首页> 外文期刊>Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. >A randomized, evaluator-blind, phase 2 study comparing the safety and efficacy of omadacycline to those of linezolid for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections
【24h】

A randomized, evaluator-blind, phase 2 study comparing the safety and efficacy of omadacycline to those of linezolid for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections

机译:一项随机,评估性,盲性的2期研究,比较了奥达环素与利奈唑胺治疗复杂皮肤和皮肤结构感染的安全性和有效性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

A randomized, investigator-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial involving patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) compared the safety and efficacy of omadacycline, a broad-spectrum agent with activity against methicillin-resis-tant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), to those of linezolid (with or without aztreonam). Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline (100 mg intravenously [i.v.] once a day [QD] with an option to transition to 200 mg orally QD) or linezolid (600 mg i.v. twice daily [BID] with an option to transition to 600 mg orally BID) at 11 U.S. sites. Patients suspected or documented to have infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria were given aztreonam (2 g i.v. every 12 h [q12h]) if randomized to linezolid or matching placebo infusions if randomized to omadacycline. Adverse events were reported in 46 (41.4%) omadacycline-treated and 55 (50.9%) linezolid-treated patients. Adverse events related to treatment were assessed by investigators in 24 (21.6%) omadacycline-treated and 33 (30.6%) linezolid-treated patients. The gastrointestinal tract was most commonly involved, with adverse events reported in 21 (18.9%) patients exposed to omadacycline and 20 (18.5%) exposed to linezolid. Rates of successful clinical response in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and clinical evaluable (CE) populations favored omadacycline (ITT, 88.3% versus 75.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 22.9; CE, 98.0% versus 93.2%; 95% CI, - 1.7 to 11.3). For microbiologically evaluable (ME) patients with S. aureus infections, the clinical success rates were 97.2% (70/72) in omadacycline-treated and 92.7% (51/55) in linezolid-treated patients. This phase 2 experience supports conclusions that omadacycline is well tolerated in cSSSI patients and that this aminomethylcycline has potential to be an effective treatment for serious skin infections.
机译:一项涉及患有复杂皮肤和皮肤结构感染(cSSSI)的患者的随机,研究性盲多中心2期临床试验比较了奥马达环素的安全性和有效性,奥马达环素是一种广谱抗甲氧西林耐药金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)活性药物,与利奈唑胺类药物(有或没有氨曲南)同用。患者以1:1随机分配至奥马环素(每天100 mg静脉内[iv] [QD],可以选择口服QD过渡至200 mg)或利奈唑胺(600 mg静脉内,每天两次[BID],可以选择过渡至600 mg mg口服BID)在美国的11个地点。如果被怀疑或证明患有革兰氏阴性细菌感染的患者,随机分配给利奈唑胺,每12小时[q12h]静脉注射氨曲南;如果随机分配给奥达环素,则给予安慰剂输注。据报道,接受阿达环素治疗的患者有46名(41.4%),接受利奈唑胺治疗的患者有55名(50.9%)有不良反应。研究人员评估了24例(21.6%)接受阿达环素治疗的患者和33例(30.6%)利奈唑胺治疗的患者的治疗相关不良事件。胃肠道最常见,据报道有21例(18.9%)暴露于奥马环素的患者和20例(18.5%)暴露于利奈唑胺的不良事件。意向性治疗(ITT)和临床可评估(CE)人群中成功的临床反应率青睐奥马环素(ITT分别为88.3%和75.9%; 95%置信区间[CI]为1.9至22.9; CE为98.0%与93.2%; 95%CI,-1.7至11.3)。对于具有金黄色葡萄球菌感染的微生物学可评估(ME)患者,经奥达环素治疗的临床成功率为97.2%(70/72),对利奈唑胺治疗的患者的临床成功率为92.7%(51/55)。该2期经验支持以下结论:在cSSSI患者中奥达环素具有良好的耐受性,并且该氨甲基环素有可能成为严重皮肤感染的有效治疗方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号