Search

Background The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial evaluated the efficacy of 3 g of ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) versus 1 g of meropenem infused every 8 h for 8 to 14 days for treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). We assessed the probability of target attainment and compared efficacy outcomes from ASPECT-NP in participants with augmented renal clearance (ARC) versus those with normal renal function. Methods Baseline renal function was categorized as normal renal function (creatinine clearance 80–130 mL/min) or ARC (creatinine clearance > 130 mL/min). Population pharmacokinetic models informed Monte Carlo simulations to assess probability of target attainment in plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid. Outcomes included 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure and per-participant microbiologic cure rates at the test-of-cure visit. Results A > 99% and > 80% probability of target attainment was demonstrated for ceftolozane and tazobactam, respectively, in simulated plasma and epithelial lining fluid. Within treatment arms, 28-day all-cause mortality rates in participants with normal renal function (C/T, n = 131; meropenem, n = 123) and ARC (C/T, n = 96; meropenem, n = 113) were comparable (data comparisons presented as rate; treatment difference [95% CI]) (C/T: normal renal function, 17.6%; ARC, 17.7%; 0.2 [− 9.6 to 10.6]; meropenem: normal renal function, 20.3%; ARC, 17.7%; − 2.6 [− 12.6 to 7.5]). Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure were also comparable across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 57.3%; ARC, 59.4%; − 2.1 [− 14.8 to 10.8]; meropenem: normal renal function, 59.3%; ARC, 57.5%; 1.8 [− 10.6 to 14.2]). Per-participant microbiologic cure rates at test-of-cure were consistent across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 72.2% [n/N = 70/97]; ARC, 71.4% [n/N = 55/77]; 0.7 [− 12.4 to 14.2]; meropenem: normal renal function, 75.0% [n/N = 66/88]; ARC, 70.0% [n/N = 49/70]; 5.0 [− 8.7 to 19.0]). Conclusions C/T and meropenem resulted in 28-day all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiologic cure rates that were comparable between participants with ARC or normal renal function. In conjunction with high probability of target attainment, these results confirm that C/T (3 g) every 8 h is appropriate in patients with HABP/VABP and ARC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02070757, registered February 25, 2014; EudraCT: 2012-002862-11.

Background Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Methods In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, –1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, –7.6%; 97.5% CI: –15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. Conclusions Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02019420.

BACKGROUND Infections with Gram-positive bacteria, including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), are common in children. We describe a single-dose pharmacokinetics and safety study of tedizolid phosphate, a new oxazolidinone under investigation for the treatment of ABSSSIs in children, in hospitalized participants 2 to

BACKGROUND Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone prodrug approved in 2014 for treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs); however, efficacy has not previously been evaluated in children. This study compared the safety and efficacy of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) with active antibacterial comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs in adolescents. METHODS This was a randomized, assessor-blind, global phase 3 study of tedizolid versus active comparators for the treatment of Gram-positive ABSSSIs in adolescents (12 to

Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone antibacterial agent approved for the treatment of Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in patients aged ≥12 years. To support the use of tedizolid phosphate in adolescents with ABSSSIs, a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model, developed using adult and pediatric data, was updated to include PK data from a phase 3 clinical trial (PN012) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of once-daily oral or intravenous 200-mg tedizolid phosphate treatment in adolescents (12 to

Background Increased utilization of antimicrobial therapy has been observed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We evaluated hospital outcomes based on the adequacy of antibacterial therapy for bacterial pathogens in US patients. Methods This multicenter retrospective study included patients with ≥24 hours of inpatient admission, ≥24 hours of antibiotic therapy, and discharge/death from March to November 2020 at 201 US hospitals in the BD Insights Research Database. Included patients had a test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and a positive bacterial culture (gram-positive or gram-negative). We used generalized linear mixed models to evaluate the impact of inadequate empiric therapy (IET), defined as therapy not active against the identified bacteria or no antimicrobial therapy in the 48 hours following culture, on in-hospital mortality and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS). Results Of 438 888 SARS-CoV-2-tested patients, 39 203 (8.9%) had positive bacterial cultures. Among patients with positive cultures, 9.4% were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 74.4% had a gram-negative pathogen, 25.6% had a gram-positive pathogen, and 44.1% received IET for the bacterial infection. The odds of mortality were 21% higher for IET (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10–1.33; P < .001) compared with adequate empiric therapy. IET was also associated with increased hospital LOS (LOS, 16.1 days; 95% CI, 15.5–16.7 days; vs LOS, 14.5 days; 95% CI, 13.9–15.1 days; P < .001). Both mortality and hospital LOS findings remained consistent for SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative patients. Conclusions Bacterial pathogens continue to play an important role in hospital outcomes during the pandemic. Adequate and timely therapeutic management may help ensure better outcomes.

