An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection

Comparison of daptomycin and glycopeptide efficacy and safety for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The indications of daptomycin have been extended to off-label indications including prosthesis-related infection, and bone and joint infection (BJI). However, efficacy and safety have not been thoroughly demonstrated compared with the standard of care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the treatment effect of daptomycin and glycopeptides for complicated infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing daptomycin and standard of care for Gram-positive infections, published until 30 June 2021. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological success. The main safety outcome was any severe adverse event (SAE) (grade  ≥3).

RESULTS

Overall, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 1095 patients. Six (75%) were in complicated skin and soft-structure infections, one (12.5%) in bacteraemia and one (12.5%) in a BJI setting. Six RCTs used vancomycin as a comparator and two used either vancomycin or teicoplanin. All-cause mortality and clinical cure were not different between groups. The microbiological cure rate was superior in patients who received daptomycin [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01-1.35)]. The risk of SAEs [RR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.36-0.90)] was lower in the daptomycin arm.

CONCLUSIONS

While daptomycin is associated with a significantly lower risk of SAEs and a better microbiological eradication, substantial uncertainty remains about the best treatment strategy in the absence of good-quality evidence, especially in bacteraemia and endocarditis where further RCTs should be conducted.

Costs-effectiveness and cost components of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions affecting antibiotic resistance outcomes in hospital patients: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Limited information on costs and the cost-effectiveness of hospital interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance (ABR) hinder efficient resource allocation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review for studies evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at reducing, monitoring and controlling ABR in patients. Articles published until 12 December 2023 were explored using EconLit, EMBASE and PubMed. We focused on critical or high-priority bacteria, as defined by the WHO, and intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we extracted unit costs, ICERs and essential study information including country, intervention, bacteria-drug combination, discount rates, type of model and outcomes. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars ($), adopting the healthcare system perspective. Country willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds from Woods et al 2016 guided cost-effectiveness assessments. We assessed the studies reporting checklist using Drummond's method.

RESULTS

Among 20 958 articles, 59 (32 pharmaceutical and 27 non-pharmaceutical interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as hygiene measures, had unit costs as low as $1 per patient, contrasting with generally higher pharmaceutical intervention costs. Several studies found that linezolid-based treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were cost-effective compared with vancomycin (ICER up to $21 488 per treatment success, all 16 studies' ICERs

CONCLUSION

Robust information on ABR interventions is critical for efficient resource allocation. We highlight cost-effective strategies for mitigating ABR in hospitals, emphasising substantial knowledge gaps, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Our study serves as a resource for guiding future cost-effectiveness study design and analyses.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020341827 and CRD42022340064.

Collapse

Key Words

• Control strategies
• Infections, diseases, disorders, injuries
• Prevention strategies
• Public Health
• Systematic review

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
• Checklist
• Drug Resistance, Microbial
• Hospitals
• Pharmaceutical Preparations

Collapse

Grants

• FONDECYT
• Asociación Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID)
• Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo ANID/FONDAP CIGIDEN
• National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Kasim Allel Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
María José Hernández-Leal Department of Community, Maternity and Paediatric Nursing, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain Millennium Nucleus on Sociomedicine, Santiago, Chile
Nichola R Naylor Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK HCAI, Fungal, AMR, AMU & Sepsis Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
Eduardo A Undurraga Escuela de Gobierno, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gerard Joseph Abou Jaoude Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Priyanka Bhandari Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Ellen Flanagan Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Koen B Pouwels Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK The National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Laith Yakob Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Collapse

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.

Diagnosis and management of infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria: guideline endorsed by the Italian Society of Infection and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT), the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI) and the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM)

Management of patients with infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for the diagnosis and optimal management of these infections, with a focus on targeted antibiotic therapy. The document was produced by a panel of experts nominated by the five endorsing Italian societies, namely the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM), the Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT) and the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA). Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) questions about microbiological diagnosis, pharmacological strategies and targeted antibiotic therapy were addressed for the following pathogens: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales; carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. A systematic review of the literature published from January 2011 to November 2020 was guided by the PICO strategy. As data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were expected to be limited, observational studies were also reviewed. The certainty of evidence was classified using the GRADE approach. Recommendations were classified as strong or conditional. Detailed recommendations were formulated for each pathogen. The majority of available RCTs have serious risk of bias, and many observational studies have several limitations, including small sample size, retrospective design and presence of confounders. Thus, some recommendations are based on low or very-low certainty of evidence. Importantly, these recommendations should be continually updated to reflect emerging evidence from clinical studies and real-world experience.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Purpose

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial.

Patients and Methods

The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System.

