spectrum anti-MRSA agent levonadifloxacin compared with linezolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a phase 3, openlabel, randomized study. J Assoc Physicians India 2020; 68:30–36.
Covington P, Davenport JM, Andrae D, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase II, multicenter study evaluating the safety/tolerability and efficacy of JNJ-Q2, a novel fluoroquinolone, compared with linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55:5790–5797.
Huang CH, Lai CC, Chen YH, Hsueh PR. The potential role of nemonoxacin for treatment of common infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015; 16:263–270.
Kocsis B, Domokos J, Szabo D. Chemical structure and pharmacokinetics of novel quinolone agents represented by avarofloxacin, delafloxacin, finafloxacin, zabofloxacin and nemonoxacin. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2016; 15:34.
Kishii R, Yamaguchi Y, Takei M. In vitro activities and spectrum of the novel fluoroquinolone lascufloxacin (KRP-AM1977). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61:e00120–17.