Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30988146›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2019

Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection.

Xiaoju Lv, Jeff Alder, Li Li, William O'Riordan, Michael J Rybak, Hui Ye, Ruiping Zhang, Zhongqi Zhang, Xu Zhu, Mark H Wilcox

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Linezolid-associated serotonin toxicity: a systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. New Antibiotics forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Xiaoju LvCentre of Infectious Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China lvxj3369@163.com.
Jeff AlderBayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, New Jersey, USA.
Li LiBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
William O'RiordaneStudy Site, Inc., San Diego, California, USA.
Michael J RybakEugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Hui YeCentre of Infectious Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ruiping ZhangBayer HealthCare, Beijing, China.
Zhongqi ZhangBayer HealthCare, Beijing, China.
Xu ZhuBayer HealthCare, Beijing, China.
Mark H WilcoxLeeds Teaching Hospitals and University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Bayer (China) · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNBayer (Germany) · DEBayer (United States) · USEugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences · USLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. twice daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was early clinical response rate at 48 to 72 h. Secondary endpoints included programmatic and investigator-assessed outcomes at end-of-therapy (EOT) and posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visits. Safety was also evaluated. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 75.3% of tedizolid-treated patients and 79.9% of linezolid-treated patients were early responders (treatment difference, -4.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.2, 2.2). After exclusion of patients who never received the study drug (tedizolid,

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrganophosphatesOxazolesSkinSkin Diseases, BacterialYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsOrganophosphatesOxazolestedizolid phosphateacute bacterial skin and skin structure infectionAsian patientsChinese patientslinezolidmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusoxazolidinonerandomized controlled phase 3 trialtedizolid phosphate

Identifiers

PMID30988146
PMCPMC6591607
OpenAlexW2935712984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.