Results

CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49–30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268–€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34–27.09%), 26.4% (20.5–32.32%), 28.6% (22.08–35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39–33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902–€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881–€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800–€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608–€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures.

Conclusion

Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

Comparative efficacy of delafloxacin for complicated and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: results from a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delafloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone with broad antibacterial activity against pathogens causing acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy of delafloxacin versus other comparators used for managing patients with ABSSSI.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating adults (≥ 18 years) with ABSSSI, complicated SSSI (cSSSI), complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) or severe cellulitis with pathogen of gram-positive, gram-negative, or mixed aetiology. OVID MEDLINE^®, Embase, Epub Ahead of Print, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception through 12 April 2019. A feasibility assessment was conducted, followed by an NMA, which was run in a Bayesian framework. The interventions included in the NMA encompassed monotherapy or combination therapies of amoxicillin/clavulanate, ampicillin/sulbactam, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, daptomycin, delafloxacin, fusidic acid, iclaprim, linezolid, omadacycline, oxacillin + dicloxacillin, standard therapy, tedizolid, telavancin, tigecycline, vancomycin, vancomycin + aztreonam and vancomycin + linezolid.

RESULTS

A feasibility assessment was performed and evidence networks were established for composite clinical response (n = 34 studies), early clinical response (n = 16 studies) and microbiological response (n = 14 studies) in the overall study population, composite clinical response (n = 4 studies) in obese subpopulation and for composite clinical response (n = 18 studies) and microbiological response (n = 14 studies) in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Delafloxacin performed significantly better than fusidic acid, iclaprim, vancomycin, and ceftobiprole for composite clinical response. Delafloxacin was comparable to dalbavancin, daptomycin, fusidic acid, iclaprim, linezolid, omadacycline, tedizolid, vancomycin, vancomycin + aztreonam and vancomycin + linezolid in the analysis of early clinical response, whereas for microbiological response, delafloxacin was comparable to all interventions. In the obese subpopulation, the results favoured delafloxacin in comparison to vancomycin, whilst the results were comparable with other interventions among the MRSA subpopulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Delafloxacin is a promising new antibiotic for ABSSSI demonstrating greater improvement (composite clinical response) compared to ceftobiprole, fusidic acid, iclaprim, telavancin and vancomycin and comparable effectiveness versus standard of care for all outcomes considered in the study.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin, Linezolid, Tedizolid, and Daptomycin in Treating Patients with Suspected or Proven Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Skin and soft structure infections (SSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pose serious health risks and cause significant cost burdens, and a conclusive recommendation about antibiotics has not yet been generated. Therefore, we performed this updated network meta-analysis to determine the preferred drug for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify any potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative efficacy and safety of any two of vancomycin, linezolid, tedizolid, and daptomycin in MRSA-caused SSTIs. All statistical analyses were conducted with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software.

Results

Twenty eligible RCTs involving 7804 patients were included for the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis suggested that linezolid was superior to vancomycin in improving clinical (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.99; P = 0.02) and microbiological (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24–2.86; P = 0.003) success, which were all confirmed by network meta-analyses. No statistical differences were identified regarding other comparisons. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between any two antibiotics related to safety. Moreover, ranking probabilities indicated that linezolid had the highest probability of being ranked best in terms of clinical and microbiological success.

Conclusion

Based on the limited evidence, linezolid may be a preferred antibiotic for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs because it showed superiority in clinical and microbiological success without difference regarding safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00456-0.

Is coverage of S. aureus necessary in cellulitis/erysipelas? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Empirical treatment of patients with cellulitis/erysipelas usually targets both streptococci and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). However, the recommendation to empirically cover MSSA is weak and based on low-quality evidence.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed and clinical trial registries to assess the role of S. aureus in cellulitis/erysipelas and the need for empirical MSSA coverage.

RESULTS

Combined microbiological and serological data, and response to penicillin monotherapy suggest that streptococci are responsible for the vast majority of cases of cellulitis/erysipelas. However, most cases are non-culturable and the specificity of microbiological and serological studies is questionable based on recent studies using molecular techniques. According to epidemiological data and three randomized controlled trials, empirical coverage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is not recommended for most patients, despite the high prevalence of MRSA in many areas. If MRSA is indeed not an important cause of uncomplicated cellulitis/erysipelas, then the same may apply to MSSA. Based on indirect comparison of data from clinical studies, cure rates with penicillin monotherapy (to which most MSSA are resistant) are comparable to the cure rates reported in many studies using wider-spectrum antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limitations of microbiological studies in identifying the pathogens responsible for cellulitis/erysipelas, treatment needs to be guided by clinical trials. Trials comparing penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy to MSSA-covering regimens are needed to definitively answer whether empirical coverage of MSSA is needed and to identify the subset of patients that can be safely treated with penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy.

