UNASSIGNED: This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) quinolones for treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs).
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant articles from inception to 21 July 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA quinolones with other antibiotics for treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included.
UNASSIGNED: Six RCTs were included. A total of 1,264 and 1,307 participants received the anti-MRSA quinolone-based study group and the control group. In the study group receiving anti-MRSA quinolone-based treatment, 935, 246, and 83 patients received delafloxacin, levonadifloxacin, and acorafloxacin, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the clinical cure rate at test of cure between the study and control groups (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.29; I2 = 0%). In patients with MRSA-associated ABSSSIs, the clinical cure rate (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.71-1.65; I2 = 0%) and microbiological response rate (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.48-3.21; I2 = 0%) of anti-MRSA quinolones were similar to those of other antibiotics.
UNASSIGNED: The efficacy of anti-MRSA quinolone-based treatment is comparable to that of other anti-MRSA antibiotics for treating ABSSSIs.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatment in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Turning Research into Practice, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles from inception to 15 June 2020. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin with those of vancomycin-based regimens in treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were clinical response at the test-of-cure assessments and risk of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Eight RCTs were enrolled. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatments (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23; I2 = 0%). Except for major cutaneous abscesses in which anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was associated with a lower clinical response rate than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97; I2 = 0%), other subgroup analyses according to the type of cephalosporin (ceftaroline or ceftobiprole), type of infection, and different pathogens did not show significant differences in clinical response. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was only associated with a higher risk of nausea than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.85; I2 = 0%). In treating ABSSSIs, the clinical efficacy of anti-MRSA cephalosporin is comparable to that of vancomycin-based treatment, except in major cutaneous abscesses. In addition to nausea, anti-MRSA cephalosporin was as tolerable as vancomycin-based treatment.

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77-1.19, I2 = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64-1.27, I2 = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42-2.03, I2 = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66-2.51, I2 = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49-2.90, I2 = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.

Delafloxacin (formerly WQ-3034, ABT492, RX-3341) is a novel fluoroquinolone chemically distinct from currently marketed fluoroquinolones with the absence of a protonatable substituent conferring a weakly acidic character to the molecule. This property results in increased intracellular penetration and enhanced bactericidal activity under acidic conditions that characterize the infectious milieu at a number of sites. The enhanced potency and penetration in low pH environments contrast what has been observed for other zwitterionic fluoroquinolones, which tend to lose antibacterial potency under acidic conditions, and may be particularly advantageous against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, for which the significance of the intracellular mode of survival is increasingly being recognized. Delafloxacin is also unique in its balanced target enzyme inhibition, a property that likely explains the very low frequencies of spontaneous mutations in vitro. Delafloxacin recently received US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and is currently being evaluated in a phase 3 trial among patients with community-acquired pneumonia. In the current era of a heightened awareness pertaining to collateral ecologic damage, safety issues and antimicrobial stewardship principles, it is critical to describe the unique properties of delafloxacin and define its potential role in therapy. The purpose of this article is to review available data pertaining to delafloxacin\'s biochemistry, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics characteristics, in vitro activity and potential for resistance selection as well as current progress in clinical trials to ultimately assist clinicians in selecting patients who will benefit most from the distinctive properties of this agent.