Dataset Information

Oral minocycline plus rifampicin versus oral linezolid for complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: The AIDA open label, randomized, controlled Phase 4 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The need for oral, cost-effective treatment for complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was addressed by the non-inferiority comparisons of oral minocycline plus rifampicin with linezolid.

Methods

In the AIDA multicenter, open label, randomized, controlled clinical trial, hospitalized adults with cSSSI and documented MRSA were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to either oral 600 mg rifampicin qd plus 100 mg minocycline bid or oral 600 mg linezolid bid for 10 days. The primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate in the clinically evaluable (CE) population at the test-of-cure visit (14 days). Non-inferiority was confirmed if the lower confidence limit (CI) did not fall below the accepted error margin of 15%. The study is registered with EudraCT number 2014-001276-56.

Findings

123 patients recruited between November 2014 and January 2017 were randomly assigned to treatment (81 patients to minocycline plus rifampicin and 42 patients to linezolid). Cure rates were 78.% (46/59, 90% CI 67.3-86.5) and 68.6% (24/35, 90% CI 53.4-81.3), respectively (P = 0.337). The percent difference in cure rates was 9.4% (90% CI -7.2 to 26.8%). Minocycline plus rifampicin combination was deemed non-inferior to linezolid as the lower CI was -7.2% i.e. smaller than the accepted error margin of -15%. Although statistically not significant, the overall rate of adverse events was higher in the linezolid group (47.6%, 20/42 versus 38.3%, 31/81).

Interpretation

Oral minocycline plus rifampicin was non-inferior to oral linezolid treatment providing alternative oral treatment for cSSSI.

Funding

The EU Seventh Research Framework Programme.

SUBMITTER: Kotsaki A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9813692 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oral minocycline plus rifampicin versus oral linezolid for complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>: The AIDA open label, randomized, controlled Phase 4 trial.

Kotsaki Antigone A Tziolos Nikolaos N Kontopoulou Theano T Koutelidakis Ioannis M IM Symbardi Styliani S Reed Vaughan V O'Hare Miriam M Alexiou Zoi Z Sambatakou Helen H Toutouzas Konstantinos K Akinosoglou Karolina K Lada Malvina M Giamarellos-Bourboulis Evangelos J EJ MacGowan Alasdair A

EClinicalMedicine 20221226

<h4>Background</h4>The need for oral, cost-effective treatment for complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) due to methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) was addressed by the non-inferiority comparisons of oral minocycline plus rifampicin with linezolid.<h4>Methods</h4>In the AIDA multicenter, open label, randomized, controlled clinical trial, hospitalized adults with cSSSI and documented MRSA were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to either oral 600 mg rifampici ...[more]

PMID: 36618892

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAppropriate oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) is a challenge, as current oral treatment guidelines do not fully cover the most common skin pathogens. Both linezolid and omadacycline are available as intravenous or bioequivalent oral formulations.Materials and methodsThis post hoc analysis of the OASIS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02378480) and OASIS-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02877927) phase 3 trials assessed safety and clinical efficacy of intravenous (IV)-start versus oral (PO)-start therapy in patients treated with omadacycline or linezolid for ABSSSI. In OASIS-1, patients were randomized to IV omadacycline or linezolid, with optional switch to oral therapy, while patients in OASIS-2 received oral omadacycline or linezolid. Treatment was provided for 7-14 days in both studies. The primary endpoint was an early clinical response (ECR) at 48 to 72 h, defined as survival and ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size, without rescue antibacterial therapy.ResultsA total of 645 IV-start inpatients and 735 PO-start outpatients were assessed. Median age was 47 years for the IV-start group and 44 years for the PO-start group. Most patients had solely gram-positive infections (97% in each group; ECR [85.2% IV-start and 85.0% PO-start]), and the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was similar between the groups. The most frequent AEs observed were nausea (11.2% [IV-start] versus 18.9% [PO-start]) and subcutaneous abscess (5.6% [IV-start] versus 1.9% [PO-start]). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent in both groups (2% [IV-start] versus 1.2% [PO-start]).ConclusionOral therapy is equally efficacious to IV therapy when omadacycline or linezolid is used to treat ABSSSIs. These data strengthen the evidence for oral omadacycline as a therapeutic option for ABSSSI, particularly for patients who have experienced treatment failure because of the limitations of other therapies.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02378480 and NCT02877927.

