Once-daily, high-dose levofloxacin versus ticarcillin-clavulanate alone or followed by amoxicillin-clavulanate for complicated skin and skin-structure infections: a randomized, open-label trial

Diabetic Foot Infections in the Emergency Department

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is among the most common diabetic complications requiring hospitalization. Prompt emergency department diagnosis and evidence-based management can prevent eventual amputation and associated disability and mortality. Underlying neuropathy, arterial occlusion, immune dysfunction, and hyperglycemia-associated dehydration and ketoacidosis can all contribute to severity and conspire to make DFI diagnosis and management difficult. Serious complications include osteomyelitis, necrotizing infection, and sepsis. Practice guidelines are designed to assist frontline providers with correct diagnosis, categorization, and treatment decisions. Management generally includes a careful lower extremity examination and plain x-ray, obtaining appropriate tissue cultures, and evidence-based antibiotic selection tailored to severity.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Treatment of MRSA Infection: Where are We?

Staphylococcus aureus is a leading cause of septicemia, endocarditis, pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, bone and joint infections, and hospital-acquired infections. In particular, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and continues to be a major public health problem. The emergence of multidrug-resistant MRSA strains along with the wide consumption of antibiotics has made anti-MRSA treatment a huge challenge. Novel treatment strategies (e.g., novel antimicrobials and new administrations) against MRSA are urgently needed. In the past decade, pharmaceutical companies have invested more in the research and development (R&D) of new antimicrobials and strategies, spurred by favorable policies. All research articles were collected from authentic online databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, by using different combinations of keywords, including 'anti-MRSA', 'antibiotic', 'antimicrobial', 'clinical trial', 'clinical phase', clinical studies', and 'pipeline'. The information extracted from articles was compared to information provided on the drug manufacturer's website and Clinical Trials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) to confirm the latest development phase of anti-MRSA agents. The present review focuses on the current development status of new anti-MRSA strategies concerning chemistry, pharmacological target(s), indications, route of administration, efficacy and safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics, and aims to discuss the challenges and opportunities in developing drugs for anti-MRSA infections.

Parenteral Vancomycin in the Treatment of MRSA-Associated Diabetic Foot Infections: An Unnecessary Risk

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a common and costly complication of diabetes. Soft tissue and bone infections in DFIs frequently lead to amputation and/or sepsis which can be costly for both the patient and the healthcare system. Staphylococcus aureus is the most commonly identified causative agent in DFIs, and people with diabetes may have an increased risk of infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to increased susceptibility to severe infection, MRSA in DFIs is associated with high rates of treatment failure, morbidity, and hospitalization costs meaning appropriate treatment is a high priority. While hospitalized patients are usually treated with intravenous (IV) vancomycin, this can be costly in terms of inpatient stays, staffing costs, and adverse events. For example, vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury not only delays hospital discharge and increases costs but is also a particular concern for patients with diabetes who already have an increased risk of kidney problems. Vancomycin-resistant strains of S. aureus have also been identified, which means that alternative treatment options may need to be explored. Treatment alternatives to IV vancomycin, including oral antibiotics, have been shown to provide similar efficacy, with reduced costs, outpatient or home-based administration, and with fewer serious adverse effects. Although infectious disease specialists often use IV vancomycin alone, or in combination, as a first-line therapeutic option, they are increasingly seeing the value of outpatient or at-home oral antibiotics as an alternative. This manuscript reviews the evidence for true costs of vancomycin therapy for MRSA-associated DFIs and examines the alternatives.

Physicochemical Characteristics of Antimicrobials and Practical Recommendations for Intravenous Administration: A Systematic Review

Most antimicrobial drugs need an intravenous (IV) administration to achieve maximum efficacy against target pathogens. IV administration is related to complications, such as tissue infiltration and thrombo-phlebitis. This systematic review aims to provide practical recommendations about diluent, pH, osmolarity, dosage, infusion rate, vesicant properties, and phlebitis rate of the most commonly used antimicrobial drugs evaluated in randomized controlled studies (RCT) till 31 March 2023. The authors searched for available IV antimicrobial drugs in RCT in PUBMED EMBASE®, EBSCO® CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials. Drugs' chemical features were searched online, in drug data sheets, and in scientific papers, establishing that the drugs with a pH of <5 or >9, osmolarity >600 mOsm/L, high incidence of phlebitis reported in the literature, and vesicant drugs need the adoption of utmost caution during administration. We evaluated 931 papers; 232 studies were included. A total of 82 antimicrobials were identified. Regarding antibiotics, 37 reach the "caution" criterion, as well as seven antivirals, 10 antifungals, and three antiprotozoals. In this subgroup of antimicrobials, the correct vascular access device (VAD) selection is essential to avoid complications due to the administration through a peripheral vein. Knowing the physicochemical characteristics of antimicrobials is crucial to improve the patient's safety significantly, thus avoiding administration errors and local side effects.

