Multicenter, Randomized Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Iclaprim in Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Krieviņš, Dainis; Brandt, Ralph L.; Hawser, Stephen; Hadváry, Paul; Islam, Khalid

doi:10.1128/aac.01383-08

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a phase 2 trial comparing iclaprim with vancomycin for the treatment of cSSSI, clinical cure was similarly high for patients treated twice daily with iclaprim 0.8 mg/kg, iclaprim 1.6 mg/kg or vancomycin 1 g (92.9%, 90.3% and 92.9%, respectively) [124]. Iclaprim was well tolerated during this investigation.…”

Section: Dihydrofolate Reductase Inhibitors: Iclaprimmentioning

confidence: 74%

Antimicrobial treatment of nosocomial meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia: current and future options

Welte

Pletz

2010

International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Dihydrofolate Reductase Inhibitors: Iclaprimmentioning

confidence: 74%

Antimicrobial treatment of nosocomial meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia: current and future options

Welte

Pletz

2010

International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…77 In trials studying febrile neutropenic patients, vancomycin and comparator antibiotics were included in the first-line empirical regimen in 7 trials, 32,54,61,62,64,67,69 in 2 trials they were administered after treatment failure of the initial regimen (usually a ␤-lactam with or without an aminoglycoside) was encountered, 59,71 and in the remaining 3 randomization was performed after the VANCOMYCIN FOR GRAM-POSITIVE INFECTIONS: A META-ANALYSIS isolation of gram-positive cocci. 55,57,73 Finally, 1 trial did not report the time of randomization.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Vancomycin for the Treatment of Patients With Gram-Positive Infections: Focus on the Study Design

Vardakas

Mavros

Roussos

et al. 2012

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To study the effectiveness and safety of vancomycin compared with that of other antibiotics for the treatment of gram-positive infections. Methods: Major electronic databases were searched. Data from published randomized controlled trials (January 1, 1950, to September 15, 2011 were pooled using a meta-analytic method. Results: Fifty-three trials comparing vancomycin with linezolid, daptomycin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tigecycline, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, telavancin, teicoplanin, iclaprim, and dalbavancin were included in the meta-analysis. Individual antibiotics were as effective as vancomycin, except for linezolid, which was more effective than vancomycin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.43). Comparators were as effective as vancomycin in the intent-to-treat population (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.18) but were more effective in the clinically evaluable population (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27) when all infections were pooled. When available data from all trials were pooled, no differences were noted when patients with febrile neutropenia (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82-1.39), pneumonia (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.37), bacteremia (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and skin and soft tissue infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39) were studied. Comparators were more effective in open-label (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50) but not in double-blind trials (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.20). Total adverse events attributed to studied antibiotics (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.28) and patients withdrawn from trials (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.09) were similar in the compared groups. Mortality was not different between vancomycin and comparator antibiotics when all trials were included in the analysis (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23). Comparators were associated with higher mortality in open-label (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.54) but not double-blind trials (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14). Conclusion: On the basis mainly of data from open-label trials, vancomycin is a treatment choice that is as effective as other available antibiotics for patients with gram-positive infections. Study design seems to make a major contribution to the outcome.

show abstract

“…Tigecycline [49], telavancin [50,51], dalfopristin/quinopristine [52], ceftobiprole [53], ceftaroline [54], and iclaprim [55] have evidence to support their use in MRSA cSSSIs. Tigecycline, telavancin, and dalfopristin/quinopristine are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with telavancin being the most recent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Linezolid, Daptomycin, and Vancomycin in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infection Using Bayesian Methods for Evidence Synthesis

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Multicenter, Randomized Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Iclaprim in Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Cited by 31 publications

References 18 publications

Antimicrobial treatment of nosocomial meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia: current and future options

Antimicrobial treatment of nosocomial meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia: current and future options

Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Vancomycin for the Treatment of Patients With Gram-Positive Infections: Focus on the Study Design

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Linezolid, Daptomycin, and Vancomycin in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infection Using Bayesian Methods for Evidence Synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About