Background Past respiratory viral epidemics suggest that bacterial infections impact clinical outcomes. There is minimal information on potential co-pathogens in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in the US. We analyzed pathogens, antimicrobial use, and healthcare utilization in hospitalized US patients with and without severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods This multicenter retrospective study included patients with > 1 day of inpatient admission and discharge/death between March 1 and May 31, 2020 at 241 US acute care hospitals in the BD Insights Research Database. We assessed microbiological testing data, antimicrobial utilization in admitted patients with ≥24 h of antimicrobial therapy, and length of stay (LOS). Results A total of 141,621 patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (17,003 [12.0%] positive) and 449,339 patients were not tested. Most (> 90%) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 had additional microbiologic testing performed compared with 41.9% of SARS-CoV-2-untested patients. Non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen rates were 20.9% for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with 21.3 and 27.9% for SARS-CoV-2-negative and −untested patients, respectively. Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens (45.5, 44.1, and 43.5% for SARS-CoV-2-positive, −negative, and −untested patients). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher rates of hospital-onset (versus admission-onset) non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative or −untested patients (42.4, 22.2, and 19.5%, respectively), more antimicrobial usage (68.0, 45.2, and 25.1% of patients), and longer hospital LOS (mean [standard deviation (SD)] of 8.6 [11.4], 5.1 [8.9], and 4.2 [8.0] days) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (mean [SD] of 7.8 [8.5], 3.6 [6.2], and 3.6 [5.9] days). For all groups, the presence of a non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen was associated with increased hospital LOS (mean [SD] days for patients with versus without a non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogen: 13.7 [15.7] vs 7.3 [9.6] days for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 8.2 [11.5] vs 4.3 [7.9] days for SARS-CoV-2-negative patients, and 7.1 [11.0] vs 3.9 [7.4] days for SARS-CoV-2-untested patients). Conclusions Despite similar rates of non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens in SARS-CoV-2-positive, −negative, and −untested patients, SARS-CoV-2 was associated with higher rates of hospital-onset infections, greater antimicrobial usage, and extended hospital and ICU LOS. This finding highlights the heavy burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems and suggests possible opportunities for diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship.

Objectives: The emergence of nonsusceptibility to ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem was evaluated among Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) lower respiratory tract isolates obtained from participants in the ASPECT-NP clinical trial. Methods: ASPECT-NP was a phase-3, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial that demonstrated noninferiority of 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam q8h versus 1 g meropenem q8h for treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Molecular resistance mechanisms among postbaseline nonsusceptible P. aeruginosa isolates and clinical outcomes associated with participants with emergence of nonsusceptibility were examined. Baseline susceptible and postbaseline nonsusceptible P. aeruginosa isolate pairs from the same participant underwent molecular typing. Results: Emergence of nonsusceptibility was not observed among the 59 participants with baseline susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates in the ceftolozane/tazobactam arm. Among 58 participants with baseline susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates in the meropenem arm, emergence of nonsusceptibility was observed in 13 (22.4%). Among participants who received ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, 5.1% and 3.4% had a new infection with a nonsusceptible strain, respectively. None of the isolates with emergence of nonsusceptibility to meropenem developed co-resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam. The molecular mechanisms associated with emergence of nonsusceptibility to meropenem were decreased expression or loss of OprD and overexpression of MexXY. Conclusions: Among participants with emergence of nonsusceptibility to meropenem, clinical outcomes were similar to overall clinical outcomes in the ASPECT-NP meropenem arm. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was more stable to emergence of nonsusceptibility versus meropenem; emergence of nonsusceptibility was not observed in any participants with baseline susceptible P. aeruginosa who received ceftolozane/tazobactam in ASPECT-NP.

