Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Results from previous trials suggest that daptomycin may result in faster clinical improvement than penicillinase-resistant penicillins or vancomycin for patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections.Objective
The objective was to evaluate whether daptomycin treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas would result in faster resolution compared with vancomycin.Design
The study was a prospective, evaluator-blinded, multi-centre trial. Patients were randomised to receive daptomycin 4 mg/kg once daily or vancomycin according to standard of care for 7-14 days.Patients
Adults diagnosed with cellulitis or erysipelas requiring hospitalisation and intravenous antibiotic therapy were eligible for enrolment.Results
The clinical success rates were 94.0% for daptomycin and 90.2% for vancomycin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -6.7%, 14.3%). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms in the time to resolution or improvement in any of the predefined clinical end-points. Both daptomycin and vancomycin were well tolerated.Conclusions
There was no difference in the rate of resolution of cellulitis or erysipelas among patients treated with daptomycin or vancomycin. Daptomycin 4 mg/kg once daily appeared to be effective and safe for treating cellulitis or erysipelas.
SUBMITTER: Pertel PE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2705813 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Pertel P E PE Eisenstein B I BI Link A S AS Donfrid B B Biermann E J A EJ Bernardo P P Martone W J WJ
International journal of clinical practice 20090301 3
<h4>Background</h4>Results from previous trials suggest that daptomycin may result in faster clinical improvement than penicillinase-resistant penicillins or vancomycin for patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective was to evaluate whether daptomycin treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas would result in faster resolution compared with vancomycin.<h4>Design</h4>The study was a prospective, evaluator-blinded, multi-centre trial. Patients were rando ...[more]