New therapeutic options for skin and soft tissue infections

Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 99-108

  Bassetti, Matteo ^a   Righi, Elda ^a   Carnelutti, Alessia ^a  

^a Servicio de Urologia   (Italy)

Author keywords

Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus; New antimicrobials; Skin and soft tissue infections

Indexed keywords

ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR STIMULATING AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; AVIBACTAM; CEFTAROLINE; CEFTAROLINE FOSAMIL; CEFTOBIPROLE; CEFTOBIPROLE MEDOCARIL; DALBAVANCIN; DAPTOMYCIN; DELAFLOXACIN; LINEZOLID; OMADACYCLINE; ORITAVANCIN; PENICILLIN DERIVATIVE; POLYPEPTIDE ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITOR; TEDIZOLID; TELAVANCIN; TIGECYCLINE; VANCOMYCIN;

ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY; BACTERICIDAL ACTIVITY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMORBIDITY; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG SAFETY; GRAM NEGATIVE BACTERIUM; GRAM POSITIVE BACTERIUM; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; LIVER FAILURE; METHICILLIN RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SKIN AND SOFT TISSUE INFECTION; SKIN INFECTION; SOFT TISSUE INFECTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; DRUG EFFECTS; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MICROBIOLOGY; SOFT TISSUE INFECTIONS; STAPHYLOCOCCAL SKIN INFECTIONS;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; HUMANS; METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; SOFT TISSUE INFECTIONS; STAPHYLOCOCCAL SKIN INFECTIONS;