Systemic Antimicrobial Therapy for Diabetic Foot Infections: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a common complication of diabetes; however, there is clinical uncertainty regarding the optimal antimicrobial selection. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate the recent systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of systemic (parenteral or oral) antimicrobials for DFI. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases and the PROSPERO register were searched from January 2015 to January 2023. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses on systemic antimicrobials for DFI, with outcomes of clinical infection resolution or complications, were included. Of the 413 records identified, 6 systematic reviews of 29 individual studies were included. Heterogeneity of individual studies precluded meta-analysis, except for ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam (RR 1.07, 95% CI [0.96-1.19]) and fluoroquinolones versus piperacillin-tazobactam (RR 1.03, 95% CI [0.89-1.20]) in one review. The application of the AMSTAR-2 tool determined two reviews to be of high quality. There was no statistical difference in the clinical resolution of infections for 24 different antimicrobial regimens (penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, metronidazole, clindamycin, linezolid, daptomycin, and tigecycline). However, tigecycline did not meet non-inferiority against ertapenem ± vancomycin (absolute difference -5.5%, 95% CI [-11.0-0.1]) and was associated with a higher incidence of adverse drug events. There is minimal systematic review evidence to suggest one regimen is superior to another for DFI.

The Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Related Adverse Events in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Narrative Review of the Literature

The use of antibiotics for the treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) over an extended period of time has been shown to be associated with adverse events (AEs), whereas interactions with concomitant patient medications must also be considered. The objective of this narrative review was to summarize the most frequent and most severe AEs reported in prospective trials and observational studies at the global level in DFI. Gastrointestinal intolerances were the most frequent AEs, from 5% to 22% among all therapies; this was more common when prolonged antibiotic administration was combined with oral beta-lactam or clindamycin or a higher dose of tetracyclines. The proportion of symptomatic colitis due to Clostridium difficile was variable depending on the antibiotic used (0.5% to 8%). Noteworthy serious AEs included hepatotoxicity due to beta-lactams (5% to 17%) or quinolones (3%); cytopenia's related to linezolid (5%) and beta-lactams (6%); nausea under rifampicin, and renal failure under cotrimoxazole. Skin rash was found to rarely occur and was commonly associated with the use of penicillins or cotrimoxazole. AEs from prolonged antibiotic use in patients with DFI are costly in terms of longer hospitalization or additional monitoring care and can trigger additional investigations. The best way to prevent AEs is to keep the duration of antibiotic treatment short and with the lowest dose clinically necessary.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Synergistic Effects of Anionic/Cationic Dendrimers and Levofloxacin on Antibacterial Activities

Despite the numerous studies on dendrimers for biomedical applications, the antibacterial activity of anionic phosphorus dendrimers has not been explored. In our research, we evaluated the antibacterial activity of modified polycationic and polyanionic dendrimers in combination with levofloxacin (LVFX) against Gram-negative (Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Proteus hauseri ATCC 15442) and Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538) bacteria. In the case of Gram-negative bacteria, we concluded that a combination of dendrimers and antibiotic gave satisfactory results due to a synergistic effect. The use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics, such as LVFX, not only caused resistance in disease-causing microorganisms but also increased environmental pollution. Therefore, reduction of drug dosage is of general interest.

The safety of treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

INTRODUCTION

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSI) may develop in both in-patients and out-patients, possibly with a severe clinical presentation. Since most phase 3 randomized clinical trials have shown non-inferiority in efficacy across different agents, considerations regarding their different safety profiles inevitably play a crucial role in the everyday choice about which of them should be employed for the treatment of ABSSSI.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss the safety profile of different treatment options for ABSSSI.