Key Points Question What information do key stakeholders want in informed consent forms for noninferiority clinical trials on hospital-acquired and/or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, and how should such information be described? Findings In this Delphi study of 52 key stakeholders (patients at risk of pneumonia, caregivers, representatives of institutional review boards, investigators, and study coordinators), consensus was reached on how to describe reassurances on patient health and treatment, a rationale for advance consent and early enrollment, and noninferiority. Meaning Results of this study suggest that inclusion of information on these concepts in informed consent forms may help potential participants make informed decisions about participating in noninferiority trials of health care–associated pneumonia treatment., Importance Information to be included in advance informed consent forms for health care–associated pneumonia treatment trials remains to be determined. Objective To identify and determine how to describe information to be included in an advance informed consent form for an early-enrollment noninferiority hospital-acquired and/or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants A Delphi consensus process with stakeholders in HABP/VABP clinical trials was conducted using qualitative semistructured telephone interviews from June to August 2016, followed by 2 online surveys, the first from April to May 2017, and the second from September to October 2017. All stakeholders who participated in the interview were invited to participate in the first survey. Stakeholders who participated in the first survey were invited to participate in the second survey. Stakeholders were patients at risk of pneumonia, caregivers, representatives of institutional review boards, investigators, and study coordinators. Main Outcomes and Measures Description and consensus of information to be included in advance informed consent forms for early enrollment in noninferiority HABP/VABP clinical trials. Results Suggestions from 52 stakeholders about what key informed consent concepts to include and how to explain them were used to create 3 categories to be included in an advance consent form: (1) reassurances on patient health and treatment, (2) rationale for advance consent and early enrollment, and (3) an explanation of noninferiority. At the end of the Delphi process, at least 80% consensus was reached among the 40 stakeholders who participated in the second online survey on each of the statements to include in the proposed consent text. Throughout the process, however, describing and reaching consensus on statements about noninferiority was more problematic than the other categories. Conclusions and Relevance The stakeholders endorsed consent language to be used in combination with a strategy for enrolling patients at highest risk for pneumonia before infection onset. Data-driven consent language may help potential participants make informed decisions about their involvement in clinical research and improve enrollment rates, which are necessary to evaluate new treatments and improve patient care. The proposed consent language may be adapted for other trials using an early enrollment strategy and for noninferiority trials., This study uses a Delphi consensus process to identify information to be included in an advance informed consent form for an early-enrollment, noninferiority clinical trial of treatments for hospital-acquired and/or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

Background: Tedizolid phosphate, the prodrug of the oxazolidinone tedizolid, has been approved in a number of countries, including the United States, those in the European Union, and Canada, for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Two phase 3 trials demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of tedizolid (200 mg once daily for 6 days) to linezolid (600 mg twice daily for 10 days) in patients with ABSSSI. Because of the challenges of treating lower-extremity ABSSSI, the efficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid for treating lower-extremity versus non–lower-extremity infections were compared. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from patients with lower-extremity infections enrolled in two phase 3 studies, ESTABLISH-1 (NCT01170221) and ESTABLISH-2 (NCT01421511), comparing tedizolid to linezolid in patients with ABSSSI. Results: Lower-extremity ABSSSI were present in 40.7% of tedizolid-treated and 42.2% of linezolid-treated patients. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was present in 34.7% of all patients with a baseline causative pathogen. Early clinical responses at 48 to 72 hours and investigator-assessed responses at the post-therapy evaluation were similar between tedizolid and linezolid, regardless of ABSSSI type. With both treatments, the early clinical response was slightly higher in patients with non–lower-extremity infection than in those with lower-extremity ABSSSI (tedizolid, 84.8% versus 77.0%; linezolid, 81.4% versus 76.6%, respectively); however, by the post-therapy evaluation visit, response rates were similar (tedizolid, 87.1% versus 86.3%; linezolid, 86.6% versus 87.2%, respectively). Gastrointestinal adverse events and low platelet counts were observed more frequently with linezolid treatment. Conclusions: Post-therapy evaluations showed that the clinical response of lower-extremity ABSSSI to tedizolid and linezolid was comparable to that of ABSSSI in other locations. A short 6-day course of once-daily tedizolid was as effective as a 10-day course of twice-daily linezolid in treating patients with lower-extremity ABSSSI.