EID: 84959878812     PISSN: 09517375     EISSN: 14736527     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000241     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ, et al. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998-2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007;57:7-13.
2. Bassetti M, Nicco E, Mikulska M. Why is community-associated MRSA spreading across the world and how will it change clinical practice? Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009;34(Suppl 1):S15-S19.
3. Edelsberg J, Berger A, Weber DJ, et al. Clinical and economic consequences of failure of initial antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:160-169.
4. Eagye KJ, Kim A, Laohavaleeson S, et al. Surgical site infections: does inadequate antibiotic therapy affect patient outcomes? Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2009;10:323-331.
5. Garau J, Ostermann H, Medina J, et al., REACH study group. Current management of patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections across Europe (2010-2011): assessment of clinical practice patterns and real-life effectiveness of antibiotics from the REACH study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013;19:E377-E385. A retrospective, observational cohort study describing current clinical management of moderate to severe cSSTI in European hospitals.
6. Brink AJ. Does resistance in severe infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus give you the 'creeps'? Curr Opin Crit Care 2012;18:451-459.
7. Ye ZK, Li C, Zhai SD. Guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin: a systematic review. PLoS One 2014;9:e99044.
8. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children: executive summary. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:285-292.
9. Cogo A, Gonzalez-Ruiz A, Pathan R, Hamed K. Real-world treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections with daptomycin: results from a large European registry (EU-CORE). Infect Dis Ther 2015;4:273-282. A large, noninterventional, multicenter, retrospective registry reporting the real-life clinical outcomes and safety associated with daptomycin treatment in a cohort of patients with cSSTIs.
10. Wang SZ, Hu JT, Zhang C, et al. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin versus other antibiotics for skin and soft-tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004744. A recent meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of daptomycin with the other first-line antibiotic agents for the treatment of cSSTIs, with a specific focus on vancomycin.
11. Bauer J, Siala W, Tulkens PM, Van Bambeke F. A combined pharmacodynamic quantitative and qualitative model reveals the potent activity of daptomycin and delafloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:2726-2737.
12. Bassetti M, NiccoE, GinocchioF, et al. High-dose daptomycinin documented Staphylococcus aureus infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010;36:459-461.
13. Bassetti M, Villa G, Ansaldi F, et al. Risk factors associated with the onset of daptomycin nonsusceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus infections in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2015;41:366-368.
14. Bradford PA, Weaver-Sands DT, Petersen PJ. In vitro activity of tigecycline against isolates from patients enrolled in phase 3 clinical trials of treatment for complicated skin and skin-structure infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005; (41 Suppl 5): S315-S332.
15. Stein GE, Smith CL, Missavage A, et al. Tigecycline penetration into skin and soft tissue. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2011;12:465-467.
16. Sacchidanand S, Penn RL, Embil JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: Results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial. Int J Infect Dis 2005;9:251-261.
17. Breedt J, Teras J, Gardovskis J, et al., Tigecycline 305 cSSSI Study Group. Safety and efficacy of tigecycline in treatment of skin and skin structure infections: results of a double-blind phase 3 comparison study with vancomycin-aztreonam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:4658-4666.
18. US FDA. FDA drug safety communication: increased risk of death with tygacil (tigecycline) compared to other antibiotics used to treat similar infections. 2010. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm224370.htm. [Accessed 20 October 2015]
19. Montravers P, Bassetti M, Dupont H, et al. Efficacy of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in real-life clinical practice from five European observational studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; (68 Suppl 2): ii15-ii24. A real-life study assessing clinical outcomes associated with tigecycline for the treatment of cSSTIs, including an high percentage of severely ill patients admitted to the ICU.
20. Montravers P, Dupont H, Bedos JP, Bret P; Tigecycline Group. Tigecycline use in critically ill patients: a multicentre prospective observational study in the intensive care setting. Intensive Care Med 2014;40:988-997.
21. Guirao X, Sánchez García M, Bassetti M, et al. Safety and tolerability of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue and intraabdominal infections: an analysis based on five European observational studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; (68 Suppl 2): ii37-ii44.
22. Bassetti M, McGovern PC, Wenisch C, et al. Clinical response and mortality in tigecycline complicated intra-abdominal infection and complicated skin and soft-tissue infection trials. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2015;46:346-350.
23. Bassetti M, Eckmann C, Bodmann KF, et al. Prescription behaviours for tigecycline in real-life clinical practice from five European observational studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; (68 Suppl 2): ii5-ii14. A real-life analysis on the prescription behavior of tigecycline in Europe.
24. Flamm RK, Mendes RE, Ross JE, et al. An international activity and spectrum analysis of linezolid: ZAAPS program results for 2011. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2013;76:206-213.
25. Flamm RK, Mendes RE, Ross JE, et al. Linezolid surveillance results for the United States: LEADER surveillance program 2011. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:1077-1081.
