UNASSIGNED: We assessed the efficacy and safety of dalbavancin, a long-acting lipoglycopeptide with activity against Gram-positive pathogens, for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in patients with high body mass index (BMI) and/or diabetes.
UNASSIGNED: Data from two phase 3 trials of dalbavancin (1000 mg intravenous [IV], day 1; 500 mg IV, day 8) versus comparator and one phase 3b trial of single-dose (1500 mg IV, day 1) versus 2-dose (1000 mg IV, day 1; 500 mg IV, day 8) dalbavancin in adults with ABSSSI were pooled and summarized separately by baseline BMI and diabetes status. Clinical success at 48 to 72 hours (≥20% reduction in lesion size), end of treatment ([EOT] day 14), and day 28 was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and microbiological ITT (microITT) populations. Safety data were reported in patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug.
UNASSIGNED: In the dalbavancin ITT population (BMI, n = 2001; diabetes, n = 2010), at 48 to 72 hours (and EOT) clinical success was achieved in 89.3% (EOT, 90.9%) of patients with normal BMI and 78.9% to 87.6% (EOT, 91.0% to 95.2%) of patients with elevated BMI. Clinical success after dalbavancin treatment was achieved in 82.4% (EOT, 90.8%) of patients with diabetes and 86.0% (EOT, 91.6%) of patients without diabetes. Similar trends were observed for infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or methicillin-susceptible S aureus (microITT population).
UNASSIGNED: Dalbavancin is effective, with sustained clinical success rates in patients with obesity or diabetes, with a similar safety profile across patient groups.

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.

National guidelines for pneumonia (PNA), urinary tract infection (UTI), and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) do not address treatment duration for infections associated with bacteremia. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients receiving shorter (5-9 days) versus longer (10-15 days) duration of antibiotics.
This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of inpatients with uncomplicated PNA, UTI, or ABSSSI and associated bacteremia. The primary outcome was clinical failure, a composite of rehospitalization, reinitiation of antibiotics, or all-cause mortality within 30 days of antibiotic completion. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-related adverse effects necessitating change in therapy. A propensity score-weighted logistic regression model was used to mitigate potential bias associated with nonrandom assignment of treatment duration.
Of 408 patients included, 123 received a shorter treatment duration (median 8 days) and 285 received a longer duration (median 13 days). In the propensity-weighted analysis, the probability of the primary outcome was 13.5% in the shorter group and 11.1% in the longer group (average treatment effect, 2.4%; odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], .65-2.40; P = .505). However, shorter courses were associated with higher probability of restarting antibiotics (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01-2.61; P = .046) and C. difficile infection (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.21-7.59; P < .0001).
Shorter courses of antibiotic treatment for PNA, UTI, and ABSSSI with bacteremia were not associated with increased overall risk of clinical failure; however, prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of shorter treatment durations.

BACKGROUND: Admissions for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are often prolonged because of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Use of a long-acting IV antibiotic may reduce length of stay (LOS) on a hospitalist service. The ENHANCE ABSSSI trial sought to determine the impact on LOS and work productivity in patients treated with a long-acting IV antibiotic, dalbavancin, vs. usual care at an urban tertiary-care center.
METHODS: A single-center, pre- vs. post-period pragmatic trial at Weill-Cornell Medical Center assessed usual care for consecutively enrolled admitted ABSSSI patients during an observational period (pre-period). Identification and treatment of eligible admitted ABSSSI patients with dalbavancin were implemented in the post-period. Those with life-threatening infections, requiring multiple antibiotics/intensive care, or with unstable comorbidities were excluded. Outcomes were assessed over a 44-day follow-up period.
RESULTS: Of 48 and 43 patients enrolled, respectively, in the pre- and post-periods, mean infection-related LOS was reduced in the post-period (3.2 days vs. 4.8 days; P = 0.003). Similar results were found in an adjusted LOS analysis. Work productivity and activity impairment outcomes significantly improved in the post-period (P ≤ 0.01). Complete response rates were similar: 50% (pre-period) and 57% (post-period). Among AEs identified, 17% (n = 7) were found to have possible causal relation to dalbavancin in the post-period. Few AEs were serious (n = 3; 7% post-period versus n = 1; 2% pre-period).
CONCLUSIONS: After implementing the ENHANCE ABSSSI pathway, LOS was significantly reduced by almost 2 days, with potential improvements in work productivity and ability to complete daily activities.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03233438.
BACKGROUND: Allergan plc.

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.

Dalbavancin is indicated for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by susceptible gram-positive microorganisms. This analysis represents the update of the population pharmacokinetics (popPK) modeling and target attainment simulations performed with data from the single-dose safety and efficacy study and an unrelated but substantial revision of the preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target (fAUC/MIC, free area under concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ratio). A 3-compartment distribution model with first-order elimination provided an appropriate fit, with typical dalbavancin clearance of 0.05 L/h and total volume of distribution of ∼15 L. Impact of intrinsic factors was modest, although statistically significant (P < .05) relationships with total clearance were found for the following covariates: creatinine clearance, weight, and albumin - dose adjustment was only indicated for severe renal impairment. Under the new nonclinical target, simulations of the popPK model projected that >99% of subjects would achieve the nonclinical target at MIC values up to and including 2 mg/L.

