Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy | 2019
Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection
Abstract
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\u2009mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6\u2009days or 600\u2009mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. ABSTRACT 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\u2009mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6\u2009days or 600\u2009mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. twice daily for 10\u2009days. The primary endpoint was early clinical response rate at 48 to 72\u2009h. 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\u2009=\u20098; linezolid, n\u2009=\u20091; 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.)