In the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, pooled data from 2 clinical trials (N = 1333 patients) showed that programmatic and investigator-assessed early treatment success both had a high positive predictive value (94.3%-100.0%) for late clinical cure, including among hospitalized patients. The negative predictive value of programmatic early success was

Key Points Question Is an early enrollment strategy using advance consent for research on health care–associated pneumonia acceptable to stakeholders? Findings In this qualitative study of 52 stakeholders (patients at risk for pneumonia, caregivers, study investigators and coordinators, and representatives of institutional review boards), patients and caregivers found approaching patients and monitoring their records before they acquire pneumonia to be acceptable, indicated that patients can understand consent information before diagnosis, and described preferences for opt-out and precedent autonomy procedures. Institutional review board representatives were supportive of the strategy, and investigators and study coordinators indicated it would not be burdensome. Meaning Results of the study suggest that an early enrollment strategy is acceptable to stakeholders and should be evaluated for effectiveness in increasing enrollment in registrational clinical trials., This qualitative study assesses the perceived acceptability of stakeholders (patients, caregivers, investigators) to an early enrollment strategy using advance consent to antibacterial clinical trials for treatment of hospital-associated and ventilator-acquired bacterial pneumonia., Importance Better treatment options are needed in life-threatening infections, including health care–associated pneumonia. Enrolling patients in antibacterial clinical trials before diagnosis may circumvent existing time-to-enrollment constraints. However, the acceptability of an early enrollment strategy using advance consent is unknown. Objective To assess the perceived acceptability of an early enrollment strategy for enrolling patients in an antibacterial clinical trial before a pneumonia diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants This qualitative, descriptive study used semistructured telephone interviews. Framed within a planned noninferiority pneumonia antibiotic trial, an early enrollment strategy was described and perceptions were assessed. Using this strategy, patients give consent to enroll before developing pneumonia, to be monitored by study staff, and to be randomly assigned a study antibiotic if pneumonia develops. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Fifty-two key stakeholders from across the United States, including 18 patients at risk of pneumonia, 12 caregivers, 10 representatives of institutional review boards, 7 investigators, and 5 study coordinators, were interviewed from June 20 to August 19, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures Perceived acceptability of the early enrollment strategy. Results Among the 52 stakeholders interviewed (ages 29-75 years; 14 women), patients and caregivers expressed no concerns about patients being approached about participation before developing pneumonia; however, some patients may experience anxiety on learning about their risk for pneumonia. No concerns with study staff accessing patients’ medical records were expressed. The clarity of consent information was important for understanding the study rather than having the condition under investigation. Among patients, caregivers, and institutional review board representatives, preferences varied regarding opt-out and precedent autonomy procedures. Nearly all patients would be willing to join a trial using the early enrollment strategy and caregivers would be willing to provide proxy consent. Institutional review board representatives were supportive of the strategy and made recommendations for the study protocol, primarily around informed consent. Investigators and study coordinators believed the strategy would not be burdensome and offered suggestions to ensure its feasibility. Conclusion and Relevance Results of the study suggest that the early enrollment strategy is acceptable. Future research should evaluate whether the strategy improves enrollment rates in registrational pneumonia trials and in trials of other acute infection syndromes with narrow enrollment windows and/or patients with transient decisional incapacity.

