Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Expert Opin Drug Saf ; 17(4): 359-367, 2018 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29528251

ABSTRACT

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; <1% of participants discontinued treatment due to AEs. Tedizolid and linezolid had similar frequency, severity, and types of drug-related AEs. Tolerability in clinically important subpopulations (obese, n = 346; elderly, n = 99; renal impairment, n = 40; hepatic disease/impairment, n = 294) appeared comparable to the overall population. 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.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Organophosphates/administration & dosage , Oxazoles/administration & dosage , Skin Diseases, Bacterial/drug therapy , Acute Disease , Administration, Intravenous , Administration, Oral , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Linezolid/administration & dosage , Linezolid/adverse effects , Organophosphates/adverse effects , Oxazoles/adverse effects , Severity of Illness Index
2.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 96(52): e9163, 2017 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29384903

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Linezolid/therapeutic use , Organophosphates/therapeutic use , Oxazoles/therapeutic use , Skin Diseases, Bacterial/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Skin Diseases, Bacterial/pathology , Treatment Outcome , United States , Young Adult
3.
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc ; 107(4): 264-271, 2017 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27533787

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Linezolid/therapeutic use , Oxazolidinones/therapeutic use , Skin Diseases, Bacterial/drug therapy , Tetrazoles/therapeutic use , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Linezolid/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Oxazolidinones/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Tetrazoles/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...