Project description:BackgroundWe concurrently developed a prospective study to assess clinical outcomes among patients receiving 9-month bedaquiline (BDQ)-containing regimens, aiming to provide valuable data on the use of this short-course regimen in China.MethodsThis open-label, randomized, controlled, multicenter, non-inferiority trial was conducted at sixteen hospitals, and enrolled participants aged 18 years and older with pulmonary rifampicin/multidrug tuberculosis. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio. Individuals within the standard-regimen group received 6 months of BDQ, linezolid, levofloxacin, clofazimine, and cycloserine plus 12 months of levofloxacin, and any three potentially effective drugs from clofazimine, cycloserine pyrazinamide, ethambutol and protionamide, whereas individuals within shorter-regimen group received 9 months of BDQ, linezolid, levofloxacin, clofazimine and cycloserine. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with a composite unfavorable outcome (treatment failure, death, treatment discontinuation, or loss to follow-up) by the end of the treatment course after randomization in the modified intention-to-treat population. The noninferiority margin was 10%. This trial was registered with www.chictr.org.cn , ChiCTR2000029012.ResultsBetween Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2023, 264 were screened and randomly assigned, 132 of 264 participants were assigned to the standard-regimen group and 132 were assigned to the shorter-regimen. Thirty-three (12.55%) of 264 participants were excluded from the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As a result, 231 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (116 in the standard-regimen group and 115 in the shorter-regimen group).In the modified intention-to-treat population, unfavorable outcomes were reported in 19 (16.5%) of 115 participants for whom the outcome was assessable in the shorter-regimen group and 26 (22.4%) of 116 participants in the standard care group (risk difference 5.9 percentage points (97.5% CI - 5.8 to 17.5)). One death was reported in the standard-regimen group. The incidence of QTcF prolongation in the shorter-regimen group (22.6%, 26/115) was similar to the standard-regimen group (24.1%, 28/116).ConclusionsThe 9-month, all-oral regimen is safe and efficacious for the treatment of pulmonary rifampicin/multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The high incidence of QTc prolongation associated with the use of BDQ highlights the urgent need of routine electrocardiogram monitoring under treatment with BDQ-containing regimens in the Chinese population.

Project description:The search for new macrofilaricidal drugs against onchocerciasis that can be administered in shorter regimens than required for doxycycline (DOX, 200mg/d given for 4-6 weeks), identified minocycline (MIN) with superior efficacy to DOX. Further reduction in the treatment regimen may be achieved with co-administration with standard anti-filarial drugs. Therefore a randomized, open-label, pilot trial was carried out in an area in Ghana endemic for onchocerciasis, comprising 5 different regimens: the standard regimen DOX 200mg/d for 4 weeks (DOX 4w, N = 33), the experimental regimens MIN 200mg/d for 3 weeks (MIN 3w; N = 30), DOX 200mg/d for 3 weeks plus albendazole (ALB) 800mg/d for 3 days (DOX 3w + ALB 3d, N = 32), DOX 200mg/d for 3 weeks (DOX 3w, N = 31) and ALB 800mg for 3 days (ALB 3d, N = 30). Out of 158 randomized participants, 116 (74.4%) were present for the follow-up at 6 months of whom 99 participants (63.5%) followed the treatment per protocol and underwent surgery. Histological analysis of the adult worms in the extirpated nodules revealed absence of Wolbachia in 98.8% (DOX 4w), 81.4% (DOX 3w + ALB 3d), 72.7% (MIN 3w), 64.1% (DOX 3w) and 35.2% (ALB 3d) of the female worms. All 4 treatment regimens showed superiority to ALB 3d (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.008, respectively), which was confirmed by real-time PCR. Additionally, DOX 4w showed superiority to all other treatment arms. Furthermore DOX 4w and DOX 3w + ALB 3d showed a higher amount of female worms with degenerated embryogenesis compared to ALB 3d (p = 0.028, p = 0.042, respectively). These results confirm earlier studies that DOX 4w is sufficient for Wolbachia depletion and the desired parasitological effects. The data further suggest that there is an additive effect of ALB (3 days) on top of that of DOX alone, and that MIN shows a trend for stronger potency than DOX. These latter two results are preliminary and need confirmation in a fully randomized controlled phase 2 trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov #06010453.