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. twice daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was early clinical response rate at 48 to 72 h. Secondary endpoints included programmatic and investigator-assessed outcomes at end-of-therapy (EOT) and posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visits. Safety was also evaluated. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 75.3% of tedizolid-treated patients and 79.9% of linezolid-treated patients were early responders (treatment difference, -4.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.2, 2.2). After exclusion of patients who never received the study drug (tedizolid, n = 8; linezolid, n = 1; modified ITT), comparable early response rates were observed (tedizolid, 77.4%; linezolid, 80.1%; treatment difference, -2.7%; 95% CI, -9.4, 3.9). Secondary endpoints showed high and similar clinical success rates in the ITT and clinically evaluable (CE) populations at EOT and PTE visits (e.g., CE-PTE for tedizolid, 90.4%; for linezolid, 93.5%). Both drugs were well tolerated, and no death occurred. Eight patients experienced phlebitis with tedizolid while none did with linezolid; hence, drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in a slightly higher proportion in the tedizolid (20.9%) arm than in the linezolid arm (15.8%). The study demonstrated that tedizolid in a primarily Asian population was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for ABSSSI patients. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02066402.).

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) remain among the most common infectious processes seen in the clinical setting. For patients with complicated ABSSSIs deemed to require intravenous antibiotics, vancomycin remains the mainstay therapy. Ceftaroline has been shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin and may result in faster resolution of signs of infection.
METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized trial of ceftaroline versus vancomycin for the treatment of adult patients admitted for management of ABSSSIs from April 2012 to May 2016; 166 patients in the clinically evaluable (CE) group were needed to determine a 20% difference in primary outcome of clinical response at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics. Clinical response was defined as cessation of spread of lesion and improvement in systemic signs/symptoms of infection. A secondary outcome was a ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics.
RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled in the intention-to-treat (ITT) group and 108 were CE. Among CE patients, 54 were randomized to ceftaroline and 54 to vancomycin. Baseline characteristics were similar except patients in the ceftaroline arm were older and had a non-significantly higher degree of comorbidities (median Charlson score 2 vs. 4, respectively). Cellulitis was the most common type of ABSSSI (85.2% vs. 79.6%, respectively). Rapid diagnostic testing of available cultures (n = 55) demonstrated high agreement with clinical microbiology for identification of Staphylococcus aureus (100%) and MRSA (100%). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of day 2 or 3 clinical response (50.0% vs. 51.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Early clinical response between vancomycin- and ceftaroline-treated ABSSSIs was similar. Patients with ABSSSIs rarely remained hospitalized for > 2-3 days, thus limiting our ability to critically assess clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02582203.
BACKGROUND: Allergan plc.

Iclaprim is a selective bacterial dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) inhibitor. Although there are alternative options for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), iclaprim is differentiated from other available antibiotics. Areas covered: Iclaprim is under clinical development for ABSSSI. This review summarizes the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, microbiology, clinical development program, and the differentiation of iclaprim from other antibiotics. Expert commentary: Iclaprim has a different mechanism of action (DHFR inhibitor) compared to most other antibiotics, is active and rapidly bactericidal against Gram-positive pathogens including antibiotic-resistant pathogens, and suppresses bacterial exotoxins (alpha hemolysin, Panton Valentine leukocidin, and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1). Compared to trimethoprim, iclaprim has lower MIC90s, can be given without a sulfonamide, overcomes select trimethoprim resistance, and does not cause hyperkalemia. Iclaprim is administered as a fixed dose, does not require dose adjustment in renally-impaired or obese patients, and was not associated with nephrotoxicity in the Phase 3 pivotal REVIVE studies. Iclaprim represents a novel, alternative option for the treatment of severe skin and skin structure infections due to Gram-positive bacteria, particularly in patients at risk of acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) represent a large burden to the US healthcare system. There is little evidence-based guidance regarding the appropriate level of care for ABSSSIs. This study aimed to develop a prediction model and risk-scoring tool to determine appropriate levels of care.
METHODS: This was a single-center observational cohort study of adult patients treated for ABSSSIs from 2012 to 2015 at the Detroit Medical Center. The predictive model used to create a novel risk-scoring tool was derived using multinomial regression analysis. The overall accuracy of this tool was compared to the Clinical Resource Efficacy Support Team (CREST) Classification and Standardized Early Warning Score (SEWS) using area-under-the- receiver-operator-curve (AUROC) analysis and Z-statistic.
RESULTS: Final patient disposition was 230 (45.5%) home from the emergency department (ED), 65 (12.8%) observation unit (OU), and 211 (41.7%) initial inpatient. IV antibiotic therapy was used in 358 (70.8%) patients. CREST and SEWS were not accurate in the determination of ED versus OU disposition [AUROC CREST 0.0.682 (95% CI 0.640-0.724), AUROC SEWS 0.686 (95% CI 0.641-0.731)], but performed better in determining ED/OU versus inpatient [AUROC CREST = 0.678 (95% CI 0.630-0.725), AUROC SEWS 0.693 (95% CI 0.645-0.740)]. These scores were also not accurate in determining IV versus PO antibiotic therapy [AUROC CREST = 0.586 (95% CI 0.530-0.624), AUROC SEWS = 0.630 (95% CI 0.576-0.684)]. A risk-scoring tool ranging from 0 to 10 points was derived incorporating WBC, temperature, site of infection, and past medical history of diabetes, liver disease, PVD, AKI, and/or CKD. The AUROC of the new model was 0.675 (95% CI 0.611-0.739) ED versus OU, 0.789 (95% CI 0.748-0.829) ED/OU versus inpatient, and 0.742 (95% CI 0.694-0.789) IV versus oral antibiotics. The new score had a significantly higher AUROC compared to both the CREST and SEWS for determining ED/OU versus inpatient (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models based on patient risk may be useful for determining appropriate level of care during for ABSSSIs. While the prediction model demonstrated moderate to high levels of correlation with patient level of care, further validation of a prospective cohort of patients is warranted.