We read with interest Lee & Caffrey’s paper ([1][1]) comparing thrombocytopenia events in association with tedizolid and linezolid from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a database of voluntary spontaneous AE reports submitted to the FDA (

Background Bacteremia is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Several studies have shown this burden to increase among patients with multidrug resistant (MDR) PSA, and in those treated with inappropriate empiric therapy. Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) is a combination of a novel antipseudomonal cephalosporin and an established β-lactamase inhibitor approved for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection, complicated intra-abdominal infection and hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. In the absence of specific bacteremia clinical trial data; the aim of this study is to describe all published evidence relating to C/T for the treatment of Gram negative bacteremia. Methods This SLR includes all published evidence from December 2015 to March 2020 searched via the OVID platform: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process. In addition, data published (2018-2019) from the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and Infectious Disease Week Congresses were included. Eligible publications were on adult patients treated with C/T reporting any clinical outcome where data were reported specifically for the bacteremia population. Results The SLR identified 1,455 citations, of which 24 publications representing 23 unique studies met eligibility criteria. This included primary and secondary bacteremia. Ten studies included patients with primary bacteremia, only 7 of which reported results specific to primary bacteremia patients. Despite heterogeneity in study design, patient and treatment characteristics, and a lack of detailed reporting; the majority of studies focused on MDR/ extensively drug resistant (XDR) infections (range: 68.3%-100%). Clinical success/ cure ranged from 33%-100%, with 6/7 studies at >85%; 30-day mortality from 0%-67%, with 3/7 studies at 0% (Table 1). Table 1. Clinical Outcomes reported among Primary Bacteremia population(s) Conclusion Although the number of C/T treated patients was small, favorable clinical outcomes were observed, even among highly resistant PSA infections. Heterogeneity was ubiquitous, with diverse and complex patient profiles identified. Further studies where outcomes are stratified by bacteremia status and by timing of C/T treatment are needed. Disclosures Ryan J. Dillon, MSc, Merck & Co., Inc., (Employee) Carisa De Anda, PharMD, Merck & Co Inc, (Employee) Christopher Bruno, MD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee) Laura A. Puzniak, PhD, Merck (Employee)

Outcome assessments as clinical trial endpoints should be well-defined, reliable, and reflect meaningful treatment benefits. For acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) trials, recent recommendations suggest a primary endpoint of reduction in skin lesion area. Objectives were: evaluate ABSSSI lesion area measurement reliability, evaluate impact of various lesion area definitions on treatment effect size, and explore relationships between lesion area and pain.Data from two randomized, double-blinded Phase 3 trials comparing tedizolid to linezolid in ABSSSI and one open-label, non-comparative Phase 2 study of tedizolid in cellulitis/erysipelas and skin abscess were analyzed. Repeated lesion area measurements were prospectively obtained in all studies. In the open-label study, lesion area was measured by two investigators, using four different definitions. Repeated pain assessments using two patient-reported outcome instruments (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] and Faces Rating Scale [FRS]) were elicited in the randomized trials.At baseline, lesion size did not correlate with pain intensity: r=0.02 for VAS and r0.01 for FRS pain scores. However, decreasing lesion size and decreasing pain were strongly associated over time, regardless of initial lesion size or pain intensity (r=0.20 for VAS and r=0.21 for FRS scores at Day 10-13). Each lesion area definition demonstrated high inter-observer reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient0.95).Decreasing lesion area (indirect clinician-reported measure of benefit) and pain (direct patient-reported measure of benefit) were strongly associated over time, and lesion area measurements were reliable, regardless of their definition. These findings support both measures as outcome assessments in ABSSSI clinical trials.Clinicaltrials.govNCT01519778, NCT01170221, and NCT01421511.