26. Itani KM, Biswas P, Reisman A, et al. Clinical efficacy of oral linezolid compared with intravenous vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a retrospective, propensity score-matched, case-control analysis. Clin Ther 2012;34:1667-1673; e1.
27. Itani KM, Weigelt J, Li JZ, Duttagupta S. Linezolid reduces length of stay and duration of intravenous treatment compared with vancomycin for complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005;26:442-448.
28. Itani KM, Dryden MS, Bhattacharyya H, et al. Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2010;199:804-816.
29. Sharpe JN, Shively EH, Polk HC Jr. Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA-complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2005;189:425-428.
30. Rubinstein E, Isturiz R, Standiford HC, et al. Worldwide assessment of linezolid's clinical safety and tolerability: comparator-controlled phase III studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003;47:1824-1831.
31. Cattaneo D, Orlando G, Cozzi V, et al. Linezolid plasma concentrations and occurrence of drug-related haematological toxicity in patients with grampositive infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013;41:586-589.
32. Boak LM, Rayner CR, Grayson ML, et al. Clinical population pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of linezolid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:2334-2343. A clinical study investigating the relationship between linezolid pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics and the role of TDM to prevent and manage linezolidassociated toxicity.
33. Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E, et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTAB-LISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA 2013;309:559-569. A large, randomized, double-blinded, phase III trial supporting the noninferiority of a 6-day course of tedizolid (200 mg once daily) in comparison with a 10-day course of linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) for the treatment of AB SSTIs.
34. Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR, et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, noninferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14:696-705. A large, randomized, double-blinded, phase-III trial supporting the noninferiority of a 6-day courseoftedizolid (200mgoncedaily) incomparison witha10-day course of linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) for the treatment of AB SSTIs.
35. Lodise TP, Fang E, Minassian SL, Prokocimer PG. Platelet profile in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections receiving tedizolid or linezolid: findings from the Phase 3 ESTABLISH clinical trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:7198-7204.
36. Shorr AF, Lodise TP, Corey GR, et al. Analysis of the phase 3 ESTABLISH trials of tedizolid versus linezolid in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:864-871.
37. Shaw KJ, Barbachyn MR. The oxazolidinones: past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2011;1241:48-70.
38. Flanagan S, Passarell J, Lu Q. Tedizolid population pharmacokinetics, exposure response, and target attainment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:6462-6470. The study clearly describes pharmacokinetics of tedizolid, also in correlation with efficacy and safety profile.
39. Corey GR, Kabler H, Mehra P, et al. SOLO I Investigators. Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2180-2190. A randomized, double-blinded, phase III trial demonstrating the noninferiotity of a single dose of oritavancin (1200 mg) compared to a 7-10 day course of twice-daily intravenous vancomycin (1g every 12 h) for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens.
40. Corey GR, Good S, Jiang H, et al. SOLO II Investigators. Single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60:254-262. A randomized, double-blinded, phase III trial demonstrating the noninferiotity of a single dose of oritavancin (1200 mg) compared to a 7-10 day course of twicedaily intravenous vancomycin (1 g every 12 h) for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens.
41. Boucher HW, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, et al. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus daily conventional therapy for skin infection. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2169-2179. Two double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trials (DISCOVER 1 and DISCOVER 2), showing that a single dose of intravenous dalabavancin (1 g) followed by a second dose (500 mg) on day 8 was noninferior to a 10-14 day course of therapy with vancomycin (1 g every 12h) with an option to switch to oral linezolid (600 mg every 12h)
42. Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE, et al. Assessment of Telavancin in Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections Study. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:1683-1693.
43. Mendes RE, Farrell DJ, Sader HS, et al. Activity of oritavancin against grampositive clinical isolates responsible for documented skin and soft-tissue infections in European and UShospitals (2010-13). J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70:498-504.
44. McCurdy SP, Jones RN, Mendes RE, et al. In vitro activity of dalbavancin against drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from a global surveillance program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:5007-5009.
45. Smith JR, Barber KE, Hallesy J, et al. Telavancin demonstrates activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, daptomycin, and linezolid in broth microdilution MIC and one-compartment pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:5529-5534.
46. Mendes RE, Sader HS, Flamm RK, et al. Telavancin in vitro activity against a collection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates, including resistant subsets, from the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:1811-1814.
47. Roberts KD, Sulaiman RM, Rybak MJ. Dalbavancin and oritavancin: an innovative approach to the treatment of gram-positive infections. Pharmacotherapy 2015;35:935-948.
48. Oritavancin (orbactiv) for skin and skin structure infections. (Med Lett Drugs Ther 2015;57:3-5.
