ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2018
Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid and Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Injection Drug Users: Analysis of Two Clinical Trials.
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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of 6-Day Oral TR-701 Free Acid and 10-Day Oral Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections
A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IV to Oral 6-Day TR-701 Free Acid and IV to Oral 10-Day Linezolid for the Treatment of ABSSSI
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Trial
- Article
- Optimizing Antibiotic Therapy for Intravenous Drug Users: A Narrative Review Unraveling Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics Challenges.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2024Review
- A Cross-sectional Analysis of Linezolid in Combination with Methadone or Buprenorphine as a Cause of Serotonin Toxicity.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of Stability-Indicating Assay Method for a Novel Oxazolidinone (PH-192) with Anticonvulsant Activity by Using UHPLC-QToF-MS.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.Core evidence · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInjection drug users (IDUs) often develop acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and use emergency departments as their primary source for medical care.
methodsA post hoc subgroup analysis of two randomized trials examined the efficacy and safety of tedizolid in the treatment of ABSSSI in IDUs. IDUs (n = 389) were identified from two pooled phase 3 trials (NCT01170221, NCT01421511) in patients with ABSSSI (n = 1333). Patients were randomly assigned to tedizolid phosphate (200 mg once daily, 6 days) or linezolid (600 mg twice daily, 10 days). Primary endpoint was ≥ 20% reduction in lesion area from baseline at 48 -72 h. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical and microbiological response at the post-therapy evaluation (PTE).
resultsWound infection was more common in IDUs (52.2%), while cellulitis/erysipelas was more common in non-IDUs (55.9%). Most infections were due to Staphylococcus aureus (IDUs, 75.2%; non-IDUs, 85.6%), while oral pathogens were more prevalent in IDUs. Early clinical success rates for tedizolid and linezolid were 82.5% and 79.6% in IDUs and 81.3% and 79.3% for non-IDUs, respectively; responses at PTE were similar. Microbiological response per pathogen was similar between treatment groups. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in IDUs were comparable between tedizolid (46.2%) and linezolid (47.8%) arms, while lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was observed with tedizolid (20.3%) than with linezolid (25.1%).
conclusionEfficacy and safety of tedizolid and linezolid in the treatment of ABSSSI was similar in IDUs and non-IDUs, supporting the use of oxazolidinones in treating ABSSSIs in IDUs.
fundingMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
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.