Dataset Information

Single-Dose Oritavancin Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: SOLO Trial Efficacy by Eron Severity and Management Setting.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Introduction of new antibiotics enabling single-dose administration, such as oritavancin may significantly impact site of care decisions for patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). This analysis compared the efficacy of single-dose oritavancin with multiple-dose vancomycin in patients categorized according to disease severity via modified Eron classification and management setting.

Methods

SOLO I and II were phase 3 studies evaluating single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin for treatment of ABSSSI. Patient characteristics were collected at baseline and retrospectively analyzed. Study protocols were amended, allowing outpatient management at the discretion of investigators. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to a modified Eron severity classification and management setting (outpatient vs. inpatient) and the efficacy compared.

Results

Overall, 1910 patients in the SOLO trials were categorized into Class I (520, 26.5%), II (790, 40.3%), and III (600, 30.6%). Of the 767 patients (40%) in the SOLO trials who were managed entirely in the outpatient setting 40.3% were categorized as Class II and 30.6% were Class III. Clinical efficacy was similar between oritavancin and vancomycin treatment groups, regardless of severity classification and across inpatient and outpatient settings. Class III patients had lower response rates (oritavancin 73.3%, vancomycin 76.6%) at early clinical evaluation when compared to patients in Class I (82.6%) or II (86.1%); however, clinical cure rates at the post-therapy evaluation were similar for Class III patients (oritavancin 79.8%, vancomycin 79.9%) when compared to Class I and II patients (79.1-85.7%).

Conclusion

Single-dose oritavancin therapy results in efficacy comparable to multiple-dose vancomycin in patients categorized according to modified Eron disease severity classification regardless of whether management occurred in the inpatient or outpatient setting.

Funding

The Medicines Company, Parsippany, NJ, USA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01252719 (SOLO I) and NCT01252732 (SOLO II).

SUBMITTER: Deck DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5019975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveNearly 10% of all US hospital admissions are attributed to acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). While most antibacterials used to treat these infections require multi-day and multi-dose regimens, a single-dose treatment is now available. The objective of this analysis is to estimate the annual budget impact of using single-dose oritavancin in patients with moderate to severe ABSSSIs receiving intravenous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-active antibacterials from a US hospital perspective.MethodsA decision-analytic model based on current clinical practice was developed to estimate the economic impact of oritavancin. Utilization of antibacterials and rates of hospital admission were derived from the Premier Research Database. Demographic and clinical data were informed by the published literature and 2014 wholesale drug acquisition costs were used. Other costs were based on the published literature and Medicare National Limitation amounts. All costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars. Two base-case scenarios were considered: one for hospitals with ambulatory services and one for hospitals without ambulatory services.ResultsFor a US hospital with ambulatory services with 1000 ABSSSI patients receiving intravenous MRSA antibiotics annually, use of oritavancin in 26% of patients is estimated to reduce the total annual budget by 12.9% (US$1.23 million), or approximately US$1234.67 per patient. Total inpatient costs will be reduced by 22.3% (US$1.40 million) and outpatient costs will increase slightly by 1.7% (US$55,310). Pharmaceutical cost increases are offset by savings in the inpatient setting from fewer hospital admissions. Hospitals without ambulatory services are estimated to receive overall cost savings of 9.3% (US$0.63 million).ConclusionUse of single-dose oritavancin in select ABSSSI patients with suspected or confirmed MRSA involvement is estimated to save US hospitals approximately 9.3-12.9% per year by reducing hospital admissions and lowering drug administration burden.

Project description:BackgroundOritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with in vitro bactericidal activity against gram-positive pathogens indicated for use in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Its concentration-dependent activity and prolonged half-life provide a convenient single-dose alternative to multi-dose daily therapies for ABSSSI. This retrospective cohort study was conducted to quantify the clinical and economic advantages of using oritavancin compared to other antibiotic agents that have been historically effective for ABSSSI.MethodsSeventy-nine patients received oritavancin who had failed previous outpatient antibiotic therapy (OPAT) for cellulitis or abscess and were subsequently readmitted to the hospital as an inpatient between 2016 and 2018. These patients were compared to a cohort of 28 patients receiving other antibiotics following OPAT failure and subsequent hospitalization for these two infection types. The primary clinical end point was average length of stay (aLOS) and secondary endpoints included readmission rates for the same indication at 30 and 90 days after discharge and the average hospital cost (aHC).ResultsA total of 107 patients were hospitalized for treatment of cellulitis or abscess. Demographic characteristics of both the oritavancin and comparator groups were similar except for the presence of diabetes. The primary clinical endpoint showed a non-significant decrease in aLOS between the oritavancin group versus comparator (2.12 days versus 2.59 days; p = 0.097). The secondary endpoints revealed lower readmission rates associated with oritavancin treatment at 30 and 90 days; the average hospital cost was 5.9% lower for patients that received oritavancin.ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that oritavancin provides not only a single-dose alternative to multi-day therapies for skin and skin structure infections, but also a clinical and economic advantage compared to other antibiotic agents.

Project description:BackgroundOritavancin, a long-acting lipoglycopeptide approved for use in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, has limited data evaluating use in serious infections due to Gram-positive organisms. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of oritavancin for consolidative treatment of Gram-positive bloodstream infections (BSI), including infective endocarditis (IE).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study evaluating adult patients admitted to University of Colorado Hospital from March 2016 to January 2022 who received ≥ 1 oritavancin dose for treatment of Gram-positive BSI. Patients were excluded if the index culture was drawn at an outside facility or were > 89 years of age. The primary outcome was a 90-day composite failure (clinical or microbiological failure) in those with 90-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, acute kidney injury (AKI), infusion-related reactions (IRR), and institutional cost avoidance.ResultsOverall, 72 patients were included. Mean ± SD age was 54 ± 16 years, 61% were male, and 10% had IE. Organisms most commonly causing BSI were Staphylococcus aureus (68%, 17% methicillin-resistant), followed by Streptococcus spp. (26%), and Enterococcus spp. (10%). Patients received standard-of-care antibiotics before oritavancin for a median (IQR) of 11 (5-17) days. Composite failure in the clinically evaluable population (n = 64) at 90-days occurred in 14% and was composed of clinical and microbiological failure, which occurred in 14% and 5% of patients, respectively. Three patients (4%) experienced AKI after oritavancin, and two (3%) experienced an IRR. Oritavancin utilization resulted in earlier discharge for 94% of patients corresponding to an institutional cost-avoidance of $3,055,804 (mean $44,938/patient) from 1,102 hospital days saved (mean 16 days/patient).ConclusionsThe use of oritavancin may be an effective sequential therapy for Gram-positive BSI to facilitate early discharge resulting in institutional cost avoidance.

Project description:BackgroundDelafloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone with broad antibacterial activity against pathogens causing acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy of delafloxacin versus other comparators used for managing patients with ABSSSI.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating adults (≥ 18 years) with ABSSSI, complicated SSSI (cSSSI), complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) or severe cellulitis with pathogen of gram-positive, gram-negative, or mixed aetiology. OVID MEDLINE®, Embase, Epub Ahead of Print, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception through 12 April 2019. A feasibility assessment was conducted, followed by an NMA, which was run in a Bayesian framework. The interventions included in the NMA encompassed monotherapy or combination therapies of amoxicillin/clavulanate, ampicillin/sulbactam, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, daptomycin, delafloxacin, fusidic acid, iclaprim, linezolid, omadacycline, oxacillin + dicloxacillin, standard therapy, tedizolid, telavancin, tigecycline, vancomycin, vancomycin + aztreonam and vancomycin + linezolid.ResultsA feasibility assessment was performed and evidence networks were established for composite clinical response (n = 34 studies), early clinical response (n = 16 studies) and microbiological response (n = 14 studies) in the overall study population, composite clinical response (n = 4 studies) in obese subpopulation and for composite clinical response (n = 18 studies) and microbiological response (n = 14 studies) in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Delafloxacin performed significantly better than fusidic acid, iclaprim, vancomycin, and ceftobiprole for composite clinical response. Delafloxacin was comparable to dalbavancin, daptomycin, fusidic acid, iclaprim, linezolid, omadacycline, tedizolid, vancomycin, vancomycin + aztreonam and vancomycin + linezolid in the analysis of early clinical response, whereas for microbiological response, delafloxacin was comparable to all interventions. In the obese subpopulation, the results favoured delafloxacin in comparison to vancomycin, whilst the results were comparable with other interventions among the MRSA subpopulation.ConclusionsDelafloxacin is a promising new antibiotic for ABSSSI demonstrating greater improvement (composite clinical response) compared to ceftobiprole, fusidic acid, iclaprim, telavancin and vancomycin and comparable effectiveness versus standard of care for all outcomes considered in the study.

Project description:IntroductionAcute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) represent one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits, and are frequent complications of intravenous drug use in persons who inject drugs (PWID). This study examined the efficacy and safety of omadacycline, versus linezolid, in PWID and persons who do not inject drugs, in the Phase 3 Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infection (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) studies.MethodsEligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years with qualifying skin infections: wound infection, cellulitis, erysipelas, or major abscess. The primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as survival with ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at 48-72 h after the first dose of omadacycline or linezolid. Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation (PTE) in the mITT and clinical per-protocol populations, and clinical response at PTE in the micro-mITT population. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and standard clinical laboratory tests. Efficacy endpoints of clinical response at ECR and PTE were analyzed for the mITT and clinically evaluable (CE) PTE populations.ResultsIn total, 1380 patients (822 PWID, 558 non-PWID) were included in this secondary analysis. Wound infections were reported more frequently in the PWID subgroup (72.8%) at baseline; cellulitis or erysipelas (43.9%) and major abscess (37.4%) were the most frequently reported baseline infections in the non-PWID subgroup. Clinical success rates at ECR and PTE in the mITT population, and at PTE in the CE population, were high for patients receiving omadacycline or linezolid. Severe or serious treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were infrequent.ConclusionThis subgroup analysis showed that omadacycline was effective and well tolerated, regardless of PWID status.