Acute Bacterial Skin Research Articles

Delafloxacin: A Review in Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

Delafloxacin (BAXDELA® in the USA; Quofenix® in the EU) is an anionic fluoroquinolone antibacterial that is approved for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in adults. Delafloxacin demonstrated in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including drug-resistant isolates. In a phase III trial in adults with CAP, delafloxacin was noninferior to moxifloxacin when assessed against FDA- and EMA-defined primary endpoints, with both fluoroquinolones achieving high treatment success rates. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that delafloxacin may be more efficacious than moxifloxacin in patients with a history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Delafloxacin was generally well tolerated in patients with CAP, with most treatment-emergent adverse events graded as mild or moderate in severity. Fluoroquinolone-associated adverse events of special interest occurred infrequently, with no events of QT prolongation or phototoxicity reported with delafloxacin. Delafloxacin is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment that increases the number of available treatments for CAP and, although further research is required, may be a useful option for patients with CAP and comorbid asthma or COPD.

New Perspectives on Antimicrobial Agents: Long-Acting Lipoglycopeptides.

The long-acting lipoglycopeptides (LGPs) dalbavancin and oritavancin are semisynthetic antimicrobials with broad and potent activity against Gram-positive bacterial pathogens. While they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute bacterial skin and soft tissue infections, their pharmacological properties suggest a potential role of these agents for the treatment of deep-seated and severe infections, such as bloodstream and bone and joint infections. The use of these antimicrobials is particularly appealing when prolonged therapy, early discharge, and avoidance of long-term intravascular catheter access are desirable or when multidrug-resistant bacteria are suspected. This review describes the current evidence for the use of oritavancin and dalbavancin in the treatment of invasive infections, as well as the hurdles that are preventing their optimal use. Moreover, this review discusses the current knowledge gaps that need to be filled to understand the potential role of LGPs in highly needed clinical scenarios and the ongoing clinical studies that aim to address these voids in the upcoming years.

A Multicentre, Prospective, and Retrospective Registry to Characterize the Use, Effectiveness, and Safety of Dalbavancin in German Clinical Practice

The antibiotic dalbavancin is approved for intravenous treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. This study aimed to observe the use, effectiveness, and safety of dalbavancin in clinical practice in Germany. It was a multicentre, prospective, and retrospective registry and consecutively enrolled patients treated with dalbavancin. Each patient was observed from the first to the last dose of dalbavancin, with a 30-day follow-up. Patient inclusion was planned for 2 years, but was terminated early due to low recruitment. All analyses were descriptive. Between November 2018 and December 2019, nine patients were enrolled. Only three patients were treated for the approved indication. Outcome was assessed by the physicians as ‘success’ in five (55.6%) patients, ‘failure’ in one (11.1%) patient, and non-evaluable in three (33.3%) patients. Although the success rate of dalbavancin was lower than reported previously, this may be due to the severity of underlying infections and patients’ high Charlson Comorbidity Index. None of the two reported adverse events were considered related to dalbavancin. These findings were in line with real-world data for dalbavancin from other countries, supporting the drug’s positive benefit–risk profile and suggesting frequent off-label use in German routine practice.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics Analysis of Omadacycline in Chinese Healthy Subjects.

Objective: Omadacycline is a new type of aminomethylcycline antibiotic, having a broad antibacterial spectrum. But the pharmacokinetic characteristics and safety profile of the Chinese population remain unknown. It is also unclear whether the US-approved treatment regimen is applicable for the Chinese population. Methods: In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled dose-escalated trial, the pharmacokinetics of omadacycline was evaluated by a non-compartmental and compartmental model. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the pharmacokinetic data from the Chinese population to evaluate the probability of target attainment (PTA) and the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) of the US FDA-approved dose regimen. Results: The three-compartment model successfully described the rapid distribution and slow elimination of omadacycline after the intravenous infusion (i.v.). The double-peak concentration-time curve of the oral absorption (p.o.) was explained by the two-compartment model with two absorption compartments. The steady-state AUC of 100 mg omadacycline i.v. and 300 mg omadacycline p. o. were 12.1 and 19.4 mg h/L, respectively. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) analysis showed that the omadacycline dosing regimen with a loading dose (200 mg i.v. q24 h, 100 mg i.v. q12 h, 450 mg p. o. q24 h × 2 days or 300 mg p. o. q12 h) and maintenance dose (100 mg i.v. q24 h or 300 mg p. o. q24 h) could cover the main pathogens of the indications acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP): Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Also, omadacycline had showed a good safety profile in the Chinese population. Conclusions: With the evidence provided, omadacycline could be a novel treatment option to Chinese patients with ABSSSI and CABP.

