Sue K. Cammarata

Linezolid vs Vancomycin*: Analysis of Two Double-Blind Studies of Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial Pneumonia

OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of baseline variables, including treatment, on outcome in patients with nosocomial pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). DESIGN Retrospective analysis of data from two prospective, randomized, double-blind studies. SETTING Multinational study with 134 sites. PATIENTS A total of 1,019 patients with suspected Gram-positive nosocomial pneumonia, including 339 patients with documented S aureus pneumonia (S aureus subset) and 160 patients with documented MRSA pneumonia (MRSA subset). INTERVENTIONS Linezolid, 600 mg, or vancomycin, 1 g, q12h for 7 to 21 days, each with aztreonam. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS Outcome was measured by survival and clinical cure rates (assessed 12 to 28 days after the end of therapy). Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the effect of treatment and other baseline variables on outcome. Kaplan-Meier survival rates for linezolid vs vancomycin were 80.0% (60 of 75 patients) vs 63.5% (54 of 85 patients) for the MRSA subset (p = 0.03). Logistic regression analysis confirmed that the survival difference favoring linezolid remained significant after adjusting for baseline variables (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 4.8; p = 0.05). Other baseline variables associated with significantly higher survival rates in MRSA pneumonia were serum creatinine levels less than or equal to two times the upper limit of normal and absence of cardiac comorbidities. Clinical cure rates for linezolid vs vancomycin (excluding indeterminate or missing outcomes) were 59.0% (36 of 61 patients) vs 35.5% (22 of 62 patients) for the MRSA subset (p < 0.01). Logistic regression analysis confirmed that the difference favoring linezolid remained significant after adjusting for baseline variables (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.3; p = 0.01). Other baseline variables associated with significantly higher clinical cure rates in MRSA pneumonia were single-lobe pneumonia, absence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, and absence of oncologic and renal comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective analysis, initial therapy with linezolid was associated with significantly better survival and clinical cure rates than was vancomycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia due to MRSA.

Linezolid (PNU-100766) versus vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.

Linezolid, the first oxazolidinone, is active against gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains. This multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. A total of 203 patients received intravenous linezolid, 600 mg twice daily, plus aztreonam, and 193 patients received vancomycin, 1 g intravenously twice daily, plus aztreonam for 7-21 days. Clinical and microbiological outcomes were evaluated at test of cure 12-28 days after treatment. Clinical cure rates (71 [66.4%] of 107 for linezolid vs. 62 [68.1%] of 91 for vancomycin) and microbiological success rates (36 [67.9%] of 53 vs. 28 [71.8%] of 39, respectively) for evaluable patients were equivalent between treatment groups. Eradication rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and safety evaluations were similar between treatment groups. Resistance to either treatment was not detected. Linezolid is a well-tolerated, effective treatment for adults with gram-positive nosocomial pneumonia.

Continuation of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study of Linezolid Versus Vancomycin in the Treatment of Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia

BACKGROUND The clinical efficacy and tolerability of linezolid were demonstrated in a previously published, randomized, double-blind, registration study comparing linezolid with vancomycin for the empiric treatment of 396 patients with nosocomial pneumonia. OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to obtain additional experience with linezolid and vancomycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia and to satisfy international regulatory requirements. METHODS Patients with pneumonia acquired after 48 hours in an inpatient facility were randomly assigned to receive either IV linezolid 600 mg or IV vancomycin 1 g every 12 hours for 7 to 21 consecutive days. Patients also received IV aztreonam 1 to 2 g every 8 hours, which could be discontinued if gram-negative pathogens were not identified. The primary efficacy variables were clinical and microbiologic outcomes in evaluable patients at the follow-up visit 15 to 21 days after the end of therapy. Results from the continuation study were analyzed separately and did not include patients from the previously reported study. RESULTS A total of 623 patients were enrolled: 321 in the linezolid group and 302 in the vancomycin group. Mean (SD) ages were 63.1 (19.1) years and 61.9 (19.3) years, respectively. Mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 14.1 (5.8) and 14.1 (6.2), respectively. There were no significant differences between the linezolid and vancomycin groups at the follow-up visit in clinical cure rates (114/168 [67.9%] and 111/171 [64.9%]) or microbiologic success rates (47/76 [61.8%] and 42/79 [53.2%]) in evaluable patients (excluding those who had indeterminate or missing outcomes). There were also no significant differences in the rates of all drug-related adverse events (14.0% and 14.0%) or those that occurred in > 1% of patients, including diarrhea (3.7% and 3.0%), nausea (0.3% and 1.3%), and rash (0.6% and 1.7%) in the linezolid and vancomycin groups, respectively. CONCLUSION In the population studied, linezolid appeared to be as well tolerated and as effective as vancomycin, each in combination with aztreonam.

