The Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Related Adverse Events in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Narrative Review of the Literature

The use of antibiotics for the treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) over an extended period of time has been shown to be associated with adverse events (AEs), whereas interactions with concomitant patient medications must also be considered. The objective of this narrative review was to summarize the most frequent and most severe AEs reported in prospective trials and observational studies at the global level in DFI. Gastrointestinal intolerances were the most frequent AEs, from 5% to 22% among all therapies; this was more common when prolonged antibiotic administration was combined with oral beta-lactam or clindamycin or a higher dose of tetracyclines. The proportion of symptomatic colitis due to Clostridium difficile was variable depending on the antibiotic used (0.5% to 8%). Noteworthy serious AEs included hepatotoxicity due to beta-lactams (5% to 17%) or quinolones (3%); cytopenia's related to linezolid (5%) and beta-lactams (6%); nausea under rifampicin, and renal failure under cotrimoxazole. Skin rash was found to rarely occur and was commonly associated with the use of penicillins or cotrimoxazole. AEs from prolonged antibiotic use in patients with DFI are costly in terms of longer hospitalization or additional monitoring care and can trigger additional investigations. The best way to prevent AEs is to keep the duration of antibiotic treatment short and with the lowest dose clinically necessary.

Surgical Infection Society 2020 Updated Guidelines on the Management of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Background: The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) Guidelines for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) were published in October 2009 in Surgical Infections. The purpose of this project was to provide a succinct update on the earlier guidelines based on an additional decade of data. Methods: We reviewed the previous guidelines eliminating bite wounds and diabetic foot infections including their associated references. Relevant articles on the topic of complicated SSTIs from 2008-2020 were reviewed and graded individually. Comparisons were then made between the old and the new graded recommendations with review of the older references by two authors when there was disparity between the grades. Results: The majority of new studies addressed antimicrobial options and duration of therapy particularly in complicated abscesses. There were fewer updated studies on diagnosis and specific operative interventions. Many of the topics addressed in the original guidelines had no new literature to evaluate. Conclusions: Most recommendations remain unchanged from the original guidelines with the exception of increased support for adjuvant antimicrobial therapy after drainage of complex abscess and increased data for the use of alternative antimicrobial agents.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antibiotics used to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Results of a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This NMA compared the efficacy and safety between IV antibiotics that are used in the current standard of care for managing adult patients (≥18 years of age) with ABSSSI.

METHODS

Comparators were chosen on the basis that both direct and indirect comparisons between the interventions of interest could be performed. Outcomes of the analysis were selected on the basis that they are frequently measured and reported in trials involving ABSSSI patients, and only published randomised control trials of any size and duration and with any blinding status were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The NMA was performed using both a fixed-effect and random-effect model. Efficacy-related endpoints were (1) clinical treatment success and (2) microbiological success at TOC visit. Safety-related endpoints were (1) number of discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs, (2) patients experiencing AEs, (3) patients experiencing SAEs and (4) all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Study interventions included daptomycin, dalbavancin, linezolid and tigecycline. Vancomycin was the comparator in all studies, except in two where it was linezolid and teicoplanin. The NMA showed that irrespective of patient subgroup, the likelihood of clinical and microbiological success with dalbavancin was statistically similar to the comparators studied. No statistically significant differences were observed between dalbavancin and any of the comparators in the discontinuation rate due to AEs/SAEs. In contrast, dalbavancin was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing an AE than linezolid, a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing a SAE than vancomycin and daptomycin, and a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality than vancomycin, linezolid and tigecycline.

CONCLUSION

Dalbavancin affords a promising, new alternative IV antimicrobial agent which is as effective as traditional therapies, but with the added benefit of enabling clinicians to treat patients with ABSSSI in different organisational settings. Notwithstanding, any introduction of an effective treatment with a differential mode of administration into healthcare systems must be followed by a change in clinical practice and patient management in order to fully achieve desirable economic outcomes.

Comparative efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of existing treatments for ABSSSI focusing on the novel lipoglycopeptide oritavancin.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and select conferences were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating antimicrobial agents for the treatment of ABSSSI. NMA was used to estimate the odds ratios of the Test-Of-Cure (TOC) and Early Clinical Response (ECR) outcomes for treatments relative to vancomycin in the ITT populations. Sub-group analyses in MRSA and MSSA populations were conducted for TOC; sensitivity analyses investigated the use of the clinically evaluable (CE) populations and the restriction to trials following the recent FDA guidelines for clinical trials.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 52 trials. The most commonly investigated treatments were vancomycin and linezolid; most trials reported TOC, but not ECR. The posterior mean and 95% credible intervals for odds ratios of TOC for antimicrobial agents relative to vancomycin were: linezolid (1.55; 0.91-2.57), daptomycin (2.18; 0.90-5.42), and oritavancin 1200 mg (1.06; 0.80-1.43). The odds ratio of ECR for oritavancin 1200 mg was 1.02 (0.23-4.33). In the MRSA sub-group the odds ratios relative to vancomycin for TOC were: linezolid (1.55; 0.96-2.46), daptomycin (0.74; 0.13-3.66), and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.94; 0.44-2.02). In the MSSA sub-group they were linezolid (1.36; 0.15-13.34) and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.82; 0.08-7.83). These results were robust to the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA provides a unified framework for the comparison of all available antimicrobial agents used in the treatment of ABSSSI and is the first to assess the ECR end-point. The results suggest equivalence of clinical efficacy between vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, and novel antimicrobial agents including oritavancin for the treatment of ABSSSI at TOC. The wide uncertainty margins indicate the heterogeneity of the available evidence and the need for further research.

