Open-Label Randomized Trial of Early Clinical Outcomes of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections at Risk of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Efficacy and safety of optional parenteral antimicrobial therapy for complicated skin and soft tissue infections: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) carry significant economic burden, as well as morbidity and mortality, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of optional antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline (Via Ovid SP), Embase (Via Ovid SP), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to March 22, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the use of optional antimicrobial therapy for cSSTIs. Citations' screening, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by 2 authors. The primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological treatment success, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 48 trials covering 24,381 patients assessing 20 types of antimicrobial treatment modalities were included. Overall, omadacycline was associated with the highest beneficial effect on clinical and microbiological treatment success and with the largest rank probability based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, avarofloxacin was closely followed. Both had, however, omadacycline was related to moderately safety profiles. Lefamulin ranked as the best option was associated with the lowest risk of severe AEs. Subgroup analysis showed similar results. The quality of primary outcomes was moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of omadacycline was associated with higher rates of clinical and microbiological treatment success for the treatment of cSSTIs, with a relative low risk of AEs. Due to the limitations of the included RCTs, high-quality and well-designed RCTs are needed to further confirm the results.

Anti-MRSA Cephalosporin versus Vancomycin-Based Treatment for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatment in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Turning Research into Practice, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles from inception to 15 June 2020. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin with those of vancomycin-based regimens in treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were clinical response at the test-of-cure assessments and risk of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Eight RCTs were enrolled. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatments (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90–1.23; I² = 0%). Except for major cutaneous abscesses in which anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was associated with a lower clinical response rate than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40–0.97; I² = 0%), other subgroup analyses according to the type of cephalosporin (ceftaroline or ceftobiprole), type of infection, and different pathogens did not show significant differences in clinical response. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was only associated with a higher risk of nausea than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07–1.85; I² = 0%). In treating ABSSSIs, the clinical efficacy of anti-MRSA cephalosporin is comparable to that of vancomycin-based treatment, except in major cutaneous abscesses. In addition to nausea, anti-MRSA cephalosporin was as tolerable as vancomycin-based treatment.

Potential role of new-generation antibiotics in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the available results of primary analyses from high-quality randomized studies of either recently approved or possible future agents for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 2 decades, several novel agents have been approved for the treatment of ABSSSI, that are also active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to already available agents, further molecules are in clinical development that could become available for treating ABSSSI in the forthcoming future.

SUMMARY

The current and future availability of several new-generation antibiotics will allow to modulate therapeutic choices not only on efficacy but also on other relevant factors such as the combination of the drug safety profile and the comorbidities of any given patient, the expected adherence to outpatient therapy, and the possibilities of early discharge or avoiding hospitalization by means of oral formulations, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, or single-dose administration of long-acting intravenous agents. With the advent of new-generation antibiotics, all these factors are becoming increasingly essential for tailoring treatment to individual patients in line with the principles of personalized medicine, and for optimizing the use of healthcare resources.

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of the Phase 3 COVERS Randomized Trial of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam

Aim

Exploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Adults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm²) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5–14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS.

Results

Overall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-020-00297-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antibacterial Effect and Mode of Action of Flavonoids From Licorice Against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterial pathogen that causes food poisoning, various infections, and sepsis. Effective strategies and new drugs are needed to control S. aureus associated infections due to the emergence and rapid dissemination of antibiotic resistance. In the present study, the antibacterial activity, potential mode of action, and applications of flavonoids from licorice were investigated. Here, we showed that glabrol, licochalcone A, licochalcone C, and licochalcone E displayed high efficiency against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Glabrol, licochalcone A, licochalcone C, and licochalcone E exhibited low cytotoxicity without hemolytic activity based on safety evaluation. Glabrol displayed rapid bactericidal activity with low levels of resistance development in vitro. Meanwhile, glabrol rapidly increased bacterial membrane permeability and dissipated the proton move force. Furthermore, we found that peptidoglycan, phosphatidylglycerol, and cardiolipin inhibited the antibacterial activity of glabrol. Molecular docking showed that glabrol binds to phosphatidylglycerol and cardiolipin through the formation of hydrogen bonds. Lastly, glabrol showed antibacterial activity against MRSA in both in vivo and in vitro models. Altogether, these results suggest that glabrol is a promising lead compound for the design of membrane-active antibacterial agents against MRSA and can be used as a disinfectant candidate as well.

Ceftaroline Efficacy and Safety in Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infection: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftaroline for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) in adult patients through meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases were searched up to April 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ceftaroline and other comparators for treating cSSSIs in adult patients were included. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate, whereas the secondary outcomes were clinical failure rate, microbiological eradication rate, relapse rate, and risk of an adverse event (AE). Five RCTs were included. Overall, ceftaroline had a clinical cure rate similar to comparators in the treatment of cSSSIs in the modified intent-to-treat population (risk ratio (RR), 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97–1.04; I² = 0%) and in the clinically evaluable population (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97–1.03; I² = 0%). In addition, no significant difference was observed between ceftaroline and comparators for the treatment of infection with Staphylococcusaureus (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98–1.05; I² = 0%), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94–1.05; I² = 0%), methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06; I² = 26%), Streptococcus spp. (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92–1.24; I² = 73%), and Gram-negative bacteria (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83–1.08; I² = 0%). Furthermore, ceftaroline had a similar rate of microbiological eradication (92.2% vs. 92.6%, RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97–1.03; I² = 9%) and relapse (6.9% vs. 9.1%, RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.14–1.74; I² = 0%) as comparators. Finally, the risks of treatment-emergent AEs (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.05; I² = 0%), serious AEs (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.63–1.68; I² = 0%), and discontinuation of study drug due to an AE (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.50–1.49; I² = 34%) did not differ significantly between ceftaroline and comparators. In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of ceftaroline is as high as that of comparators in the treatment of cSSSIs in adult patients, and this antibiotic is well tolerated like the comparators.