49. Rubino CM, Bhavnani SM, Moeck G, et al. Population pharmacokinetic analysis for a single 1200-milligram dose of oritavancin using data from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:3365-3372. The study clearly describes the pharmacokinetic characteristics of oritavancin.
50. Dunne MW, Zhou M, Darpo B. A thorough QT study with dalbavancin: a novel lipoglycopeptide antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skinstructure infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2015;45:393-398.
51. Dunne MW, Puttagunta S, Sprenger CR, et al. Extended-duration dosing and distribution of dalbavancin into bone and articular tissue. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:1849-1855. The study describes the pharmacokinetic characteristics of dalbavancin, with a focus on the distribution of the drug into bone and articular tissue. The study suggests a possible investigational role of dalbavancin for the treatment of osteomyelitis.
52. Barriere SL. The ATTAIN trials: efficacy and safety of telavancin compared with vancomycin for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Future Microbiol 2014;9:281-289. The study reported an increased mortality in patients with moderate or severe renal failure receiving telavancin.
53. Saravolatz LD, Stein GE, Johnson LB. Ceftaroline: a novel cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:1156-1163.
54. Castanheira M, Jones RN, Sader HS. Activity of ceftaroline and comparator agents tested against contemporary Gram-positive and -negative (2011) isolates collected in Europe, Turkey, and Israel. J Chemother 2014;26:202-210.
55. Pfaller MA, Flamm RK, Sader HS, Jones RN. Ceftaroline activity against bacterial organisms isolated from acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in United States medical centers (2009-2011). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2014;78:422-428.
56. Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH, et al. CANVAS 1 investigators. CANVAS 1: the first Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; (65 Suppl 4): iv41-iv51.
57. Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH, et al. CANVAS 2 investigators. CANVAS 2: the second Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; (65 Suppl 4): iv53-iv65.
58. Friedland HD, O'Neal T, Biek D, et al. CANVAS 1 and 2: analysis of clinical response at day 3 in two phase 3 trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:2231-2236.
59. Lipsky BA, Cannon CM, Ramani A, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil for treatment of diabetic foot infections: the CAPTURE study experience. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2015;31:395-401. A real-life study assessing the efficacy of ceftaroline for the treatment of diabetic foot infection into the wide clinical practice.
60. File TM Jr, Wilcox MH, Stein GE. Summary of ceftaroline fosamil clinical trial studies and clinical safety. Clin Infect Dis 2012; (55 Suppl 3): S173-S180.
61. Canut A, Isla A, Rodríguez-Gascón A. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil dosing regimens for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and complicated skin and skinstructure infections in patients with normal and impaired renal function. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2015;45:399-405. This study supports the use of ceftaroline doses higher than the currently approved ones for the treatment of MRSA infections.
62. Noel GJ, Bush K, Bagchi P, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with vancomycin plus ceftazidime for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:647-655.
63. Noel GJ, Strauss RS, Amsler K, et al. Results of a double-blind, randomized trial of ceftobiprole treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:37-44.
64. Barbour A, Derendorf H. Resistance and the management ofcomplicated skin and skin structure infections: the role of ceftobiprole. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2010;6:485-495.
65. Barbour A, Schmidt S, Sabarinath SN, et al. Soft-tissue penetration of ceftobiprole in healthy volunteers determined by in vivo microdialysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:2773-2776.
66. Li H, Estabrook M, Jacoby GA, et al. In vitro susceptibility of characterized b-lactamase-producing strains tested with avibactam combinations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:1789-1793.
67. Remy JM, Tow-Keogh CA, McConnell TS, et al. Activity of delafloxacin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: resistance selection and characterization. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:2814-2820.
68. Almer LS, Hoffrage JB, Keller EL, et al. In vitro and bactericidal activities of ABT-492, a novel fluoroquinolone, against Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48:2771-2777.
69. O'Riordan W, Mehra P, Manos P, et al. A randomized phase 2 study comparing two doses of delafloxacin with tigecycline in adults with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Infect Dis 2015;30:67-73. A randomized, double-blind, phase II trial assessing the safety and efficacy of delafloxacin compared with tigecycline for the treatment of cSSTIs.
70. Litwin JS, Benedict MS, Thorn MD, et al. A thorough QT study to evaluate the effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of delafloxacin on cardiac repolarization. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:3469-3473.
71. Siala W, Mingeot-Leclercq MP, Tulkens PM, et al. Comparison of the antibiotic activities of Daptomycin, Vancomycin, and the investigationa Fluoroquinolone Delafloxacin against biofilms from Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:6385-6397.
72. Lemaire S, Tulkens PM, Van Bambeke F. Contrasting effects of acidic pH on the extracellular and intracellular activities of the antigram-positive fluoroquinolones moxifloxacin and delafloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55:649-658.
73. Draper MP, Weir S, Macone A, et al. Mechanism of action of the novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic omadacycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:1279-1283.
74. Macone AB, Caruso BK, Leahy RG, et al. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:1127-1135.
75. Noel GJ, Draper MP, Hait H, et al. 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. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:5650-5654.