Clinical and microbiological efficacy of tigecycline for complicated skin-soft-tissue and intra-abdominal infections in a Turkish university hospital

OBJECTIVE

Tigecycline, a new glycylcycline antimicrobial agent, is indicated for the treatment of complicated skin structure infection (cSSTI), intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) and community acquired pneumonia. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and microbiological data together about tigecycline therapy.

METHODS

Patients with cIAIs and cSSTIs were included in a prospective, observational follow-up. Patient follow-up forms were developed and clinical and microbiological data were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 107 patients, 67 had cSSTIs, 40 had cIAIs. Tigecycline was used empirically in 37.5% of cIAIs and in 50.7% of cSSTIs. In 85.0% of the patients with cIAI and in 73.1% of the patients with cSSTI, clinical and/or microbiological response could be achieved. A drug change was made in 26.9% and 7.5% of the patients with cSSTI and cIAI respectively. Superinfection was detected in 14.9% of the cSSTI and 7.5% of the cIAI patients.

CONCLUSION

As a result, tigecycline can be safely used in the treatment of different infections. Compared with cSSTIs, the treatment response is better and the duration of treatment is shorter in cIAIs. However, MIC value must be determined at any rate if tigecycline is to be used in the treatment of Acinetobacter (MDR Acinetobacter, in particular) infections. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rate of tigecycline therapy changes according to different clinical diagnosis and microorganism.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of infectious diseases: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multidrug resistance among bacteria increases the need for new antimicrobial drugs with high potency and stability. Tigecycline is one candidate drug, and a previous meta-analysis of only published randomised controlled trials suggested that it might as effective as comparator treatments; we did a meta-analysis to include new and unpublished trials to assess its efficacy for the treatment of adult patients with serious bacterial infection.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase up to March 30, 2011, to identify published studies, and we searched clinical trial registries to identify completed unpublished studies, the results of which were obtained through the manufacturer. Eligible studies were randomised trials assessing the clinical efficacy, safety, and eradication efficiency of tigecycline versus other antimicrobial agents for any bacterial infection. The primary outcome was treatment success in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug, had clinical evidence of disease, and had complete follow-up (the clinically assessable population). Meta-analysis was done with random-effects models because of heterogeneity across the trials.

FINDINGS

14 randomised trials, comprising about 7400 patients, were included. Treatment success was lower with tigecycline than with control antibiotic agents, but the difference was not significant (odds ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·74-1·02). Adverse events were more frequent in the tigecycline group than in the control groups (1·45, 1·11-1·88), with significantly more vomiting and nausea. All-cause mortality was higher in the tigecycline group than in the comparator groups, but the difference was not significant (1·28, 0·97-1·69). Eradication efficiency did not differ between tigecycline and control regimens, but the sample size for these comparisons was small.

INTERPRETATION

Tigecycline is not better than standard antimicrobial agents for the treatment of serious infections. Our findings show that assessment with unpublished studies is needed to make appropriate decisions about new agents.

FUNDING

None.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tigecycline is a novel glycylcycline that exhibits broad-spectrum antibacterial activity. Recently, the US FDA issued a warning concerning increased mortality with tigecycline in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that compared tigecycline with any other antibiotic regimen for the treatment of any infection. A comprehensive search, without publication status or other restrictions, was conducted. The primary outcome was overall 30 day mortality. The secondary outcome included clinical and microbiological failure, superinfections and adverse events (AEs). The trials' risks of bias and their effects on results were assessed. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Individual trials' relative risks (RRs) were pooled using a fixed effect meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials (7654 patients) were included. Overall mortality was higher with tigecycline compared with other regimens [RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.64, without heterogeneity]. The type of infection assessed and the trials' reported risks of bias did not affect this result. Clinical failure was significantly higher with tigecycline (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27) and non-statistically significant higher rates of microbiological failure were demonstrated (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.30). Development of septic shock was significantly more frequent with tigecycline (RR 7.01, 95% CI 1.27-38.66). Superinfections were significantly more common with tigecycline and so were AEs, including all AEs and AEs requiring discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

In the light of the increased mortality, probably explained by decreased clinical and microbiological efficacy, clinicians should avoid tigecycline monotherapy in the treatment of severe infections and reserve it as a last-resort drug.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of tigecycline, a newly developed glycylcycline antibiotic, with those of empirical antibiotic regimens which have been reported to possess good efficacy for complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and other infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was performed. Eight RCTs involving 4,651 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with therapy with empirical antibiotic regimens, tigecycline monotherapy was associated with similar clinical treatment success rates (for the clinically evaluable [CE] population, odds ratio [OR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 1.12, P = 0.42; for the clinical modified intent-to-treat [c-mITT] population, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06) and similar microbiological treatment success rates (for the microbiologically evaluable [ME] population, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.07, P = 0.19). The incidence of adverse events in the tigecycline group was significantly higher than that in the other therapy groups with a statistical margin (for the modified intent-to-treat [mITT] population, OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.52, P < 0.0001), especially in the digestive system (mITT population, OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.67 to 3.46, P < 0.00001). No difference regarding all-cause mortality and drug-related mortality between tigecycline and the other regimens was found, although numerically higher mortality was found in the tigecycline group. This meta-analysis provides evidence that tigecycline monotherapy may be used as effectively as the comparison therapy for cSSSI, cIAIs, CAP, and infections caused by MRSA/VRE. However, because of the high risk of mortality, AEs, and emergence of resistant isolates, prudence with the clinical use of tigecycline monotherapy in infections is required.