ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2018
Real-Life Evidence for Tedizolid Phosphate in the Treatment of Cellulitis and Wound Infections: A Case Series.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Trial
- Tedizolid: a service evaluation in a large UK teaching hospital.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Retrospective Real-World Evaluation of Outcomes in Patients with Skin and Soft Structure Infections Treated with Tedizolid in an Outpatient Setting.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTedizolid phosphate 200 mg, once daily for 6 days, has recently been approved for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in several countries; however, clinical experience in real-life settings is currently limited. Here, we report on the use of tedizolid with an extended treatment duration for complex and severe ABSSSIs in real-world clinical settings.
methodsTwo patients with cellulitis and two patients with surgical site infection (SSI), aged 26-60 years, were treated with tedizolid phosphate 200 mg, intravenous/oral (IV/PO) or IV only, once daily at four different institutions.
resultsTwo morbidly obese patients had non-necrotizing, non-purulent severe cellulitis, which were complicated by sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus myositis. One female patient failed on first-line empiric therapy with IV cefalotin, clindamycin and imipenem (3-4 days), and was switched to IV/PO tedizolid (7 + 5 days). One male patient received IV clindamycin plus IV/PO tedizolid (5 + 5 days), but clindamycin was discontinued on Day 3 due to an adverse event. For both patients, clinical signs and symptoms improved within 72 h, and laboratory results were normalized by Days 7 and 8, respectively. Two other patients (one obese, diabetic female with chronic hepatitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) had complicated SSIs occurring 10 days after hernia repair with mesh or 3 months after spinal fusion surgery with metal implant. First patient with previous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia received a 7-day tedizolid IV course empirically. The second patient with culture-confirmed MRSA infection received a 14-day IV course. Both patients responded within 72 h, and local and systemic signs normalized by end of treatment. There were no reports of thrombocytopenia.
conclusionTedizolid phosphate 200 mg for 7-14 days was a favored treatment option for patients with severe/complex ABSSSIs, and was effective following previous treatment failure or in late-onset infections.
fundingEditorial assistance and the article processing charges were funded by Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.