EXPERT OPINION

The spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the last decades has inevitably influenced the therapeutic approach to ABSSSI. Adequate knowledge of the peculiar toxicity profile of each drug active against MRSA is essential for guiding, monitoring and managing adverse events, in turn reducing any unfavorable impact of toxicity on patients' outcomes. In the next five years, potential toxicity will play a critical role in establishing the best available therapy for each specific patient, together with consideration regarding the possibility of avoiding hospitalization or allowing a switch from intravenous to oral therapy and early discharge.

Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections in China: a Phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

Few randomized controlled studies have compared antibiotic regimens against diabetic foot infections (DFIs) in Chinese patients. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of DFIs in Chinese patients.

METHODS

Patients with moderate to severe DFIs requiring parenteral antibiotics were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive ertapenem (1.0 g once daily) or piperacillin/tazobactam (4.5 g every 8 h) by 30 min intravenous (iv) infusions for ≥5 days. The primary outcome was favourable clinical response at discontinuation of iv therapy (DCIV). An evaluable-patient population was identified for primary analysis of non-inferiority at -15%. Safety was assessed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01370616.

RESULTS

Of 565 patients randomized, 443 patients (ertapenem = 219 and piperacillin/tazobactam = 224) were clinically evaluable for primary analysis. In the clinically evaluable population, the proportions of patients with favourable clinical response at DCIV were 93.6% (205/219) and 97.3% (218/224) in the ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups, respectively (difference: -3.8%, 95% CI: -8.3%, 0.0%). Ertapenem had a significantly lower favourable clinical response rate (91.5% versus 97.2%, 95% CI for difference: -12.1%, -0.3%) at DCIV in severe DFI patients. In the modified ITT population, 88.8% (237/267) and 90.6% (241/266) of patients in the ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups, respectively, had favourable clinical responses at DCIV (difference: -1.9%, 95% CI: -7.3%, 3.3%). Microbiological eradications of causative pathogens and adverse events were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ertapenem was non-inferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in Chinese patients with DFIs. Ertapenem treatment resulted in a markedly lower rate of clinical resolution in severe DFIs.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review

The expert panel on diabetic foot infection (DFI) of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot conducted a systematic review seeking all published reports relating to any type of treatment for infection of the foot in persons with diabetes published as of 30 June 2014. This review, conducted with both PubMed and EMBASE, was used to update an earlier one undertaken on 30 June 2010 using the same search string. Eligible publications included those that had outcome measures reported for both a treated and a control population that were managed either at the same time, or as part of a before-and-after case design. We did not include studies that contained only information related to definition or diagnosis, but not treatment, of DFI. The current search identified just seven new articles meeting our criteria that were published since the 33 identified with the previous search, making a total of 40 articles from the world literature. The identified articles included 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies with concurrent controls, and included studies on the use of surgical procedures, topical antiseptics, negative pressure wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen. Among the studies were 15 RCTs that compared outcomes of treatment with new antibiotic preparations compared with a conventional therapy in the management of skin and soft tissue infection. In addition, 10 RCTs and 1 cohort study compared different treatments for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Results of comparisons of different antibiotic regimens generally demonstrated that newly introduced antibiotic regimens appeared to be as effective as conventional therapy (and also more cost-effective in one study), but one study failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of a new antibiotic compared with that of a standard agent. Overall, the available literature was both limited in both the number of studies and the quality of their design. Thus, our systematic review revealed little evidence upon which to make recommendations for treatment of DFIs. There is a great need for further well-designed trials that will provide robust data upon which to make decisions about the most appropriate treatment of both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis in diabetic patients.

Systemic antibiotics for treating diabetic foot infections

BACKGROUND

Foot infection is the most common cause of non-traumatic amputation in people with diabetes. Most diabetic foot infections (DFIs) require systemic antibiotic therapy and the initial choice is usually empirical. Although there are many antibiotics available, uncertainty exists about which is the best for treating DFIs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects and safety of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of DFIs compared with other systemic antibiotics, topical foot care or placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 2015 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment database (HTA; The Cochrane Library), the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED; The Cochrane Library), unpublished literature in OpenSIGLE and ProQuest Dissertations and on-going trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of systemic antibiotics (oral or parenteral) in people with a DFI. Primary outcomes were clinical resolution of the infection, time to its resolution, complications and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for dichotomous data and, when sufficient numbers of comparable trials were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 3791 participants. Studies were heterogenous in study design, population, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes. We grouped the sixteen different antibiotic agents studied into six categories: 1) anti-pseudomonal penicillins (three trials); 2) broad-spectrum penicillins (one trial); 3) cephalosporins (two trials); 4) carbapenems (four trials); 5) fluoroquinolones (six trials); 6) other antibiotics (four trials).Only 9 of the 20 trials protected against detection bias with blinded outcome assessment. Only one-third of the trials provided enough information to enable a judgement about whether the randomisation sequence was adequately concealed. Eighteen out of 20 trials received funding from pharmaceutical industry-sponsors.The included studies reported the following findings for clinical resolution of infection: there is evidence from one large trial at low risk of bias that patients receiving ertapenem with or without vancomycin are more likely to have resolution of their foot infection than those receiving tigecycline (RR 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.99; 955 participants). It is unclear if there is a difference in rates of clinical resolution of infection between: 1) two alternative anti-pseudomonal penicillins (one trial); 2) an anti-pseudomonal penicillin and a broad-spectrum penicillin (one trial) or a carbapenem (one trial); 3) a broad-spectrum penicillin and a second-generation cephalosporin (one trial); 4) cephalosporins and other beta-lactam antibiotics (two trials); 5) carbapenems and anti-pseudomonal penicillins or broad-spectrum penicillins (four trials); 6) fluoroquinolones and anti-pseudomonal penicillins (four trials) or broad-spectrum penicillins (two trials); 7) daptomycin and vancomycin (one trial); 8) linezolid and a combination of aminopenicillins and beta-lactamase inhibitors (one trial); and 9) clindamycin and cephalexin (one trial).Carbapenems combined with anti-pseudomonal agents produced fewer adverse effects than anti-pseudomonal penicillins (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84; 1 trial). An additional trial did not find significant differences in the rate of adverse events between a carbapenem alone and an anti-pseudomonal penicillin, but the rate of diarrhoea was lower for participants treated with a carbapenem (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93; 1 trial). Daptomycin produced fewer adverse effects than vancomycin or other semi-synthetic penicillins (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.94; 1 trial). Linezolid produced more adverse effects than ampicillin-sulbactam (RR 2.66; 95% CI 1.49 to 4.73; 1 trial), as did tigecycline compared to ertapenem with or without vancomycin (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.60; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in safety for the other comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the relative effects of different systemic antibiotics for the treatment of foot infections in diabetes is very heterogeneous and generally at unclear or high risk of bias. Consequently it is not clear if any one systemic antibiotic treatment is better than others in resolving infection or in terms of safety. One non-inferiority trial suggested that ertapenem with or without vancomycin is more effective in achieving clinical resolution of infection than tigecycline. Otherwise the relative effects of different antibiotics are unclear. The quality of the evidence is low due to limitations in the design of the included trials and important differences between them in terms of the diversity of antibiotics assessed, duration of treatments, and time points at which outcomes were assessed. Any further studies in this area should have a blinded assessment of outcomes, use standardised criteria to classify severity of infection, define clear outcome measures, and establish the duration of treatment.

Clinical and Economic Consequences of Failure of Initial Antibiotic Therapy for Hospitalized Patients With Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections

Objective.

To estimate the consequences of failure of initial antibiotic therapy for patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections.

Design.

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting.

Large US multihospital database.

Patients.

We identified a total of 47,219 patients (age 18 years or older) who were admitted to the hospital for complicated skin and skin-structure infections from April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004, and who received intravenous antibiotics during the first 2 hospital-days (ie, initial antibiotic therapy). Failure of therapy was defined as drainage, debridement, or receipt of other intravenous antibiotics at any subsequent time (except for changes to narrower-spectrum agents or any therapy change immediately before discharge). Predictors of failure of antibiotic therapy and mortality were examined using multivariate logistic regression. Analysis of covariance was used to estimate the impact of treatment failure on duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy, length of stay, and total inpatient charges.

Results.

For 10,782 admitted patients (22.8%), there was evidence of failure of initial antibiotic therapy. In multivariate analyses, treatment failure was associated with receipt of vasoactive medications during the first 2 hospital-days (odds ratio [OR], 1.66 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.19-2.31]), initiation of antibiotic therapy in the intensive care unit (OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.28-1.84]), and the patient's Charlson comorbidity index (OR per 1-point increase, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.04-1.08]); treatment failure was also was associated with a 3-fold increase in mortality (OR, 2.91 [95% CI, 2.34-3.62]). Compared with patients for whom initial treatment was successful, patients who experienced treatment failure received intravenous antibiotic therapy for a mean of 5.7 additional days, were hospitalized for a mean of 5.4 additional days, and incurred a mean of $5,285 (in 2003 dollars) in additional inpatient charges (all P <.01).

Conclusion.

Failure of initial antibiotic therapy in the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections is associated with significantly worse clinical and economic outcomes.

Levofloxacin: update and perspectives on one of the original ‘respiratory quinolones’

The fluoroquinolone class of antimicrobials has enjoyed enormous clinical and marketing success over the past 20 years. These drugs have proven to be extremely useful in a broad range of clinical indications including both common community-acquired as well as nosocomial bacterial infections. Levofloxacin (Levaquin, Tavanic), like ciprofloxacin (Cipro), has established an enviable record of safe and efficacious use, and in many ways has become the agent against which all of the newer fluoroquinolones are judged. New clinical indications in complicated skin and skin structure infections, nosocomial pneumonia and chronic bacterial prostatitis continue to expand the important role of this already versatile drug. In addition, the use of 'short-course, high-dose' therapies are being studied in indications, such as community-acquired pneumonia, in an effort to optimize the efficacy and convenience of the drug while minimizing the future development of resistance. As the use of levofloxacin continues to expand, future challenges will include the threat of increasing antimicrobial resistance and the availability of newer alternative agents, both newer fluoroquinolones as well as agents of other antibiotic classes.

A randomized controlled clinical trial of levofloxacin 750 mg versus 500 mg intravenous infusion in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin 750 mg for 5 days versus 500 mg for 7-14 days intravenous (IV) in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This clinical trial was the first of its kind conducted in Chinese people and also in Asian population. A total of 241 were enrolled and randomized to 750 mg group (n = 121) or 500 mg (n = 120) group from 10 study centers. The median treatment duration was 5.0 days in 750 mg and 9.0 days in 500 mg group. The median total dose was 3750 mg in 750 mg and 4500 mg in 500 mg group. The bacterial eradication rate was 100% in both groups. The overall efficacy rate in 750 mg group was 86.2% (94/109), and 84.7% (94/111), in 500 mg group of full analysis set visit 4, 95% confidence interval of 1.6% (-7.8-10.9%); the statistical results showed that 750 mg group was non-inferior to 500 mg group. The most common clinical adverse drug reactions were injection site adverse reactions in both 750 mg group and 500 mg group; the other common adverse drug reactions were insomnia, nausea, skin rash, etc. The most common drug-related laboratory abnormalities were neutrophil percentage decreased, decreased white blood cell count, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase elevation in both 750 mg group and 500 mg group. Most of adverse drug reactions were mild in severity and well-tolerated. In summary, the regimen of levofloxacin 750 mg IV for 5 days was at least as effective and well tolerated as 500 mg IV for 7-14 days for the treatment of CAP.

Sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin monotherapy for complicated skin and skin structure infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The presumed superiority of moxifloxacin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) is based on laboratory data, but has not yet been established on clinical grounds. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sequential intravenous (i.v.)/oral (p.o.) moxifloxacin monotherapy for the treatment of cSSSIs.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to November 2012 were systematically retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Finally, a meta-analysis of all RCTs eligible for inclusion criteria was performed.

RESULTS

Three studies that enrolled 2255 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between patients given moxifloxacin and those given other antibiotics with regard to clinical success rate [1667 patients, odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.09, p = 0.18], bacteriological success rate (bacteriological success rates: 1502 patients, OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.18, p = 0.45) or mortality (2207 patients, OR = 1.96, 95% CI 0.79-4.88, p = 0.15). Significantly, more overall adverse events (AEs) were associated with the use of moxifloxacin than with other antibiotics (2207 patients, OR = 1.21, 95%CI 1.00-1.45, p = 0.04). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of drug-related AEs, serious AEs or serious drug-related AEs between patients given moxifloxacin and those given other antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Sequential i.v./p.o. moxifloxacin monotherapy is an effective and relatively safe option for the treatment of cSSSIs. Other benefits of moxifloxacin may make it a more viable option compared with the currently used regimens.

Efficacy and safety of IV/PO moxifloxacin and IV piperacillin/tazobactam followed by PO amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of diabetic foot infections: results of the RELIEF study

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of two antibiotic regimens in patients with diabetic foot infections (DFIs).

METHODS

Data of a subset of patients enrolled in the RELIEF trial with DFIs requiring surgery and antibiotics were evaluated retrospectively. DFI was diagnosed on the basis of the modified Wagner, University of Texas, and PEDIS classification systems. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous/oral moxifloxacin (MXF, N = 110) 400 mg q.d. or intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam 4.0/0.5 g t.d.s. followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate 875/125 mg b.d. (PIP/TAZ-AMC, N = 96), for 7-21 days until the end of treatment (EOT). The primary endpoint was clinical cure rates in the per-protocol (PP) population at the test-of-cure visit (TOC, 14-28 days after EOT).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the demographic characteristics of PP patients in either treatment group. At TOC, MXF and PIP/TAZ-AMC had similar efficacy in both the PP and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations: MXF: 76.4 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 78.1 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -14.5 %, 9.0 % in the PP population; MXF: 69.9 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 69.1 %; 95 % CI -12.4 %, 12.1 % in the ITT population. The overall bacteriological success rates were similar in both treatment groups (MXF: 71.7 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 71.8 %; 95 % CI -16.9 %, 10.7 %). A similar proportion of patients (ITT population) experienced any adverse events in both treatment groups (MXF: 30.9 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 31.8 %, respectively). Death occurred in three MXF-treated patients and one PIP/TAZ-AMC-treated patient; these were unrelated to the study drugs.

CONCLUSION

Moxifloxacin has shown favorable safety and efficacy profiles in DFI patients and could be an alternative antibiotic therapy in the management of DFI.

CLINICAL TRIAL

NCT00402727.

Topical application of a gentamicin-collagen sponge combined with systemic antibiotic therapy for the treatment of diabetic foot infections of moderate severity: a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this pilot study was to determine the safety and potential benefit of adding a topical gentamicin-collagen sponge to standard of care (systemic antibiotic therapy plus standard diabetic wound management) for treating diabetic foot infections of moderate severity.

METHODS

We randomized 56 patients with moderately infected diabetic foot ulcers in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard of care plus the gentamicin-collagen sponge (treatment group, n = 38) or standard of care only (control group, n = 18) for up to 28 days of treatment. Investigators performed clinical, microbiological, and safety assessments at regularly scheduled intervals and collected pharmacokinetic samples from patients treated with the gentamicin-collagen sponge. Test of cure was clinically assessed 14 days after all antibiotic therapy was stopped.

RESULTS

On treatment day 7, we noted clinical cure in no treatment patients and three control patients (P = .017). However, for evaluable patients at the test-of-cure visit, the treatment group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with clinical cure than did the control group (22 of 22 [100.0%] versus 7 of 10 [70.0%]; P =.024). Patients in the treatment group also had a higher rate of eradication of baseline pathogens at all visits (P ≤ .038) and a reduced time to pathogen eradication (P < .001). Safety data were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical application of the gentamicin-collagen sponge seems safe and may improve clinical and microbiological outcomes of diabetic foot infections of moderate severity when combined with standard of care. These pilot data suggest that a larger trial of this treatment is warranted.

Diagnostics and treatment of the diabetic foot

Every 30 s, a lower limb is amputated due to diabetes. Of all amputations in diabetic patients 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer which subsequently deteriorates to a severe infection or gangrene. There is a complexity of factors related to healing of foot ulcers including strategies for treatment of decreased perfusion, oedema, pain, infection, metabolic disturbances, malnutrition, non-weight bearing, wound treatment, foot surgery, and management of intercurrent disease. Patients with diabetic foot ulcer and decreased perfusion do often not have rest pain or claudication and as a consequence non-invasive vascular testing is recommended for early recognition of ulcers in need of revascularisation to achieve healing. A diabetic foot infection is a potentially limb-threatening condition. Infection is diagnosed by the presence or increased rate of signs inflammation. Often these signs are less marked than expected. Imaging studies can diagnose or better define deep, soft tissue purulent collections and are frequently needed to detect pathological findings in bone. The initial antimicrobial treatment as well as duration of treatment is empiric. There is a substantial delay in wound healing in diabetic foot ulcer which has been related to various abnormalities. Several new treatments related to these abnormalities have been explored in wound healing with various successes. An essential part of the strategy to achieve healing is an effective offloading. Many interventions with advanced wound management have failed due to not recognizing the need for effective offloading. A multidisciplinary approach to wounds and foot ulcer has been successfully implemented in different centres with a substantial decrease in amputation rate.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in the management of infection in the diabetic foot

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot expert panel on infection conducted a systematic review of the published evidence relating to treatment of foot infection in diabetes. Our search of the literature published prior to August 2010 identified 7517 articles, 29 of which fulfilled predefined criteria for detailed data extraction. Four additional eligible papers were identified from other sources. Of the total of 33 studies, 29 were randomized controlled trials, and four were cohort studies. Among 12 studies comparing different antibiotic regimens in the management of skin and soft-tissue infection, none reported a better response with any particular regimen. Of seven studies that compared antibiotic regimens in patients with infection involving both soft tissue and bone, one reported a better clinical outcome in those treated with cefoxitin compared with ampicillin/sulbactam, but the others reported no differences between treatment regimens. In two health economic analyses, there was a small saving using one regimen versus another. No published data support the superiority of any particular route of delivery of systemic antibiotics or clarify the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in either soft-tissue infection or osteomyelitis. In one non-randomized cohort study, the outcome of treatment of osteomyelitis was better when the antibiotic choice was based on culture of bone specimens as opposed to wound swabs, but this study was not randomized, and the results may have been affected by confounding factors. Results from two studies suggested that early surgical intervention was associated with a significant reduction in major amputation, but the methodological quality of both was low. In two studies, the use of superoxidized water was associated with a better outcome than soap or povidone iodine, but both had a high risk of bias. Studies using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor reported mixed results. There was no improvement in infection outcomes associated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. No benefit has been reported with any other intervention, and, overall, there are currently no trial data to justify the adoption of any particular therapeutic approach in diabetic patients with infection of either soft tissue or bone of the foot.

Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas

BACKGROUND

Cellulitis and erysipelas are now usually considered manifestations of the same condition, a skin infection associated with severe pain and systemic symptoms. A range of antibiotic treatments are suggested in guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for non-surgically-acquired cellulitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In May 2010 we searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the ongoing trials databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials comparing two or more different interventions for cellulitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies with a total of 2488 participants. Our primary outcome 'symptoms rated by participant or medical practitioner or proportion symptom-free' was commonly reported. No two trials examined the same drugs, therefore we grouped similar types of drugs together.Macrolides/streptogramins were found to be more effective than penicillin antibiotics (Risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97). In 3 trials involving 419 people, 2 of these studies used oral macrolide against intravenous (iv) penicillin demonstrating that oral therapies can be more effective than iv therapies (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98).Three studies with a total of 88 people comparing a penicillin with a cephalosporin showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43).Six trials which included 538 people that compared different generations of cephalosporin, showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to1.06).We found only small single studies for duration of antibiotic treatment, intramuscular versus intravenous route, the addition of corticosteroid to antibiotic treatment compared with antibiotic alone, and vibration therapy, so there was insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Only two studies investigated treatments for severe cellulitis and these selected different antibiotics for their comparisons, so we cannot make firm conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot define the best treatment for cellulitis and most recommendations are made on single trials. There is a need for trials to evaluate the efficacy of oral antibiotics against intravenous antibiotics in the community setting as there are service implications for cost and comfort.

