Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Fredrick M Abrahamian, George Sakoulas, Evan Tzanis, Amy Manley, Judith Steenbergen, Anita F Das, Paul B Eckburg, Paul C McGovern, Fredrick M Abrahamian, George Sakoulas, Evan Tzanis, Amy Manley, Judith Steenbergen, Anita F Das, Paul B Eckburg, Paul C McGovern

Abstract

Background: Within the last decade, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a frequent cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options are being investigated for these infections.

Methods: We report an integrated analysis of 2 randomized, controlled studies involving omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline, and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study 1 (OASIS-1) initiated patients on intravenous omadacycline or linezolid, with the option to transition to an oral formulation after day 3. OASIS-2 was an oral-only study of omadacycline versus linezolid.

Results: In total, 691 patients received omadacycline and 689 patients received linezolid. Infection types included wound infection in 46.8% of patients, cellulitis/erysipelas in 30.5%, and major abscess in 22.7%. Pathogens were identified in 73.2% of patients. S. aureus was detected in 74.7% and MRSA in 32.4% of patients in whom a pathogen was identified. Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid using the Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint of early clinical response (86.2% vs 83.9%; difference 2.3, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 6.2) and using the European Medicines Agency primary endpoint of investigator-assessed clinical response at the posttreatment evaluation. Clinical responses were similar across different infection types and infections caused by different pathogens. Treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly described as mild or moderate, were reported by 51.1% of patients receiving omadacycline and 41.2% of those receiving linezolid.

Conclusions: Omadacycline was effective and safe in ABSSSI.

Clinical trials registration: NCT02378480 and NCT02877927.

Keywords: MRSA; acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections; omadacycline; skin infection; tetracyclines.

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Disposition of patients enrolled in OASIS-1 and OASIS-2. Abbreviations: CE, clinically evaluable; ITT, intent-to-treat; ME, microbiologically evaluable; micro-mITT, all mITT patients with ≥1 causative pathogen; mITT, modified ITT; OASIS, Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Forest plots for US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency endpoints in different analysis populations show that omadacycline had statistically similar outcomes to linezolid. Abbreviations: CE, clinically evaluable; CI, confidence interval; ECR, early clinical response; ME, microbiologically evaluable; micro-mITT, all mITT patients with ≥1 causative pathogen; mITT, modified intent-to-treat; PTE, posttreatment evaluation.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Reduction in lesion size from baseline to posttreatment evaluation in mITT population: A, OASIS-1 intravenous to oral study; B, OASIS-2 oral-only study; and C, combined data from OASIS-1 and OASIS-2. In all graphs, omadacycline shows a similar trend to linezolid in lesion size over the study duration. Error bars represent the standard error. Lines are offset horizontally to better visualize the data points. Abbreviations: EOT, end of treatment; mITT, modified intent-to-treat; OASIS, Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study; PTE, posttreatment evaluation; SE, standard error.

