ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2020
Retrospective Real-World Evaluation of Outcomes in Patients with Skin and Soft Structure Infections Treated with Tedizolid in an Outpatient Setting.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world effectiveness of omadacycline and impact of unapproved omadacycline prescription claims among adult outpatients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia or acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Tedizolid.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Review
- Use of oral tetracyclines in the treatment of adult outpatients with skin and skin structure infections: Focus on doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline.Pharmacotherapy · 2021Review
- Emerging Treatment Options for Multi-Drug-Resistant Bacterial Infections.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Long-Term Use of Tedizolid in Osteoarticular Infections: Benefits among Oxazolidinone Drugs.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOutcomes data for patients who received tedizolid for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) are scant. We provide a real-world analysis of economic and clinical outcomes following tedizolid use in the outpatient setting.
methodsThis retrospective study of adults with skin infections treated with tedizolid (index period: 1 July 2014-31 May 2016) used data from the Optum Research and Impact National Benchmark databases.
resultsNinety-one patients received tedizolid for the treatment of skin infections (with complications, n = 18; without complications, n = 73). Some patients had > 1 complication and infection site. Among patients with complications, pre-index complications during the [index date - 30] through [index date + 1] period included osteomyelitis (44.4%), septicemia (44.4%), and prosthetic joint/device/graft infection (16.7%). For the [index date - 7] through [index date + 1] period, the infection site included abscesses (55.6%) and chronic ulcers (38.9%). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) days supplied for the index tedizolid claim was 6.8 (2.3) days. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) during the 30-day post-index period included ≥ 1 ambulatory visit (100.0%), ≥ 1 emergency department (ED) visit (16.7%), and ≥ 1 hospitalization (22.2%). Median 30-day post-index all-cause costs were $11,098 [lower quartile (Q
conclusionsPatients treated with tedizolid in the outpatient setting experienced a short duration of therapy, low hospital admission, and modest post-index HCRU indicators, suggesting its utility for outpatient therapy of ABSSSIs.
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.