Background Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are frequently caused by G+ cocci; TZD has potent in vitro activity against these pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The VITAL study compared the efficacy and safety of TZD vs. LZD for the treatment of ventilated patients with G+ HAP/VAP. Methods Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, global, phase 3 study in mechanically ventilated adult patients with presumed G+ HAP/VAP (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02019420). Patients were stratified by region, age, and trauma/nontrauma, then randomized 1:1 to intravenous (IV) TZD 200 mg once daily for 7 days or IV LZD 600 mg every 12 h for 10 d (patients with concurrent G+ bacteremia received 14 d of treatment). The primary efficacy endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) in the intent to treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients; noninferiority [NI] margin, 10%). Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; NI margin, 12.5%). Results In total, 726 patients were randomized (TZD n = 366; LZD n = 360). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the ITT (table). Noninferiority was not demonstrated for TZD vs. LZD for investigator-assessed clinical success at TOC in the ITT. Stratification factors, analysis population, baseline clinical/laboratory signs of HAP/VAP, G+ only vs. mixed G+/gram-negative (G–) HAP/VAP, adjunctive G– therapy, MRSA vs. methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and HAP vs. VAP were evaluated, and no single factor accounted for the observed imbalance in clinical response between treatment arms. Greater than 90% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Anemia, hypokalemia, and diarrhea were the most frequently reported (TEAEs) in both arms. Types and incidence rates of TEAEs overall, and of drug-related TEAEs specifically, were comparable between TZD and LZD. Conclusion TZD was noninferior to LZD for day 28 ACM in the treatment of ventilated G+ HAP/VAP. However, TZD was not noninferior to LZD based on the investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC. Both drugs were similarly well tolerated and TEAEs were well balanced between groups, with no new safety signals identified. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

Background: We evaluated safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate at the 200-mg once-daily dose approved for 6-day treatment of skin and skin-structure infections. Research design and methods: Clinical adverse event (AE) and laboratory data were pooled across completed clinical studies (13 phase 1, two phase 2, and two phase 3), for all participants who received ≥1 dose of tedizolid 200 mg, linezolid 600 mg (phase 3 only), or placebo (phase 1 only). Results: 1280 participants received tedizolid (phase 1: n = 355; phase 2/3: n = 925). In total, 13% received >6 doses of tedizolid (range: 7–21); in phase 2/3, 94% of participants received ≥5 doses (range: 5–10). Drug-related AEs occurred in 27% of participants (most commonly gastrointestinal reactions in 13% of participants and headache in 4%). Most AEs were mild-moderate in severity; Conclusions: Tedizolid, given orally or intravenously at 200 mg, has a favorable safety profile. Clinical trial and postmarketing experience with treatment ≥7 days is limited.

Introduction Injection drug users (IDUs) often develop acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and use emergency departments as their primary source for medical care. Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis of two randomized trials examined the efficacy and safety of tedizolid in the treatment of ABSSSI in IDUs. IDUs (n = 389) were identified from two pooled phase 3 trials (NCT01170221, NCT01421511) in patients with ABSSSI (n = 1333). Patients were randomly assigned to tedizolid phosphate (200 mg once daily, 6 days) or linezolid (600 mg twice daily, 10 days). Primary endpoint was ≥ 20% reduction in lesion area from baseline at 48 –72 h. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical and microbiological response at the post-therapy evaluation (PTE). Results Wound infection was more common in IDUs (52.2%), while cellulitis/erysipelas was more common in non-IDUs (55.9%). Most infections were due to Staphylococcus aureus (IDUs, 75.2%; non-IDUs, 85.6%), while oral pathogens were more prevalent in IDUs. Early clinical success rates for tedizolid and linezolid were 82.5% and 79.6% in IDUs and 81.3% and 79.3% for non-IDUs, respectively; responses at PTE were similar. Microbiological response per pathogen was similar between treatment groups. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in IDUs were comparable between tedizolid (46.2%) and linezolid (47.8%) arms, while lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was observed with tedizolid (20.3%) than with linezolid (25.1%). Conclusion Efficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid in the treatment of ABSSSI was similar in IDUs and non-IDUs, supporting the use of oxazolidinones in treating ABSSSIs in IDUs. Funding Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