Worldwide Assessment of Linezolid's Clinical Safety and Tolerability: Comparator-Controlled Phase III Studies

ABSTRACT Linezolid, an oxazolidinone antibiotic, has 100% oral bioavailability and favorable activities against gram-positive pathogens including multidrug-resistant staphylococci, enterococci, and pneumococci. Safety assessments were conducted for 2,046 linezolid-treated patients and 2,001 comparator drug-treated patients from seven controlled clinical trials comparing the activities of linezolid and comparator drugs against nosocomial and community-acquired pneumonia, skin and skin structure infections, and methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections. Drug-related adverse events were primarily transient. The most frequent (≥2%) adverse events caused by linezolid and the comparator drugs were diarrhea (4.3 and 3.2%, respectively; P = 0.074), nausea (3.4 and 2.3%, respectively; P = 0.036), and headache (2.2 and 1.3%, respectively; P = 0.047). Treatment discontinuations due to drug-related events (2.4 and 1.9%, respectively), serious adverse events (11.4 and 10.6%, respectively), and deaths (4.8 and 4.9%, respectively) were similar. No clinically significant drug-related hematologic events were reported, and laboratory safety data were comparable. In the first 6 months of postmarketing surveillance, hematologic abnormalities were reported in 0.1% of linezolid-treated patients, but no irreversible blood dyscrasias were documented. The risk for transient, reversible hematologic effects from treatment with linezolid should be considered together with the clinical benefits associated with its use.

Linezolid Does Not Increase the Risk of Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Nosocomial Pneumonia: Comparative Analysis of Linezolid and Vancomycin Use

Reports from uncontrolled studies suggest that linezolid is associated with rates of thrombocytopenia higher than those reported in clinical studies. We assessed the risk of thrombocytopenia in 686 patients with nosocomial pneumonia who received linezolid or vancomycin for > or =5 days in 2 randomized, double-blind studies and for whom follow-up platelet counts had been measured. New-onset thrombocytopenia (platelet count of <150x10(9) platelets/L) occurred in 19 (6.4%) of 295 linezolid recipients and 22 (7.7%) of 285 vancomycin recipients with baseline platelet counts of > or =150x10(9) platelets/L; severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count of <50x10(9) platelets/L) occurred in only 1 patient in each group. Platelet counts decreased to less than the baseline level in 4 (6.6%) of 61 linezolid recipients and 5 (11.1%) of 45 vancomycin recipients who had baseline counts of <150x10(9) platelets/L. No patient had a decrease to <20x10(9) platelets/L. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in these or any other platelet assessments. Clinically significant thrombocytopenia was uncommon in our analysis, and linezolid was not associated with a greater risk of thrombocytopenia in seriously ill patients than was vancomycin.

Linezolid Versus Ceftriaxone/Cefpodoxime in Patients Hospitalized for the Treatment of Streptococcus pneumoniae Pneumonia

Intravenous (i.v.) to oral linezolid (600 mg twice daily for both, with optional aztreonam) and a cephalosporin regimen (i.v. ceftriaxone 1 g twice daily followed by oral cefpodoxime 200 mg twice daily) were compared for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), with emphasis on patients with Streptococcus pneumoniae. This multicenter, randomized, open-label trial was conducted in 27 countries in 6 continents. Efficacy was assessed 12-28 d following treatment. Clinical and laboratory safety assessments were evaluated; isolates for microbiologic assessments were identified primarily by sputum or blood culture. In all treated patients (linezolid, n =381; ceftriaxone/cefpodoxime, n =366), linezolid had a higher clinical cure rate than ceftriaxone/cefpodoxime (83.0% vs. 76.4%, respectively; p =0.040). S. pneumoniae was isolated in 73.2% (186/254) of patients at baseline, with similar eradication rates in the linezolid and ceftriaxone/cefpodoxime groups (88.7% vs. 89.9%, respectively; p =0.830). Linezolid had a superior clinical cure rate (93.1% vs. 68.2%; p = 0.021) in patients with S. pneumoniae bacteremia. Logistic regression analyses revealed that linezolid-treated patients with bacteremia, pleural effusion, cardiac comorbidities, diabetes or abnormal white blood cell counts had significantly better outcomes than cephalosporin-treated patients. Both regimens were well tolerated, although the incidence of drug-related adverse events was higher in the linezolid group than in the ceftriaxone/cefpodoxime group (21.3% vs. 11.2%, respectively; p = 0.0002). In summary, empiric i.v./oral linezolid was more effective than ceftriaxone/cefpodoxime in patients hospitalized with CAP, with comparable cure rates in S. pneumoniae pneumonia and higher cure rates in pneumonia complicated by bacteremia.

