Comparative efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

References

• Hersch AL, Chambers HF, Maselli JH, et al. National trends in ambulatory visits and antibiotic prescribing for skin and soft-tissue infections. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1585-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray GT, Suaya JA, Baxter R. Incidence, microbiology, and patient characteristics of skin and soft-tissue infections in a U.S. population: a retrospective population-based study. BMC Infect Dis 2013;13:252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corey GR, Kabler H, Mehra P, et al. Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. New Engl J Med 2014;370:2180-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landrum ML, Neumann C, Cook C, et al. Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus blood and skin and soft tissue infections in the US military health system, 2005-2010. JAMA 2012;308:50-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. Guidance for industry acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: developing drugs for treatment. Food and Drug Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Shor AF. Epidemiology and economic impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: review and analysis of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25:751-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logman JF, Heeg B, Haider S, et al. Comparative effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:1565-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryden M. Complicated skin and soft tissue infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65(Suppl 3):iii35-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox MH. The tide of antimicrobial resistance and selection. J Antimicrob Agents 2009;34(Suppl 3):S6-10
   Google Scholar
• Nathwani D. New antibiotics for the management of complicated skin and soft tissue infections: are they any better? Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009;34:S24-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ, et al. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998–2004). Diagnost Microb Infect Dis 2007;57:7-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang SH, Hu JT, Zhang C, et al. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin versus other antibiotics for skin and soft-tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004744
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clinl Infect Dis 2011;52:e18-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:1373-406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckmann C, Dryden M. Treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by resistant bacteria: value of Linezolid, Tigecycline, Daptomycin and Vancomycin. Eur J Medl Res 2010;15:554-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itani KM, Dryden MS, Bhattacharyya H, et al. Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2010;199:804-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corey R, Wikler M, Moeck G, et al. Single-dose oritavancin compared to 7–10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections; the SOLO II study. 53rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC). Denver, Colorado, USA, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Boucher HW, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, et al. DISCOVER 1: A randomized, double-blind study of Dalbavancin (DAL) compared to Vacomycin (V) (with an option to switch to Linezolid (L)) in treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (abSSSI) (L-201). 53rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC). Denver, Colorado, USA, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Prokocimer P, De AC, Fang E, et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. The ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA 2013;309:559-69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:2260-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1481-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe JN, Shively EH, Polk HCJ. Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA-complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2005;189:425-28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohno S, Yamaguchi K, Aikawa N, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Japan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007;60:1361-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vardakas KZ, Mavros MN, Roussos N, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of vancomycin for the treatment of patients with gram-positive infections: focus on the study design. Mayo Clinic Proceed 2012;87:349-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu J, Ye X, Chen C, et al. The efficacy and safety of linezolid and glycopeptides in the treatment of staphylococcus aureus infections. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e58240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bally M, Dendukuri N, Sinclair A, et al. A network meta-analysis of antibiotics for treatment of hospitalised patients with suspected or proven meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Int J Antimicrobl Agents 2012;40:479-95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polyzos KA, Mavros MN, Vardakas KZ, et al. Efficacy and safety of telavancin in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012;7:e41870
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo Z, Lin Z, Huang P, et al. Linezolid versus glycopeptides in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chin J Infect Chemother 2011;11:3-12
   Google Scholar
• Bliziotis IA, Plessa E, Peppas G, et al. Daptomycin versus other antimicrobial agents for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analaysis. Ann Pharmacother 2010;44:97-106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bounthavong M, Hsu DI. Efficacy and safety of linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI): a meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:407-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beibei L, Yun C, Mengli C, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010;35:3-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodds TJ, Hawke CI. Linezolid versus vancomycin for MRSA skin and soft tissue infections (systematic review and meta-analysis). ANZ J Surg 2009;79:629-35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falagas ME, Siempos II, Vardakas KZ. Linezolid versus glycopeptide or beta-lactam for treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:53-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An MM, Shen H, Zhang JD, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013;41:426-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 1: introduction to evidence synthesis for decision making; 2011. Sheffield, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2012. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk. Accessed April 2012
   Google Scholar
• Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for Pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 2011. Sheffield, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk. Accessed April 2014
   Google Scholar
• Ades A, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analsis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed March 2011
   Google Scholar
• Dias S, Sutton A, Ades A, et al. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 2013;33:607-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias S, Sutton A, Welton N, et al. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 3: heterogeneity-subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment. Med Decis Making 2013;33:618-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Statist Soc B 2002;64:583-639
   Google Scholar
• Lunn DJ, Jackson CH, Best N, et al. The BUGS Book. New York: CRC Press, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, et al. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 2013;33:641-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu G, Ades A. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Statist Assoc 2006;101:447-59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, et al. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Statist Med 2010;29:932-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS - a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statist Comput 2000;10:325-37
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz DE, Lindfield KC, Steenbergen JN, et al. A pilot study of high-dose short duration daptomycin for the treatment of patietns with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Int J Clin Pract 2008;62:1455-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seltzer E, Dorr MB, Goldstein BP, et al. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus standard-of-care antimicrobial regimens for treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:1298-303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, O'Riordan WD, Lau WK, et al. Telavancin versus standard therapy for treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections due to gram-positive bacteria. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1601-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, Chu VH, O'Riordan WD, et al. Telavancin versus standard therapy for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria: FAST 2 study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:862-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein GE, Schooley SL, Havlichek DH, et al. Outpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy compared with oral linezolid in patients with skin and soft tissue infections: a pharmacoeconomic analysis. Infect Dis Clin Pract 2008;16:235-9
   Google Scholar
• Mathews P, Alpert M, Rahav G, et al. A randomized trial of tigecycline versus ampicillin-sulbactam or amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. BMC Infect Dis 2012;12:297
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konychev A, Heep M, Mortiz RKC, et al. Safety and efficacy of daptomycin as first-line treatment for complicated skin and soft tissue infections in elderly patients: an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase IIIb trial. Drugs Aging 2013;30:829-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evers R, Antony NI, Alozie O, et al. Pilot study comparing daptomycin and telavancin in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Intern J Infect Dis 2013;12
   Google Scholar
• Stevens DL. Teicoplanin for skin and soft-tissue infections: An open study and a randomized comparative trial versus cefazolin. J Infect Chemother 1999;5:40-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin D, Zhang Y, Wu J, et al. Linezolid for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens in China. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008;32:241-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaszczyk-Kostanecka M, Dobozy A, Dominguez-Soto L, et al. Comparison of two regimens of oral clindamycin versus dicloxacillin in the treatment of mild-to-moderate skin and soft-tissue infections. Curr Therapeut Res Clin Exp 1998;59:341-53
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromberg BV, Reines HD, Hunt P. Comparative clinical study of Sulbactam and ampicillin and clindamycin and tobramycin in infections of soft tissues. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:575-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pusponegoro EHD, Wirvadi BE. Clindamycin and cloxacillin compared in the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Therapeut 1990;12:236-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chessick KC, Begley LA, Curtis LE, et al. Efficacy of intravenous clindamycin and methicillin in gram-positive soft tissue infections. Ann Surg 1975;181:203-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone HH, Geheber CE, Kolb LD, et al. Clinical comparison of cefotaxime versus the combination of gentamicin plus clindamycin in the treatment of peritonitis and similar polymicrobial soft-tissue surgical sepsis. Clin Therapeut 1981;4(Suppl):67-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabel-Hughes KS, Geelhoed GW. A prospective randomized clinical trial of antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue infections in surgical patients. Infect Surg 1990;9:21-4
   Google Scholar
• Teras J, Gardovskis J, Vaasna T, et al. Overview of tigecycline efficacy and safety in the treatment of complicated skin and structure infections - A European perspective. J Chemother 2008;20(Suppl 1):20-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breedt J, Teras J, Gardovskis J, et al. Safety and efficacy of tigecycline in treatment of skin and skin structure infections: results of a Double-Blind Phase 3 Comparison Study with Vancomycin-Aztreonam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:4658-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noel GJ, Draper MP, Hait H, et al. A randomized, evaluator-blind, phase 2 study comparing the safety and efficacy of omadacycline to those of linezolid for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:5650-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noel GJ, Draper MP, Hait H, et al. Safety and efficacy of PTK 0796 (omadacycline) as treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infection (P694). 22nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID). London, UK: European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2012
   Google Scholar
• Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, et al. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 1: introduction. Med Dec Making 2013;33:597-606
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikawa N, Kusachi S, Mikamo H, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous daptomycin in Japanese patients with skin and soft tissue infections. J Infect Chemother 2013;19:447-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corey GR, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, et al. CANVAS 1: the first Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65(Suppl 4):41-51
   Google Scholar
• Covington P, Davenport JM, Andrae D, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase II, multicenter study evaluating the safety/tolerability and efficacy of JNJ-Q2, a novel fluoroquinolone, compared with linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55:5790-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craft JC, Moriarty SR, Clark K, et al. A randomized, double-blind phase 2 study comparing the efficacy and safety of an oral fusidic acid loading-dose regimen to oral linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(Suppl 7):S520-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fang E, De Anda C, Das A, et al. Safety profile of tedizolid phosphate compared to linezolid in a Phase 3 ABSSSI Study (L1-1664). San Francisco, California, USA: Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2012
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar LM, Milata J, McClure T, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of oritavancin front-loaded dosing regimens to daily dosing: An analysis of the SIMPLIFI trial. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55:3476-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang E, De Anda C, Das A, Prokocimer P. Efficacy and safety results from the ESTABLISH 2 ABSSSI study comparing IV and oral tedizolid phosphate and linezolid. Berlin: ECCMID, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Florescu I, Beuran M, Dimov R, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62(Suppl 1):17-28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jauregui LE, Babazadeh S, Seltzer E, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of once-weekly dalbavancin versus twice-daily linezolid therapy for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:1407-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krievins D, Brandt R, Hawser S, et al. Multicenter, randomized study of the efficacy and safety of intravenous iclaprim in complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:2834-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noel GJ, Strauss RS, Amsler K, et al. Results of a double-blind randomized trial of ceftobiprole treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:37-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noel GJ, Bush K, Bagchi P, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with vancomycin plus ceftazidime for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:647-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pertel PE, Eisenstein BI, Link AS, et al. The efficacy and safety of daptomycin vs vancomycin for the treatment of cellulitis and erysipelas. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:368-75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postier RG, Green SL, Klein SR, et al. Results of a multicenter, randomized, open-label efficacy and safety study of two doses of tigecycline for complicated skin and skin-structure infections in hospitalized patients. Clin Therapeut 2004;26:704-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince WT, Ivezic-Schoenfeld Z, Lell C, et al. Phase II clinical study of BC-3781, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, in treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin strucutre infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:2087-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacchidanand S, Penn RL, Embil JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial. Int J Infect Dis 2005;9:251-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens D, Smith CT, Bruss JB, et al. Randomized comparison of linezolid (PNU-100766) versus oxacillin-dicloxacillin for treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:3408-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, Potgieter PD, Yu-Ping L, et al. TD-1792 versus Vancomycin for Treatment of Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:5476-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talbot GH, Thye D, Das A, et al. Phase 2 study of ceftaroline versus standard therapy in treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51:3612-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox M, Nathwani D, Dryden M. Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53:335-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox M, Corey GR, Talbot GH, et al. CANVAS 2: the second Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65(Suppl 4):iv53-iv65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox M, Boucher HW, Talbot GH, et al. DISCOVER 2: a randomized, double-blind study of dalbavancin (DAL) compared to Vancomycin (V) (with an option to switch to Linezolid (L)) in treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (abSSSI) (L-202). 53rd Annual ICAAC Meeting; 2013; Chicago, IL
   Google Scholar