Real-World Evidence of Efficacy and Safety of Levonadifloxacin (Oral and IV) in the Management of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections (ABSSSI): Findings of a Retrospective, Multi-Center Study.

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance by bacteria poses a substantial threat to the success in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Levonadifloxacin is a novel benzoquinolizine subclass of quinolone which has a broad spectrum of activity, available in both oral and intravenous formulations for the treatment of skin structure infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).Patients and methodsThis prescription event monitoring study captured data of 227 patients receiving levonadifloxacin (oral and/or IV) in a real-world setting to assess the safety and efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Study outcomes were a clinical and microbial success at the end of therapy and safety was assessed based on adverse events reported.ResultsOne hundred and forty patients received IV levonadifloxacin therapy, 76 patients received oral alalevonadifloxacin, and 11 received IV followed by oral therapy. The mean duration of therapy was 7.3 days. Out of 227 patients, MRSA isolates were identified in 79 patients. Clinical success rates with oral, IV, and IV followed by oral levonadifloxacin therapy were 97.3%, 97.8%, and 100% respectively. The overall microbial success rate was 99.2% and only two patients reported two adverse events.ConclusionsThe excellent safety and efficacy profile of levonadifloxacin on oral and/or intravenous therapy, makes it a desirable treatment modality for management of ABSSSI. Unique features of levonadifloxacin such as availability of both IV and oral form, minimal drug-drug interactions, exemption from dosage adjustment in renal and hepatic impaired patients and a broad spectrum of coverage, makes it a suitable agent meeting several unmet clinical needs in contemporary patients.

Emerging Treatment Options for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Bloodstream Infections Caused by Staphylococcus aureus: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence.

Staphylococcus aureus remains an important human pathogen of concern, with mortality rates surpassing 30% in the case of severe systemic infections. Distinguishing methicillin-susceptible S. aureus from methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is fundamental for therapeutic choices. A crucial emerging concept in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections is the availability of various approved agents with anti-MRSA activity, which allow a personalized approach based on the characteristics of any given patient while at the same time remaining in line with high certainty efficacy evidence from large randomized controlled trials. Regarding the treatment of S. aureus bloodstream infections (BSI), interesting aspects that may become relevant in the near future are the presence of both old and novel agents in phase-2 or phase-3 of clinical development for this indication, and the pressing need for high certainty evidence to guide the possible use of combination therapy in specific categories or phenotypes of patients with complicated MRSA BSI.

Antibiotic treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are a leading cause of morbidity, with a considerable variety of clinical presentation and a wide range of etiological pathogens. Of importance, the spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains (i.e. methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Gram-negative bacteria) is increasingly reported in some regions. in this review, we summarize the current clinical approach to patients with ABSSSI. Accurate diagnosis and identification of risk factors for MDR pathogens are key determinants for administering appropriate therapy in patients with ABSSSI. In daily clinical practice, this can be critical as there are many features defining the 'high risk patient' including both disease and host-associated risk factors. Antibiotic therapy should be based according to the different clinical spectrum of disease belonging to the ABSSSI, on the pathogens most likely to be involved and local resistance. Careful evaluation of antibiotic therapy after 48-72 h of initial therapy could help clinicians to early identify patients with treatment failure and to consider an alternative approach. Close monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities, drug-drug interaction or adverse host factors are also necessary.

Kimyrsa, An Oritavancin-Containing Product: Clinical Study and Review of Properties.