Assessment of Antibiotic Treatment of Cellulitis and Erysipelas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The optimum antibiotic treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas lacks consensus. The available trial data do not demonstrate the superiority of any agent, and data are limited on the most appropriate route of administration or duration of therapy.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapy for non-surgically acquired cellulitis.

Data Sources

The following databases were searched to June 28, 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, issue 5), Medline (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Information System (LILACS) (from 1982). In addition, 5 trials databases and the reference lists of included studies were searched. Further searches of PubMed and Google Scholar were undertaken from June 28, 2016, to December 31, 2018.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing different antibiotics, routes of administration, and treatment durations were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

For data collection and analysis, the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. For dichotomous outcomes, the risk ratio and its 95% CI were calculated. A summary of findings table was created for the primary end points, adopting the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients cured, improved, recovered, or symptom-free or symptom-reduced at the end of treatment, as reported by the trial. The secondary outcome was any adverse event.

Results

A total of 43 studies with a total of 5999 evaluable participants, whose age ranged from 1 month to 96 years, were included. Cellulitis was the primary diagnosis in only 15 studies (35%), and in other studies the median (interquartile range) proportion of patients with cellulitis was 29.7% (22.9%-50.3%). Overall, no evidence was found to support the superiority of any 1 antibiotic over another, and antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus did not add an advantage. Use of intravenous antibiotics over oral antibiotics and treatment duration of longer than 5 days were not supported by evidence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, only low-quality evidence was found for the most appropriate agent, route of administration, and duration of treatment for patients with cellulitis; future trials need to use a standardized set of outcomes, including severity scoring, dosing, and duration of therapy.

Is there still a role for vancomycin in skin and soft-tissue infections?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSIs) are among the commonest infections encountered in clinical practice. Spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus SSIs continues to increase in both health care and community settings and presents a challenge for the best treatment choice. Vancomycin has been the mainstay of SSIs treatment, but recently its use has been questioned because of concerns about its efficacy, tolerability, and unfavorable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile. The purpose of this review is to establish the current role for vancomycin in light of the literature published from January 2007 to September 2017 on comparison with both old and new alternatives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Meta-analyses show better clinical and microbiological outcomes for drugs approved for the treatment of SSI, including those sustained by methicillin-resistant S. aureus, in the last 10 years than for vancomycin. The newer glycopeptides and linezolid decrease the total treatment costs compared with vancomycin, by reducing the length of stay or avoiding the hospitalization.

SUMMARY

Vancomycin is noninferior in efficacy and safety to all comparator drugs, including the newest on the market. However, the SSI treatment evidence base presents several shortcomings limiting the clinical applicability of the results. High-level clinical trials should be performed to obtain results that can be generalized and applied effectively in clinical practice.

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

Introduction

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) remain among the most common infectious processes seen in the clinical setting. For patients with complicated ABSSSIs deemed to require intravenous antibiotics, vancomycin remains the mainstay therapy. Ceftaroline has been shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin and may result in faster resolution of signs of infection.

Methods

Multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized trial of ceftaroline versus vancomycin for the treatment of adult patients admitted for management of ABSSSIs from April 2012 to May 2016; 166 patients in the clinically evaluable (CE) group were needed to determine a 20% difference in primary outcome of clinical response at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics. Clinical response was defined as cessation of spread of lesion and improvement in systemic signs/symptoms of infection. A secondary outcome was a ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at day 2 or 3 of antibiotics.

Results

One hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled in the intention-to-treat (ITT) group and 108 were CE. Among CE patients, 54 were randomized to ceftaroline and 54 to vancomycin. Baseline characteristics were similar except patients in the ceftaroline arm were older and had a non-significantly higher degree of comorbidities (median Charlson score 2 vs. 4, respectively). Cellulitis was the most common type of ABSSSI (85.2% vs. 79.6%, respectively). Rapid diagnostic testing of available cultures (n = 55) demonstrated high agreement with clinical microbiology for identification of Staphylococcus aureus (100%) and MRSA (100%). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of day 2 or 3 clinical response (50.0% vs. 51.9%).

Conclusion

Early clinical response between vancomycin- and ceftaroline-treated ABSSSIs was similar. Patients with ABSSSIs rarely remained hospitalized for > 2–3 days, thus limiting our ability to critically assess clinical outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02582203.

Funding

Allergan plc.