A randomized phase 2 study comparing two doses of delafloxacin with tigecycline in adults with complicated skin and skin-structure infections

BACKGROUND A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial was done to compare two doses of delafloxacin with tigecycline in patients with various complicated skin and skin-structure infections (wound infections following surgery, trauma, burns, or animal/insect bites, abscesses, and cellulitis). METHODS Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive delafloxacin 300mg intravenous (IV) every 12h, delafloxacin 450mg IV every 12h, or tigecycline 100mg IV×1, followed by 50mg IV every 12h; randomization was stratified by infection type. Duration of therapy was 5-14 days. The primary efficacy analysis, performed on the clinically evaluable (CE) population at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (14-21 days after the final dose of study drug), compared clinical response rates in the delafloxacin and tigecycline arms. Clinical response rates in the two delafloxacin arms were also compared. RESULTS Among CE patients, clinical cure rates at TOC visit were similar in the delafloxacin and tigecycline arms (94.3%, 92.5%, and 91.2%, respectively in delafloxacin 300-mg, delafloxacin 450-mg, and tigecycline arms). Overall, the most frequent adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; the 300-mg delafloxacin arm was the best-tolerated regimen. CONCLUSIONS Delafloxacin was similarly effective as tigecycline for a variety of complicated skin and skin-structure infections and was well tolerated. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT 0719810).

A severity score for complicated skin and soft tissue infections derived from phase III studies of linezolid

BACKGROUND Severity scoring systems are useful for assessing patient risk and predicting prognosis. METHODS We developed a scoring system using data from a phase III study comparing antibiotics in hospitalized patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (study A), and used logistic regression analysis to identify factors contributing to treatment failure. We tested this system using data from a similar study (study B). RESULTS In study A (n = 682), cure rates were lower in patients with at least 1 comorbid condition (P <0.05) and in the highest risk class (P = 0.05); elevated blood urea nitrogen, hyponatremia, anemia, lesion size, and surgical wound infection were independent predictors of failure (P <0.05). In study B (n = 166), findings were similar and significant for risk class (P <0.05). In the combined analysis (n = 848), cure rates were higher for linezolid than for the comparator in all patients (85% versus 77%; P <0.01) and in subanalyses by comorbid conditions, median score, and risk class (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS We developed and validated a scoring system in which baseline variables predicted outcome. Patients with higher severity scores generally had poorer outcomes regardless of treatment group. Our finding that linezolid was an independent predictor of cure merits further evaluation.

A randomized, double-blind, Phase 2 study to evaluate subjective and objective outcomes in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections treated with delafloxacin, linezolid or vancomycin

Objectives Delafloxacin is an investigational anionic fluoroquinolone being developed to treat infections caused by Gram-positive and -negative organisms. This clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Methods In a double-blind, Phase 2 trial, 256 patients were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to 300 mg of delafloxacin, 600 mg of linezolid or 15 mg/kg vancomycin (actual body weight), each administered intravenously twice daily for 5–14 days. Randomization was stratified by infection category. The primary endpoint was the investigators assessment of cure, defined as complete resolution of baseline signs and symptoms at follow-up. Secondary endpoints included reductions in the total areas of erythema and induration and assessments of bacterial eradication. This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01283581. Results Cure rates were significantly greater with delafloxacin versus vancomycin (mean difference: −16.3%; 95% CI, −30.3% to −2.3%; P = 0.031); differences were significant for obese patients (BMI ≥30 kg/m2; mean difference: −30.0%; 95% CI, −50.7% to −9.3%; P = 0.009), but not for non-obese patients. Cure rates with delafloxacin and linezolid were similar. Using digital measurement, the percentage decrease in total erythema area was significantly greater with delafloxacin versus vancomycin at follow-up (−96.4% versus −84.5%; P = 0.028). There were no differences in bacterial eradication among the treatment groups. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting. Conclusions These data show that delafloxacin is effective in the treatment of ABSSSIs and is well tolerated.

A Thorough QT Study To Evaluate the Effects of Therapeutic and Supratherapeutic Doses of Delafloxacin on Cardiac Repolarization

ABSTRACT A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover study was conducted in 52 healthy adults to assess the effect of delafloxacin on the corrected QT (QTc) interval. The QT interval, corrected for heart rate using Fridericias formula (QTcF), was determined predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h after dosing with delafloxacin at 300 mg intravenously (i.v.; therapeutic), delafloxacin at 900 mg i.v. (supratherapeutic), moxifloxacin at 400 mg orally (p.o.; positive control), and placebo. The pharmacokinetic profile of delafloxacin was also evaluated. At each time point after delafloxacin administration, the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the placebo-corrected change from the predose baseline in QTcF (ΔΔQTcF) was less than 10 ms (maximum, 3.9 ms at 18 h after dosing), indicating an absence of a clinically meaningful increase in the QTc interval. The lower limit of the 90% CI of ΔΔQTcF for moxifloxacin versus placebo was longer than 5 ms at all 5 time points selected for assay sensitivity analysis, demonstrating that the study was adequately sensitive to assess QTc prolongation. There was no positive relationship between delafloxacin plasma concentrations and ΔΔQTcF. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were more frequent among subjects receiving a single supratherapeutic dose of 900 mg delafloxacin. There were no deaths, serious AEs, or AEs leading to study discontinuation and no clinically meaningful abnormalities in laboratory values or vital signs observed at any time point after any dose of the study drug.