BackgroundThere is a need for improved antibiotic formulations for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and soft structure infection (ABSSSI), especially with the rise of antimicrobial resistance among Gram-positive bacteria. A new formulation of oritavancin was developed to reduce intravenous infusion volume (from 1000 mL to 250 mL), shorten infusion time (from 3 hours to 1 hour), and provide pharmacies with flexibility in oritavancin preparation (from 5% dextrose in sterile water to either normal saline or 5% dextrose in sterile water) compared with the current formulation.MethodsA total of 102 adult patients with a diagnosis of ABSSSI suspected or confirmed to be caused by a Gram-positive pathogen were randomized 1:1 to receive either the new formulation of oritavancin or the current formulation. After a single 1200-mg intravenous infusion of oritavancin, the relative area-under-the-curve exposure of the new formulation and current formulation groups were compared. Safety and tolerability of the new formulation were assessed for treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes to laboratory parameters.ResultsThe area under the curve for 0 hour to 72 hours postdose was very similar in the new formulation group compared with the current formulation group. No differences in treatment-emergent adverse events were observed between the current and new formulation groups, and all treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of the current formulation.ConclusionsThe new formulation of oritavancin with reduced volume and duration of intravenous infusion demonstrates a safety profile and pharmacokinetics similar to that of the original formulation.

Ceftaroline: Systematic Review of Clinical Uses and Emerging Drug Resistance.

To assess the success rates of off-label uses of ceftaroline for infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and evaluate emerging ceftaroline resistance. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, with the search term "Ceftaroline." Articles were restricted to the English language and year of publication (January 1, 2009-January 31, 2022). Clinical trials, observational studies, and case reports that reported efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, use in MRSA infections other than acute bacterial skin infection and community-acquired pneumonia, and ceftaroline resistance were selected. The search pooled 103 publications and all abstracts were reviewed. Forty-six articles that reported efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, or off-label use in multiple patients and 7 articles on ceftaroline resistance are used in this review. Ceftaroline has been approved for treatment of acute skin/soft tissue infection and community-acquired pneumonia. Ceftaroline's efficacy in off-label infections ranged from 66.7% to 87.3% depending on the types of infection. There were 14 documented cases of ceftaroline resistance associated with PBP2a changes. Case series and observational studies have documented success with ceftaroline alone or in combination with vancomycin or daptomycin for treatment of MRSA bone and joint, endovascular, diabetic foot infections, and bacteremia from other causes. Despite the lack of randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline is used as salvage therapy for different MRSA infections. The data from case series and observational studies are promising but ceftaroline should be used judiciously as ceftaroline-resistant MRSA begin to emerge.

Omadacycline Oral Dosing and Pharmacokinetics in Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.

Omadacycline, a first-in-class aminomethylcycline antibiotic, is approved in the USA as intravenous (IV) and/or oral therapy for treatment of adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) or acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Phase 1 and 3 studies indicate that omadacycline dose adjustments are not required for any patient group based on age, sex, race, weight, renal impairment, end-stage renal disease, or hepatic impairment. Equivalency of exposure has also been demonstrated for 300 mg oral and 100 mg IV doses. Using an oral loading-dose regimen results in drug exposures exceeding established efficacy targets against the most common CABP and ABSSSI pathogens by Day 2 of treatment, and omadacycline has demonstrated clinical efficacy and is well tolerated. The oral-only dosing regimens provide the potential for treatment of CABP and ABSSSI either within a hospital setting or in the community, which could support earlier hospital discharge and reduced treatment costs.

Linezolid versus omadacycline in diabetic soft tissue infections: a signal of different adjunctive immunological properties?

Recent understanding of antimicrobial chemotherapy has expanded to appreciate significant impacts on the host-pathogen relationship by antibiotics. Omadacycline statistically outperformed linezolid in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in patients with diabetes mellitus in a recent post-hoc analysis of the OASIS-1 and OASIS-2 clinical trials. This difference may speak directly or indirectly to neutrophil dysfunction in diabetes. Neutrophil dysfunction increases the likelihood of Gram-negative bacterial infection, whereby diabetics may benefit from the broader spectrum of omadacycline compared with linezolid. Indirectly, oxazolidinones like linezolid have been shown to be dependent on neutrophil function, potentially compromising the potency of this drug class in diabetics. Finally, tetracyclines like omadacycline have collateral anti-inflammatory properties that have not been seen in other antibiotic drug classes. These differences may impact clinical outcomes in the treatment of infections that are not predicted by their antimicrobial activities alone, as measured in standard susceptibility testing assays.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Tedizolid.

Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone antibiotic with high potency against Gram-positive bacteria and currently prescribed in bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. The aim of the review was to summarize and critically review the key pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of tedizolid. Tedizolid displays linear pharmacokinetics with good tissue penetration. In in vitro susceptibility studies, tedizolid exhibits activity against the majority of Gram-positive bacteria (minimal inhibitory concentration [MIC] of ≤ 0.5 mg/L), is four-fold more potent than linezolid, and has the potential to treat pathogens being less susceptible to linezolid. Area under the unbound concentration–time curve (fAUC) related to MIC (fAUC/MIC) was best correlated with efficacy. In neutropenic mice, fAUC/MIC of ~ 50 and ~ 20 induced bacteriostasis in thigh and pulmonary infection models, respectively, at 24 h. The presence of granulocytes augmented its antibacterial effect. Hence, tedizolid is currently not recommended for immunocompromised patients. Clinical investigations with daily doses of 200 mg for 6 days showed non-inferiority to twice-daily dosing of linezolid 600 mg for 10 days in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. In addition to its use in skin and skin-structure infections, the high pulmonary penetration makes it an attractive option for respiratory infections including Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Resistance against tedizolid is rare yet effective antimicrobial surveillance and defining pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for resistance suppression are needed to guide dosing strategies to suppress resistance development.

Cost-minimisation analysis of oritavancin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections from a United Kingdom perspective

BackgroundEarly discharge (ED) from hospital and outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) are effective approaches for the management of a range of infections, including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Strategies that facilitate ED, thereby reducing complications such as healthcare-acquired infection whilst enhancing patient quality of life, are being increasingly adopted in line with good antimicrobial stewardship practice. This study presents a cost-minimisation analysis for the use of oritavancin at ED versus relevant comparators from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services United Kingdom perspective.MethodsA cost-minimisation model considering adult patients with ABSSSI with suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, was developed based on publicly available NHS costs, practice guidelines for ABSSSI and clinical expert’s opinion. Cost of treatment and treatment days were compared for oritavancin at ED to dalbavancin, teicoplanin, daptomycin and linezolid.ResultsFollowing the empiric use of either flucloxacillin or vancomycin in the inpatient setting, oritavancin was compared to OPAT with dalbavancin, teicoplanin and daptomycin, and oral linezolid from day 4 of treatment. Oritavancin at ED reduced treatment duration by 0.8 days and led to cost savings of £281 in comparison to dalbavancin. In comparison to teicoplanin, daptomycin and linezolid, oritavancin reduced treatment duration by 5 days, with marginally higher costs (£446, £137, and £1,434, respectively).ConclusionOritavancin, used to support ED, is associated with lower costs compared with dalbavancin and reduced treatment duration relative to all comparators. Its use would support an ED approach in MRSA ABSSSI management.

Oritavancin (KIMYRSA™) in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a profile of its use in the USA

Oritavancin, a long-acting lipoglycopeptide, is the first single-dose intravenous (IV) antibacterial therapy approved in the USA for the treatment of adult patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) caused or suspected to be caused by susceptible isolates of designated gram-positive microorganisms. With its well-established antibacterial activity, efficacy and safety profiles, a new IV formulation of oritavancin (KIMYRSA™) has been developed to offer a more convenient treatment option for patients with ABSSSIs. Relative to the originally approved IV formulation of oritavancin (ORBACTIV®), the new IV formulation has better diluent compatibility, simpler preparation steps, a shorter infusion time of 1 h in a lower infusion volume of 250 mL. Approval was based on results of a phase 1 study in which pharmacokinetic similarity between the two IV formulations of oritavancin was demonstrated in patients with ABSSSIs. The tolerability profile of the new IV formulation of oritavancin revealed no new safety signals.

Correction to: Oritavancin (KIMYRSA™) in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a profile of its use in the USA

Correction to: Oritavancin (KIMYRSA™) in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a profile of its use in the USA

Levonadifloxacin

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the major public health concerns in India, MRSA infections continue to be therapeutically challenging both in hospitals and in the community. The currently available therapeutic options for MRSA are unable to provide safe and efficacious treatment with an option of oral switchover in the treatment of MRSA infections, especially in the community. Levonadifloxacin (LND) is a broad-spectrum benzoquinolizine fluoroquinolone with potent activity against quinolone-resistant S. aureus and MRSA phenotypes developed by an Indian company Wockhardt. LND and its oral prodrug alalevonadifloxacin have been recently approved in India for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections with concurrent bacteraemia and diabetic foot infections.

