Format

Send to

Choose Destination
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380(6):528-538. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800170.

Omadacycline for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin-Structure Infections.

Author information

1
From eStudySite, San Diego (W.O., J.S.O.), and AD Stats Consulting, Guerneville (A.F.D.) - both in California; First Choice Emergency Room, Austin, TX (S.G.); University Hospital for Infectious Diseases "Dr. F. Mihaljević," Zagreb, Croatia (I.P.); AHEPA University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (S.M.); Riga Stradins University, Paula Stradins Clinical Hospital, Riga, Latvia (J.G.); and Paratek Pharmaceuticals, King of Prussia, PA (L.G.-R., E.T., P.B.E., A.M., S.A.V., J.N.S., E.L.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections are associated with substantial morbidity and health care costs. Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic that can be administered once daily either orally or intravenously, is active against pathogens that commonly cause such infections, including antibiotic-resistant strains.

METHODS:

In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive omadacycline (100 mg given intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg given intravenously every 24 hours) or linezolid (600 mg given intravenously every 12 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or oral linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was an early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours, defined as survival with a reduction in lesion size of at least 20% without rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was an investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation 7 to 14 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as survival with resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms of infection to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. For both end points, the noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points.

RESULTS:

In the modified intention-to-treat population, omadacycline (316 patients) was noninferior to linezolid (311 patients) with respect to early clinical response (rate of response, 84.8% and 85.5%, respectively; difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3 to 4.9). Omadacycline also was noninferior to linezolid with respect to investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation in the modified intention-to-treat population (rate of response, 86.1% and 83.6%, respectively; difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.2 to 8.2) and in the clinical per-protocol population (96.3% and 93.5%, respectively; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 6.9). In both groups, the efficacy of the trial drug was similar for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Adverse events were reported in 48.3% of the patients in the omadacycline group and in 45.7% of those in the linezolid group; the most frequent adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal (in 18.0% and 15.8% of the patients in the respective groups).

CONCLUSIONS:

Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and had a similar safety profile. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OASIS-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02378480 .).

Comment in

PMID:
30726689
DOI:
10.1056/NEJMoa1800170
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center