We evaluated the microbiological efficacy of tedizolid compared with that of linezolid against common and emerging pathogens using pooled data from 2 phase 3 trials ( NCT01170221 and NCT01421511 ) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Patients received tedizolid 200 mg once daily for 6 days (n = 664) or linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days (n = 669). Favorable microbiological outcome in both treatment groups, defined as eradication or presumed eradication at the end of treatment and at the posttherapy evaluation, exceeded 85% for most pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Favorable microbiological response was observed for staphylococci and streptococci at tedizolid minimal inhibitory concentration values ≤0.5 mg/L and 0.25 mg/L, respectively. The studies demonstrated positive microbiological outcomes against common pathogens with a 6-day, once-daily regimen of tedizolid phosphate in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In a pooled analysis of 1,333 ABSSSI patients from the ESTABLISH clinical trials, treatment with tedizolid or linezolid demonstrated similar early and posttherapy clinical responses in nonsevere and severe disease, irrespective of the parameters used to measure ABSSSI severity. Shorter 6-day treatment of ABSSSI, including those that were severe, with tedizolid phosphate demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of 10-day treatment with linezolid. (The ESTABLISH studies discussed in this paper have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifiers NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.)

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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%). Conclusion: Short-course therapy with tedizolid can successfully treat patients with ABSSSI caused by presumed or proven gram-positive pathogens in an outpatient setting.

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, was evaluated in two noninferiority phase 3 acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection trials. The data from individual trials showed its noninferior efficacy compared to that of linezolid and a favorable tolerability profile. To evaluate potential differences, the pooled data were analyzed. The patients received 200 mg of tedizolid once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid twice daily for 10 days. Efficacy was evaluated at 48 to 72 h (primary endpoint), on days 11 to 13 (end of therapy [EOT]), and 7 to 14 days after the EOT (posttherapy evaluation). Treatment-emergent adverse events and hematologic and clinical laboratory parameters were collected. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups: 852/1,333 (64%) patients were from North America, and the majority of infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus . Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid (early clinical responses, 81.6% versus 79.4%, respectively). The early responses remained relatively consistent across various host/disease factors and severity measures. Nausea was the most frequently reported adverse event (tedizolid, 8.2%; linezolid, 12.2%; P = 0.02), with onset occurring primarily during the first 6 days. Fewer tedizolid than linezolid patients had platelet counts of 3 at the EOT (tedizolid, 4.9%; linezolid, 10.8%; P = 0.0003) and during the postbaseline period through the last day of active drug visit (tedizolid, 6.4%; linezolid, 12.6%; P = 0.0016). Efficacy was achieved with a 6-day once-daily course of therapy with the option of an intravenous/oral regimen, and fewer low platelet counts and gastrointestinal side effects were reported with tedizolid than with linezolid, all of which aligns well with antimicrobial stewardship principles. (These studies have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.)

New antibiotics are needed to treat infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria. Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial drug designed to provide enhanced activity against Gram-positive pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous to oral tedizolid for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections.ESTABLISH-2 was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done between Sept 28, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, at 58 centres in nine countries. Patients (aged ≥12 years) with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (cellulitis or erysipelas, major cutaneous abscess, or wound infection) that had a minimum lesion area of 75 cm(2) and were suspected or documented to be associated with a Gram-positive pathogen, were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with block randomisation, to receive intravenous once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for 6 days) or twice-daily linezolid (600 mg for 10 days), with optional oral step-down. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and type of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection. The primary endpoint was early clinical response (≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48-72 h compared with baseline), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01421511.666 patients were randomly assigned to receive tedizolid (n=332) or linezolid (n=334). 283 (85%) patients in the tedizolid group and 276 (83%) in the linezolid group achieved early clinical response (difference 2·6%, 95% CI -3·0 to 8·2), meeting the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Gastrointestinal adverse events were less frequent with tedizolid than linezolid, taking place in 52 (16%) of 331 patients and 67 (20%) of 327 patients in the safety population. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of study drug were reported by one (1%) patient in the tedizolid group and four (1%) patients in the linezolid group.Intravenous to oral once-daily tedizolid 200 mg for 6 days was non-inferior to twice-daily linezolid 600 mg for 10 days for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Tedizolid could become a useful option for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections in the hospital and outpatient settings.Cubist Pharmaceuticals.