Efficacy and Safety of Omadacycline Versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Persons Who Inject Drugs.

IntroductionAcute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) represent one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits, and are frequent complications of intravenous drug use in persons who inject drugs (PWID). This study examined the efficacy and safety of omadacycline, versus linezolid, in PWID and persons who do not inject drugs, in the Phase 3 Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infection (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) studies.MethodsEligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years with qualifying skin infections: wound infection, cellulitis, erysipelas, or major abscess. The primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as survival with ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at 48–72 h after the first dose of omadacycline or linezolid. Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation (PTE) in the mITT and clinical per-protocol populations, and clinical response at PTE in the micro-mITT population. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and standard clinical laboratory tests. Efficacy endpoints of clinical response at ECR and PTE were analyzed for the mITT and clinically evaluable (CE) PTE populations.ResultsIn total, 1380 patients (822 PWID, 558 non-PWID) were included in this secondary analysis. Wound infections were reported more frequently in the PWID subgroup (72.8%) at baseline; cellulitis or erysipelas (43.9%) and major abscess (37.4%) were the most frequently reported baseline infections in the non-PWID subgroup. Clinical success rates at ECR and PTE in the mITT population, and at PTE in the CE population, were high for patients receiving omadacycline or linezolid. Severe or serious treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were infrequent.ConclusionThis subgroup analysis showed that omadacycline was effective and well tolerated, regardless of PWID status.

Novel techniques in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infection.

Global antibiotic resistance is compromising the management of soft tissue infection and Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection (ABSSI). This review describes a novel topical treatment Reactive Oxygen (RO) gel which could compliment and in some situations replace systemic antibiotics. A novel topical treatment RO gel could have an important role in treatment, infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship. RO is highly antimicrobial against Gram positive and negative bacteria, by slow release of oxygen radicals over a prolonged period of up to 72 h. It prevents and breaks down biofilm and may support healing by cellular signalling. Much clinical investigation remains to be delivered on RO therapy but there seem few disadvantages in its use and early clinical evaluations are extremely promising. Managing complicated skin and soft tissue infections require more than just antibiotic treatment. Soft tissue infection healing is often compromised by underlying comorbidities and pathology and increasingly the presence of highly antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. This has been highlighted particularly in war and trauma soft tissue infection. The fundamentals of soft tissue infection repair require early surgical drainage and debridement, correction of compromised physiology and treatment of underlying conditions and appropriate antimicrobial treatment. RO therapy could be an important advance.

Expert Update on Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection Treatment Options in the Community Setting.

Expert Update on Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection Treatment Options in the Community Setting.

Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline for the empiric treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundThis review aimed to conduct an indirect comparison using a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of delafloxacin versus other single antibiotic regimens for the empiric treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections. MethodA systematic search with no start date restrictions was conducted. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of included RCTs. ResultsOf the 577 studies initially identified, nine RCTs were included in the review. The network meta-analysis showed that ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, delafloxacin and tigecycline had similar efficacy in the indirect comparisons [Ceftaroline Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.2, 95% Crl = 0.46–3.6), ceftobiprole (OR = 1.3, 95% Crl = 0.34–3.0) and tigecycline (OR = 0.96, 95% Crl = 0.30–2.9)]. However, the ranking plot for the intention to treat (ITT) population showed that delafloxacin had a probability of 80.8% to be ranked first followed by ceftobiprole (13.1%). The analysis of the overall adverse events showed that ceftaroline (OR = 0.88, 95% Crl = 0.65–1.2), ceftobiprole (OR = 1.1, 95% Crl = 0.69–2.0), delafloxacin (OR = 0.88, 95% Crl = 0.57–1.3) and tigecycline (OR = 1.4, 95% Crl = 0.88–2.2) had similar safety profiles. ConclusionDelafloxacin did not show any statistically significant differences when compared to ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline in terms of efficacy and safety. However, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability ranked delafloxacin as the first option for the ITT population.