References

    1. Ray GT, Suaya JA, Baxter R. Incidence, microbiology, and patient characteristics of skin and soft-tissue infections in a US population: a retrospective population-based study. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13:252. PMID: 23721377.
    1. Pulido-Cejudo A, Guzmán-Gutierrez M, Jalife-Montaño A, et al. . Management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections with a focus on patients at high risk of treatment failure. Ther Adv Infect Dis 2017; 4:143–61.
    1. Zervos MJ, Freeman K, Vo L, et al. . Epidemiology and outcomes of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalized patients. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50:238–45.
    1. Carey CF, Dall L. Diagnosis of cellulitis in the immunocompromised host. Can J Infect Dis 1990; 1:133–5.
    1. Yanai H, Hamasaki H, Tsuda N, et al. . Group B streptococcus infection and diabetes: a review. J Microbiol Antimicrob 2012; 4:1–5.
    1. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. . Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:147–59.
    1. International Working Group on the Classification of Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome Elements Classification of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec): guidelines for reporting novel SCCmec elements. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:4961–7.
    1. Maranan MC, Moreira B, Boyle-Vavra S, Daum RS. Antimicrobial resistance in staphylococci. Epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, and clinical relevance. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997; 11:813–49.
    1. Dukic VM, Lauderdale DS, Wilder J, Daum RS, David MZ. Epidemics of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States: a meta-analysis. PLOS One 2013; 8:e52722.
    1. Landrum ML, Neumann C, Cook C, et al. . Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus blood and skin and soft tissue infections in the US military health system, 2005–2010. JAMA 2012; 308:50–9.
    1. Hultén KG, Mason EO, Lamberth LB, Forbes AR, Revell PA, Kaplan SL. Analysis of invasive community-acquired methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections during a period of declining community acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections at a large children’s hospital. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2018; 37:235–41.
    1. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: developing drugs for treatment. Silver Spring, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 2013.
    1. Falcone M, Concia E, Giusti M, et al. . Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in internal medicine wards: old and new drugs. Intern Emerg Med 2016; 11:637–48.
    1. Stets R, Popescu M, Gonong JR, et al. . Omadacycline for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:517–27.
    1. Tanaka SK, Steenbergen J, Villano S. Discovery, pharmacology, and clinical profile of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline antibiotic. Bioorg Med Chem 2016; 24:6409–19.
    1. Macone AB, Caruso BK, Leahy RG, et al. . In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:1127–35.
    1. O’Riordan W, Green S, Overcash JS, et al. . Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:528–38.
    1. O’Riordan W, Cardenas C, Sirbu A, et al. . A Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multi-centre study to compare the safety and efficacy of oral omadacycline to oral linezolid for treating adult subjects with ABSSSI (OASIS-2 study). In: Program and abstracts of the 28th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (Madrid, Spain). 2018. Presentation O0425.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Addendum to the guideline on the evaluation of medicinal products indicated for treatment of bacterial infections [document EMA/CHMP/351889/2013]. 2013. Available at: . Accessed 7 June 2019.
    1. Miettinen O, Nurminen M. Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985; 4:213–26.
    1. Balk RA. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS): where did it come from and is it still relevant today? Virulence 2014; 5:20–6.
    1. Heta S, Robo I. The side effects of the most commonly used group of antibiotics in periodontal treatments. Med Sci 2018; 6:6. PMID: 30720776.
    1. Pfaller MA, Huband MD, Shortridge D, Flamm RK. Surveillance of omadacycline activity tested against clinical isolates from the United States and Europe as part of the 2016 SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018; 62:pii: e02327-17.
    1. Stapert L, Wolfe C, Shinabarger D, Marra A, Pillar C. In vitro activities of omadacycline and comparators against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018; 62:pii: e00047-18.
    1. Lodise TP, Fan W, Sulham KA. Hospital admission patterns in adult patients with skin and soft tissue infections: identification of potentially avoidable hospital admissions through a retrospective database analysis. Hosp Pract (1995) 2015; 43:137–43.
    1. Verastegui JE, Hamada Y, Nicolau DP. Transitions of care in the management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a paradigm shift. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2016; 9:1039–45.
    1. Pollack CV Jr, Amin A, Ford WT Jr, et al. . Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): practice guidelines for management and care transitions in the emergency department and hospital. J Emerg Med 2015; 48:508–19.
    1. Suaya JA, Mera RM, Cassidy A, et al. . Incidence and cost of hospitalizations associated with Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections in the United States from 2001 through 2009. BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14:296. PMID: 24889406.
    1. LaPensee K, Lodise T. Potential cost-savings with once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic versus vancomycin in hospitalized patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Am Health Drug Benefits 2018; 11:449–59.
    1. Kaye KS, Patel DA, Stephens JM, Khachatryan A, Patel A, Johnson K. Rising United States hospital admissions for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: recent trends and economic impact. PLOS One 2015; 10:e0143276.
    1. Edelsberg J, Taneja C, Zervos M, et al. . Trends in US hospital admissions for skin and soft tissue infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15:1516–8.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel