Emerging Treatment Options for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Bloodstream Infections Caused by Staphylococcus aureus: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence

References

• Cosgrove SE, Sakoulas G, Perencevich EN, Schwaber MJ, Karchmer AW, Carmeli Y. Comparison of mortality associated with methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(1):53–59. doi:10.1086/345476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hal SJ, Jensen SO, Vaska VL, Espedido BA, Paterson DL, Gosbell IB. Predictors of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(2):362–386. doi:10.1128/CMR.05022-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner LM, Webb AK, Limbago B, et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011–2014. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(11):1288–1301. doi:10.1017/ice.2016.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Labate L, Melchio M, et al. Current pharmacotherapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021;4:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wolkewitz M, Frank U, Philips G, Schumacher M, Davey P, Group BS. Mortality associated with in-hospital bacteraemia caused by Staphylococcus aureus: a multistate analysis with follow-up beyond hospital discharge. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(2):381–386. doi:10.1093/jac/dkq424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holubar M, Meng L, Alegria W, Deresinski S. Bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus: an update on new therapeutic approaches. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2020;34(4):849–861. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2020.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giannella M, Bartoletti M, Gatti M, Viale P. Advances in the therapy of bacterial bloodstream infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(2):158–167. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David MZ, Daum RS. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2017;409:325–383. doi:10.1007/82_2017_42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo A, Concia E, Cristini F, et al. Current and future trends in antibiotic therapy of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(Suppl 2):S27–36. doi:10.1016/S1198-743X(16)30095-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JS, Petersiel N, Tong SYC. How I manage a patient with MRSA bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(2):190–194. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.10.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Trecarichi EM, Mesini A, et al. Risk factors and mortality of healthcare-associated and community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(9):862–869. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03679.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giacobbe DR, Labate L, Vena A, Bassetti M. Potential role of new-generation antibiotics in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2021;34(2):109–117. doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray GT, Suaya JA, Baxter R. Trends and characteristics of culture-confirmed Staphylococcus aureus infections in a large U.S. integrated health care organization. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(6):1950–1957. doi:10.1128/JCM.00134-12
   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. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-13-252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esposito S, Bassetti M, Borre S, et al. Diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI): a literature review and consensus statement on behalf of the Italian Society of Infectious Diseases and International Society of Chemotherapy. J Chemother. 2011;23(5):251–262. doi:10.1179/joc.2011.23.5.251
   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: 2014 update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):147–159. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu444
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golan Y. Current treatment options for acute skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(Suppl 3):S206–S212. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack CV Jr, Amin A, Ford WT Jr, et al. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): practice guidelines for management and care transitions in the emergency department and hospital. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(4):508–519. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray GT, Suaya JA, Baxter R. Microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections in the age of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;76(1):24–30. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.02.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talan DA, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus from skin and soft-tissue infections in US emergency department patients, 2004 and 2008. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(2):144–149. doi:10.1093/cid/cir308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Nicco E, Mikulska M. Why is community-associated MRSA spreading across the world and how will it change clinical practice? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009;34(Suppl 1):S15–19. doi:10.1016/S0924-8579(09)70544-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller LG, Perdreau-Remington F, Rieg G, et al. Necrotizing fasciitis caused by community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Los Angeles. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(14):1445–1453. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042683
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saeed K, Gould I, Esposito S, et al. Panton-Valentine leukocidin-positive Staphylococcus aureus: a position statement from the International Society of Chemotherapy. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;51(1):16–25. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Peghin M, Castaldo N, Giacobbe DR. The safety of treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2019;18(8):635–650. doi:10.1080/14740338.2019.1621288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Magnasco L, Del Puente F, Giacobbe DR. Role of new antibiotics in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2020;33(2):110–120. doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raff AB, Kroshinsky D. Therapy for Cellulitis. JAMA. 2016;316(19):2047. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.15613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulido-Cejudo A, Guzman-Gutierrez M, Jalife-Montano A, et al. Management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections with a focus on patients at high risk of treatment failure. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2017;4(5):143–161. doi:10.1177/2049936117723228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa-Pinto B, Blumenthal KG, Courtney L, Mancini CM, Jeffres MN. Assessment of the frequency of dual allergy to penicillins and cefazolin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(4):e210021. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daum RS, Miller LG, Immergluck L, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of antibiotics for smaller skin abscesses. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(26):2545–2555. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1607033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller LG, Daum RS, Creech CB, et al. Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(12):1093–1103. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1403789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitz GR, Bruner D, Pitotti R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin abscesses in patients at risk for community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(3):283–287. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talan DA, Lovecchio F, Abrahamian FM, et al. A randomized trial of clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated wound infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(12):1505–1513. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talan DA, Mower WR, Krishnadasan A, et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus placebo for uncomplicated skin abscess. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(9):823–832. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1507476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boucher HW, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, Puttagunta S, Das AF, Dunne MW. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus daily conventional therapy for skin infection. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2169–2179. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1310480
   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(11):4658–4666. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.11.4658-4666.2005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corey GR, Good S, Jiang H, et al. Single-dose oritavancin versus 7–10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(2):254–262. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu778
   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. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2180–2190. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1310422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corey GR, Wilcox MH, 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):iv41–51. doi:10.1093/jac/dkq254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryden M, Zhang Y, Wilson D, Iaconis JP, Gonzalez J, Phase A. III, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection with systemic inflammatory response or underlying comorbidities. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(12):3575–3584. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland TL, O’Riordan W, McManus A, et al. A Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens (REVIVE-2 Study). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(5). doi:10.1128/AAC.02580-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang DB, O’Riordan W, Overcash JS, et al. A Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous iclaprim vs vancomycin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens: REVIVE-1. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(8):1222–1229. doi:10.1093/cid/cix987
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itani KM, Dryden MS, Bhattacharyya H, Kunkel MJ, Baruch AM, Weigelt JA. 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(6):804–816. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.08.045
   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(10):1407–1415. doi:10.1086/497271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauf TL, McKinnon P, Corey GR, et al. An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:503. doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1261-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lv X, Alder J, Li L, et al. Efficacy and safety of tedizolid phosphate versus linezolid in a randomized Phase 3 trial in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(7). doi:10.1128/AAC.02252-18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR, Das AF, De Anda C, Prokocimer P. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(8):696–705. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70737-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noel GJ, Bush K, Bagchi P, Ianus J, Strauss RS. 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(5):647–655. doi:10.1086/526527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noel GJ, Strauss RS, Amsler K, Heep M, Pypstra R, Solomkin JS. 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(1):37–44. doi:10.1128/AAC.00551-07
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Riordan W, Cardenas C, Shin E, et al. Once-daily oral omadacycline versus twice-daily oral linezolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (OASIS-2): a phase 3, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(10):1080–1090. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30275-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Riordan W, Green S, Overcash JS, et al. Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(6):528–538. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Riordan W, McManus A, Teras J, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravenous followed by oral delafloxacin with vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a Phase 3, multinational, double-blind, randomized study. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(5):657–666. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overcash JS, Kim C, Keech R, et al. Ceftobiprole compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: results of a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial (TARGET). Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(7):e1507–e1517. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa974
   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 structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(5):2087–2094. doi:10.1128/AAC.02106-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E, Mehra P, Das A. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;309(6):559–569. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullman J, Gardovskis J, Farley B, et al. Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(12):3471–3480. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx329
   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(5):251–261. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2005.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H, Hunt JL, Batts DH, Hafkin B. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34(11):1481–1490. doi:10.1086/340353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(11):1683–1693. doi:10.1086/587896
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(6):2260–2266. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.6.2260-2266.2005
   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(2):335–344. doi:10.1093/jac/dkh088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox MH, 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. doi:10.1093/jac/dkq255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox MH, Tack KJ, Bouza E, et al. Complicated skin and skin-structure infections and catheter-related bloodstream infections: noninferiority of linezolid in a phase 3 study. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(2):203–212. doi:10.1086/595686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Labate L, Vena A, Giacobbe DR. Role or oritavancin and dalbavancin in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and other potential indications. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2021;34(2):96–108. doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Castaldo N, Carnelutti A, Peghin M, Giacobbe DR. Tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy. Core Evid. 2019;14:31–40. doi:10.2147/CE.S187499
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong SY, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG Jr. Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):603–661. doi:10.1128/CMR.00134-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, Edmond MB. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(3):309–317. doi:10.1086/421946
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai AD, Showler A, Burry L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for MSSA bacteraemia: results from a large multicentre cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(5):1539–1546. doi:10.1093/jac/dku560
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beganovic M, Cusumano JA, Lopes V, LaPlante KL, Caffrey AR. Comparative effectiveness of exclusive exposure to nafcillin or oxacillin, cefazolin, piperacillin/ tazobactam, and fluoroquinolones among a national cohort of veterans with methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(7):ofz270. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidell MR, Patel N, O’Donnell JN. Optimal treatment of MSSA bacteraemias: a meta-analysis of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(10):2643–2651. doi:10.1093/jac/dky259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burrelli CC, Broadbent EK, Margulis A, et al. Does the beta-lactam matter? Nafcillin versus cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Chemotherapy. 2018;63(6):345–351. doi:10.1159/000499033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JS, Turnidge J, Tong S. A large retrospective cohort study of cefazolin compared with flucloxacillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;52(2):297–300. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee BJ, Wang SK, Constantino-Corpuz JK, et al. Cefazolin vs. anti-staphylococcal penicillins for treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections in acutely ill adult patients: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;53(3):225–233. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.11.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S, Song KH, Jung SI, et al. Comparative outcomes of cefazolin versus nafcillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a prospective multicentre cohort study in Korea. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24(2):152–158. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2017.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefevre B, Hoen B, Goehringer F, et al. Antistaphylococcal penicillins vs. cefazolin in the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a quasi-experimental monocentre study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;40(12):2605–2616. doi:10.1007/s10096-021-04313-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Echevarria KL, Hughes DW, Cadena JA, Bowling JE, Lewis JS 2nd. Comparison of cefazolin versus oxacillin for treatment of complicated bacteremia caused by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(9):5117–5124. doi:10.1128/AAC.02800-14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDanel JS, Roghmann MC, Perencevich EN, et al. Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus nafcillin or oxacillin for treatment of methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus infections complicated by bacteremia: a Nationwide Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(1):100–106. doi:10.1093/cid/cix287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller MA, Fish DN, Barber GR, et al. A comparison of safety and outcomes with cefazolin versus nafcillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020;53(2):321–327. doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2018.07.006
   Google Scholar
• Pollett S, Baxi SM, Rutherford GW, Doernberg SB, Bacchetti P, Chambers HF. Cefazolin versus nafcillin for methicillin-sensitive staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection in a California tertiary medical center. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(8):4684–4689. doi:10.1128/AAC.00243-16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao SN, Rhodes NJ, Lee BJ, et al. Treatment outcomes with cefazolin versus oxacillin for deep-seated methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(9):5232–5238. doi:10.1128/AAC.04677-14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rindone JP, Mellen CK. Meta-analysis of trials comparing cefazolin to antistaphylococcal penicillins in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(6):1258–1266. doi:10.1111/bcp.13554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi C, Xiao Y, Zhang Q, et al. Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):508. doi:10.1186/s12879-018-3418-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weis S, Kesselmeier M, Davis JS, et al. Cefazolin versus anti-staphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(7):818–827. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burdet C, Loubet P, Le Moing V, et al. Efficacy of cloxacillin versus cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (CloCeBa): study protocol for a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e023151. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller WR, Seas C, Carvajal LP, et al. The cefazolin inoculum effect is associated with increased mortality in methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(6):ofy123. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson A, Harris P, Hartel G, et al. Benzylpenicillin versus flucloxacillin for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections from a large retrospective cohort study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;54(4):491–495. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.05.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moriyama Y, Ishikane M, Mezaki K, Ohmagari N. Comparison of penicillins (penicillin G and ampicillin) and cefazolin as a definitive therapy against penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) bacteremia in Japan: a retrospective cohort study. J Infect Chemother. 2020;26(4):358–362. doi:10.1016/j.jiac.2019.10.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nissen JL, Skov R, Knudsen JD, et al. Effectiveness of penicillin, dicloxacillin and cefuroxime for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a retrospective, propensity-score-adjusted case-control and cohort analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68(8):1894–1900. doi:10.1093/jac/dkt108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds G, Crawford S, Cuenca J, Ghosh N, Newton P. Penicillin versus anti-staphylococcal beta-lactams for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus blood stream infections: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022;41(1):147–151. doi:10.1007/s10096-021-04330-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):653–665. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa053783
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agnello S, Wardlow LC, Reed E, Smith JM, Coe K, Day SR. Clinical outcomes of daptomycin versus anti-staphylococcal beta-lactams in definitive treatment of methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021;58(2):106363. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Kim KH, Kim HB, et al. Outcome of vancomycin treatment in patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(1):192–197. doi:10.1128/AAC.00700-07
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDanel JS, Perencevich EN, Diekema DJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of beta-lactams versus vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections among 122 hospitals. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(3):361–367. doi:10.1093/cid/civ308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweizer ML, Furuno JP, Harris AD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of nafcillin or cefazolin versus vancomycin in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:279. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-11-279
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, Szczech LA, Benjamin DK Jr, et al. Use of vancomycin or first-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of hemodialysis-dependent patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(2):190–196. doi:10.1086/510386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng MP, Lawandi A, Butler-Laporte G, De L’etoile-morel S, Paquette K, Lee TC. Adjunctive daptomycin in the treatment of methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a Randomized, Controlled Trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(9):e196–e203. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thwaites GE, Scarborough M, Szubert A, et al. Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10121):668–678. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32456-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(3):e18–55. doi:10.1093/cid/ciq146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown NM, Goodman AL, Horner C, Jenkins A, Brown EM. Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): updated guidelines from the UK. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021;3(1):dlaa114. doi:10.1093/jacamr/dlaa114
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maraolo AE, Giaccone A, Gentile I, Saracino A, Bavaro DF. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection with or without endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antibiotics. 2021;10(8).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow A, Heil EL, Claeys KC. Using an ordinal approach to compare outcomes between vancomycin versus ceftaroline or daptomycin in MRSA bloodstream infection. Infect Dis Ther. 2021;10(1):605–612. doi:10.1007/s40121-021-00401-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infections: a revised consensus guideline and review by the American society of health-system pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(6):1361–1364. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavalcanti AB, Goncalves AR, Almeida CS, Bugano DD, Silva E, Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;6:CD007022. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007022.pub2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Baguneid M, Bouza E, Dryden M, Nathwani D, Wilcox M. European perspective and update on the management of complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus after more than 10 years of experience with linezolid. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(Suppl 4):3–18. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Kollef M. Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(5):923–929. doi:10.1093/jac/dki355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeager SD, Oliver JE, Shorman MA, Wright LR, Veve MP. Comparison of linezolid step-down therapy to standard parenteral therapy in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021;57(5):106329. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giacobbe DR, De Rosa FG, Del Bono V, et al. Ceftobiprole: drug evaluation and place in therapy. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2019;17(9):689–698. doi:10.1080/14787210.2019.1667229
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia T, Corcione S, Mornese Pinna S, De Rosa FG. New cephalosporins for the treatment of pneumonia in internal medicine wards. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(7):3747–3763. doi:10.21037/jtd-20-417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vazquez JA, Maggiore CR, Cole P, Smith A, Jandourek A, Friedland HD. Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of staphylococcus aureus bacteremia secondary to acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2015;23(1):39–43. doi:10.1097/IPC.0000000000000191
   Google Scholar
• Soriano A, Morata L. Ceftobripole: experience in staphylococcal bacteremia. Revista espanola de quimioterapia. 2019;32(Suppl 3):24–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durante-Mangoni E, Andini R, Mazza MC, et al. Real-life experience with ceftobiprole in a tertiary-care hospital. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;22:386–390. doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2020.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamed K, Engelhardt M, Jones ME, et al. Ceftobiprole versus daptomycin in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a novel protocol for a double-blind, Phase III trial. Future Microbiol. 2020;15:35–48. doi:10.2217/fmb-2019-0332
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmad O, Crawford TN, Myint T. Comparing the outcomes of ceftaroline plus vancomycin or daptomycin combination therapy versus monotherapy in adults with complicated and prolonged methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia initially treated with supplemental ceftaroline. Infect Dis Ther. 2020;9(1):77–87. doi:10.1007/s40121-019-00277-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gritsenko D, Fedorenko M, Ruhe JJ, Altshuler J. Combination therapy with vancomycin and ceftaroline for refractory methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a case series. Clin Ther. 2017;39(1):212–218. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.12.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornak JP, Anjum S, Reynoso D. Adjunctive ceftaroline in combination with daptomycin or vancomycin for complicated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia after monotherapy failure. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2019;6:2049936119886504. doi:10.1177/2049936119886504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson TM, Molina KC, Miller MA, Kiser TH, Huang M, Mueller SW. Combination ceftaroline and daptomycin salvage therapy for complicated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia compared with standard of care. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021;57(4):106310. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCreary EK, Kullar R, Geriak M, et al. Multicenter cohort of patients with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia receiving daptomycin plus ceftaroline compared with other MRSA treatments. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(1):ofz538. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina KC, Morrisette T, Miller MA, Huang V, Fish DN. The emerging role of beta-lactams in the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(7). doi:10.1128/AAC.00468-20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrisette T, Lagnf AM, Alosaimy S, Rybak MJ. A comparison of daptomycin alone and in combination with ceftaroline fosamil for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia complicated by septic pulmonary emboli. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;39(11):2199–2203. doi:10.1007/s10096-020-03941-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakoulas G, Moise PA, Casapao AM, et al. Antimicrobial salvage therapy for persistent staphylococcal bacteremia using daptomycin plus ceftaroline. Clin Ther. 2014;36(10):1317–1333. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.05.061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corcione S, Lupia T, De Rosa FG. Novel cephalosporins in septic subjects and severe infections: present findings and future perspective. Front Med. 2021;8:617378. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.617378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhand A, Bayer AS, Pogliano J, et al. Use of antistaphylococcal beta-lactams to increase daptomycin activity in eradicating persistent bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: role of enhanced daptomycin binding. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(2):158–163. doi:10.1093/cid/cir340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JS, Sud A, O’Sullivan MVN, et al. Combination of vancomycin and beta-lactam therapy for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a Pilot Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(2):173–180. doi:10.1093/cid/civ808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong SYC, Lye DC, Yahav D, et al. Effect of vancomycin or daptomycin with vs without an antistaphylococcal beta-lactam on mortality, bacteremia, relapse, or treatment failure in patients with MRSA bacteremia: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(6):527–537. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.0103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pujol M, Miro JM, Shaw E, et al. Daptomycin plus fosfomycin versus daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis: a Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(9):1517–1525. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alosaimy S, Sabagha NL, Lagnf AM, et al. Monotherapy with vancomycin or daptomycin versus combination therapy with beta-lactams in the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a retrospective cohort analysis. Infect Dis Ther. 2020;9(2):325–339. doi:10.1007/s40121-020-00292-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casapao AM, Jacobs DM, Bowers DR, Beyda ND, Dilworth TJ, Group R-IS. Early administration of adjuvant beta-lactam therapy in combination with vancomycin among patients with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection: a retrospective, multicenter analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2017;37(11):1347–1356. doi:10.1002/phar.2034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JS, Van Hal S, Tong SY. Combination antibiotic treatment of serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;36(1):3–16. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1396906
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen SCJ, Zasowski EJ, Trinh TD, et al. Daptomycin plus beta-lactam combination therapy for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a Retrospective, Comparative Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(1):1–10. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz746
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truong J, Veillette JJ, Forland SC. Outcomes of vancomycin plus a beta-lactam versus vancomycin only for treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(2). doi:10.1128/AAC.01554-17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kale-Pradhan PB, Giuliano C, Jongekrijg A, Rybak MJ. Combination of vancomycin or daptomycin and beta-lactam antibiotics: a meta-analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2020;40(7):648–658. doi:10.1002/phar.2437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi YH, Wang JL, Yin WJ, Xu WH. Vancomycin or daptomycin plus a beta-lactam versus vancomycin or daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb Drug Resist. 2021;27(8):1044–1056. doi:10.1089/mdr.2020.0350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geriak M, Haddad F, Rizvi K, et al. Clinical data on daptomycin plus ceftaroline versus standard of care monotherapy in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(5). doi:10.1128/AAC.02483-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalil AC, Holubar M, Deresinski S, Chambers HF. Is daptomycin plus ceftaroline associated with better clinical outcomes than standard of care monotherapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(11). doi:10.1128/AAC.00900-19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakoulas G, Geriak M, Haddad F, et al. Is daptomycin plus ceftaroline associated with better clinical outcomes than standard of care monotherapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia?. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(11). doi:10.1128/AAC.01347-19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noviello S, Magnet S, Hawser S, Huang DB. In vitro activity of iclaprim against isolates in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials (REVIVE-1 and −2) for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(4). doi:10.1128/AAC.02239-18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider P, Hawser S, Islam K. Iclaprim, a novel diaminopyrimidine with potent activity on trimethoprim sensitive and resistant bacteria. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2003;13(23):4217–4221. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2003.07.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drugs.com. Motif bio announces path forward for iclaprim following receipt of FDA meeting minutes. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/motif-bio-announces-path-forward-iclaprim-following-receipt-fda-meeting-minutes-18171.html. Accessed January 30, 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Falco V, Burgos J, Almirante B. Ceftobiprole medocaril for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2018;19(13):1503–1509. doi:10.1080/14656566.2018.1516749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowalski RP, Romanowski EG, Yates KA, Mah FS. An independent evaluation of a novel peptide mimetic, brilacidin (PMX30063), for ocular anti-infective. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2016;32(1):23–27. doi:10.1089/jop.2015.0098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Del Puente F, Magnasco L, Giacobbe DR. Innovative therapies for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: advances in Phase I and II trials. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2020;29(5):495–506. doi:10.1080/13543784.2020.1750595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. Initial treatment for acute bacterial skin infections (ABSSSI) caused by staphylococcus aureus. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01211470. Accessed January 30, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. Efficacy and safety study of brilacidin to treat serious skin infections. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02052388. Accessed January 30, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Jorgensen DM, Scott RW, O’Riordan WA, et al. A randomized, double-blind study comparing single-dose and short-course brilacidin to daptomycin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin & skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Presented at: 25th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID); April 25–28; 2015; Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Eraikhuemen N, Julien D, Kelly A, Lindsay T, Lazaridis D. Treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a focus on lefamulin. Infect Dis Ther. 2021;10(1):149–163. doi:10.1007/s40121-020-00378-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veve MP, Wagner JL. Lefamulin: review of a promising novel pleuromutilin antibiotic. Pharmacotherapy. 2018;38(9):935–946. doi:10.1002/phar.2166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamm RK, Rhomberg PR, Kaplan N, Jones RN, Farrell DJ. Activity of Debio1452, a FabI inhibitor with potent activity against Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp., including multidrug-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(5):2583–2587. doi:10.1128/AAC.05119-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafkin B, Kaplan N, Murphy B. Efficacy and safety of AFN-1252, the first staphylococcus-specific antibacterial agent, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, including those in patients with significant comorbidities. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;60(3):1695–1701. doi:10.1128/AAC.01741-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittke F, Vincent C, Chen J, et al. Afabicin, a first-in-class antistaphylococcal antibiotic, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: clinical noninferiority to vancomycin/linezolid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(10). doi:10.1128/AAC.00250-20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CrystalGenomics, Inc. CrystalGenomics reports positive top-line data from phase 2a study of CG400549 in patients with complicated acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA. Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/crystalgenomics-reports-positive-top-line-data-from-phase-2a-study-of-cg400549-in-patients-with-complicated-acute-bacterial-skin-and-skin-structure-infections-caused-by-mrsa-185870042.html. Accessed January 31, 2022.
   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(12):5790–5797. doi:10.1128/AAC.05044-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhagwat SS, McGhee P, Kosowska-Shick K, Patel MV, Appelbaum PC. In vitro activity of the quinolone WCK 771 against recent U.S. hospital and community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus pathogens with various resistance types. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(2):811–813. doi:10.1128/AAC.01150-08
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tellis M, Joseph J, Khande H, Bhagwat S, Patel M. In vitro bactericidal activity of levonadifloxacin (WCK 771) against methicillin- and quinolone-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. J Med Microbiol. 2019;68(8):1129–1136. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.000999
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatia A, Mastim M, Shah M, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel broad-spectrum anti-MRSA agent levonadifloxacin compared with linezolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a Phase 3, Open label, Randomized Study. J Assoc Physicians India. 2020;68(8):30–36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Safety and efficacy study of oxazolidinones to treat uncomplicated skin infections. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00646958. Accessed January 31, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• MicuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. MicuRx pharmaceuticals reports positive top-line results from a US Phase 2 ABSSSI clinical trial of novel antibiotic contezolid acefosamil. Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190909005015/en/. Accessed January 31, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Hoy SM. Contezolid: first approval. Drugs. 2021;81(13):1587–1591. doi:10.1007/s40265-021-01576-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Z, Lynch AS. Development of a dual-acting antibacterial agent (TNP-2092) for the treatment of persistent bacterial infections. J Med Chem. 2016;59(14):6645–6657. doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00485
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson GT, Bonventre EJ, Doyle TB, et al. In vitro evaluation of CBR-2092, a novel rifamycin-quinolone hybrid antibiotic: studies of the mode of action in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(7):2313–2323. doi:10.1128/AAC.01649-07
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phase 2, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel, controlled study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of TNP-2092 to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection in adults. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03964493. Accessed April 12, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Biedenbach DJ, Bouchillon SK, Hackel M, et al. In vitro activity of gepotidacin, a novel triazaacenaphthylene bacterial topoisomerase inhibitor, against a broad spectrum of bacterial pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(3):1918–1923. doi:10.1128/AAC.02820-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamm RK, Farrell DJ, Rhomberg PR, Scangarella-Oman NE, Sader HS. Gepotidacin (GSK2140944) in vitro activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(7). doi:10.1128/AAC.00468-17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Riordan W, Tiffany C, Scangarella-Oman N, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of gepotidacin (GSK2140944) in the treatment of patients with suspected or confirmed gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(6). doi:10.1128/AAC.02095-16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, Potgieter PD, Li YP, et al. TD-1792 versus vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(11):5476–5483. doi:10.1128/AAC.00712-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuch R, Khan BK, Raz A, Rotolo JA, Wittekind M. Bacteriophage Lysin CF-301, a potent antistaphylococcal biofilm agent. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(7). doi:10.1128/AAC.02666-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traczewski M, Oh J, Cassino C, Schuch R. In vitro activity of Exebacase (CF-301) against clinical Staphylococcus aureus surveillance isolates from the United States, Europe, and Latin America, 2015–2017. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;95(4):114879. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2019.114879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler VG Jr, Das AF, Lipka-Diamond J, et al. Exebacase for patients with Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection and endocarditis. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(7):3750–3760. doi:10.1172/JCI136577
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of a single dose of exebacase in patients receiving standard-of-care antibiotics for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (Bacteremia), including right-sided infective endocarditis. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04160468. Accessed February 1, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Jun SY, Jung GM, Yoon SJ, et al. Antibacterial properties of a pre-formulated recombinant phage endolysin, SAL-1. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;41(2):156–161. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.10.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase iia clinical study to evaluate safety and to explore efficacy of N-Rephasin® SAL200, in patients with persistent Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03089697. Accessed February 1, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Varshney AK, Kuzmicheva GA, Lin J, et al. A natural human monoclonal antibody targeting Staphylococcus Protein A protects against Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190537. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190537
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• XBiotech, Inc. XBiotech announces top-line results for 514G3 antibody therapy in serious staphylococcus aureus infections. Available from: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/04/03/953500/0/en/XBiotech-Announces-Top-Line-Results-for-514G3-Antibody-Therapy-in-Serious-Staphylococcus-aureus-Infections.html. Accessed February 1, 2022.
   Google Scholar