Clinical outcomes after initial treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections

Objective

To evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) antimicrobials.

Methods

We reviewed a prospective database of 247 consecutive patients with clinically and microbiologically confirmed MRSA infections, hospitalized in 7 Japanese hospitals between April 2014 and March 2015, and treated with anti-MRSA pharmaceuticals. Survival was measured at 30 days. We examined the relationships between initial antimicrobial administered and survival and organ toxicity. HR and 95% CIs were calculated.

Results

Overall 30-day mortality was 12%. The lungs were infected in 105 (41%), skin and soft tissue in 73 (30%), and bones and joints in 21 (9%) patients. Bacteremia complicated the illness in 69 patients (28%). Among 5 pharmaceuticals, vancomycin was prescribed to 174 (71%), linezolid to 38 (16%), teicoplanin to 22 (9%), and daptomycin to 11 (5%) patients. Vancomycin tended to be associated with the lowest survival (HR=2.47; 95% CI=0.93-6.51; P=0.067), particularly in the lung-infected subgroup (HR=4.85; 95% CI=1.12-20.94; P=0.034) after adjustments for baseline illness severity. The incidence of renal dysfunction tended to be higher in patients with trough serum concentrations of vancomycin >15 mg/dL.

Conclusion

In this observational study reflecting real-world conditions, vancomycin was associated with higher 30-day mortality and incidence of kidney dysfunction than other anti-MRSA agents. The significance of the differences observed among antimicrobials other than vancomycin is uncertain.

Achieve control: a pragmatic clinical trial of insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus other basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) with its accompanying patient support program with that of other basal insulin and available patient support programs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world setting in terms of achieving HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) individualized glycemic targets without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Achieve Control is a US-based, multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel group pragmatic Phase IV trial in insulin-naïve patients with T2D uncontrolled on ≥2 oral antidiabetes drugs (OAD) and/or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor antagonists (GLP-1 RA). Inclusion criteria include a diagnosis of T2D, age ≥18 years, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between 8.0% and 11.0%. Patients will be assigned to either the Gla-300 or other basal insulin group. The primary end point is the proportion of patients achieving HEDIS HbA1c targets (<8.0% [64 mmol/mol] in patients with comorbidities or aged ≥65 years; <7.0% [58 mmol/mol] in all other patients) without occurrence of symptomatic hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary end points include rates of documented symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia; change from baseline in HbA1c, fasting glucose, and body weight; treatment persistence; patient-reported outcomes; and healthcare resource utilization. Planned enrollment is 3270 patients across approximately 400 clinical sites.

CONCLUSION

Pragmatic clinical trials offer the potential to assess comparative effectiveness in broadly based patient populations receiving care (with or without a corresponding educational support program) in real-world clinical settings. The results of Achieve Control should elucidate the benefits of management of T2D with Gla-300 versus other basal insulins in terms of patient outcomes, experiences, and perceptions, and its impact on healthcare resource utilization and cost.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT02451137.

Efficacy and safety of daptomycin for skin and soft tissue infections: a systematic review with trial sequential analysis

Background

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are significant indications for antibiotic treatment. Daptomycin, a novel antibiotic, has been registered and licensed to be used in the treatment of these infections. However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial.

Objective

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of daptomycin for the treatment of SSTIs and to analyze whether the available sample size has been large enough and is conclusive.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared daptomycin with other antibiotics in adult patients with SSTIs up to February 2016.

Results

This meta-analysis included eight randomized controlled trials (n=2,002). There was no difference in either the clinical success rate (intention-to-treat population: relative risk [RR] =1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.99–1.10, P=0.12; clinically evaluable population: RR =1.00, 95% CI =0.97–1.04, P=0.82) or the microbiological success rate (RR =1.00, 95% CI =0.95–1.06, P=0.92) between the daptomycin and comparator groups for treating SSTIs, which was confirmed by TSA. Compared with vancomycin, daptomycin exhibited no advantage in increasing the clinical success rate (RR =1.03, 95% CI =0.95–1.13, P=0.47), and this was also confirmed by TSA. All-cause mortality, overall treatment-related adverse events, and creatine phosphokinase events were similar between these two groups.

Conclusion

Daptomycin and comparator drugs are equally efficacious with regard to clinical and microbiological success for patients with SSTIs, and TSA showed that no additional randomized controlled trials are required. Although daptomycin is a good alternative when other antibiotics are contraindicated for patients with SSTIs and it can serve as a first-line treatment for SSTIs, clinicians should be aware of potential adverse events, such as daptomycin-induced acute eosinophilic pneumonia and creatine phosphokinase, when treating patients with daptomycin.