A Review of Levofloxacin for the Treatment of Bacterial Infections

Completing its initial phases of drug development in the mid 1990s as the one of the first fluoroquinolones that could be used with confidence to treat respiratory tract infections, levofloxacin went on to become one of the most widely prescribed antibiotics in the world. Available in both oral (po) and intravenous (IV) formulations and with characteristics of over 90% bioavailability, distribution into both extracellular and intracellular pulmonary compartments, highly predictable pharmacokinetics with over 90% of the drug being excreted unchanged in urine, and reliable activity against a broad spectrum of clinically important pathogens, levofloxacin has been used successfully to treat patients with a variety of serious infectious diseases as well as common infections most often treated outside of the hospital setting. Results of clinical trials involving patients with respiratory tract, urinary tract, and skin infections have consistently shown rates of clinical success and bacteriological eradication that were comparable to other widely used broad-spectrum agents. Regimens of levofloxacin, initially involving total daily doses of 250 mg to 500 mg, but more recently regimens involving 750 mg doses, have been shown to be safe and effective. Nearly a decade and a half of clinical experience has defined a safety and tolerability profile that permits data-driven assessment of the risks and benefits of using levofloxacin. As resistance to currently available fluoroquinolones has emerged, the clinical value of levofloxacin deserves continued evaluation. However, consistently high rates of susceptibility of clinically important bacteria, especially among those bacteria that commonly cause respiratory tract infections, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, suggest that this agent will continue to be a widely used well past the 20-year anniversary of its introduction into the antibacterial armamentarium.

Factors associated with treatment failure in patients with diabetic foot infections: An analysis of data from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although several antibiotics have been studied for the treatment of foot infections, their effectiveness has been considered to be similar. The scope of this analysis was the identification of factors that are associated with treatment failure based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted data from published RCTs comparing different antibiotics for diabetic foot infections (DFIs).

RESULTS

The combined observed treatment failure was 22.7% in the 18 RCTs included in the analysis. When different regimens of various antibiotics (penicillins, carbapenems, cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones) were directly compared in the individual RCTs, they were associated with similar frequency of treatment failure. However, when all patients were combined, carbapenems were associated with fewer treatment failures. Also, treatment failure in patients with DFIs from whom methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) alone or as part of a polymicrobial infection was isolated was more common than in patients from whom other bacteria were isolated [24/68 (35.3%) versus 350/1522 (23%), p=0.02]. Among patients with DFIs due to MRSA the use of linezolid was not associated with better effectiveness in comparison to other antibiotics [treatment failure: 6/19 (31.6%) versus 18/49 (36.7%), p=0.69]. Of interest, treatment failure was similar in patients with and without osteomyelitis [44/169 (26.5%) versus 330/1424 (23.2%), p=0.34].

CONCLUSIONS

The isolation of MRSA seems to be a significant factor associated with treatment failure in patients with DFIs. Further research efforts are needed for the identification of additional risk factors for treatment failure and optimization of the management of patients with DFIs.

[Summary of the GEIPC-SEIMC and GTEI-SEMICYUC recommendations for the treatment of infections caused by gram positive cocci in critical patients]

OBJECTIVE

In recent years there has been an increase in infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critical patients, together with a rapid development of resistance to the antibiotics which are normally used to treat them. The objective is to prepare an antibiotic treatment guide for the most common infections caused by gram positive cocci in critical patients. This guide will help in the decision-making process regarding the care of such patients.

METHOD

Experts from two scientific societies worked together to prepare a consensus document. They were members of the Study Group on Infections in Critical Patients (GEIPC), which is part of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), and the Infectious Diseases Working Group (GTEI), belonging to the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC). There was a systematic review of the literature published up to September 2006 regarding this type of infections and the antibiotic treatments marketed to that date. An evidence grading system was applied according to the strength of the recommendation (categories A, B or C) and the level of evidence (categories I, II or III). Recommendations were given if there was consensus among the experts from both societies.

RESULTS

The antibiotic regimens recommended for treating infections caused by gram-positive cocci were presented in the form of tables, showing the recommendation grade. Alternatives were given for allergic patients. The scientific basis supporting the aforementioned recommendations is explained within the text and the references upon which they are based are cited.

CONCLUSIONS

A summary of an evidence-based practical guide for the treatment of infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critical patients is presented.

[GEIPC-SEIMC (Study Group for Infections in the Critically Ill Patient of the Spanish Society for Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology) and GTEI-SEMICYUC ( Working Group on Infectious Diseases of the Spanish Society of Intensive Medicine, Critical Care, and Coronary Units) recommendations for antibiotic treatment of gram-positive cocci infections in the critical patient]

In recent years, an increment of infections caused by gram-positive cocci has been documented in nosocomial and hospital-acquired-infections. In diverse countries, a rapid development of resistance to common antibiotics against gram-positive cocci has been observed. This situation is exceptional in Spain but our country might be affected in the near future. New antimicrobials active against these multi-drug resistant pathogens are nowadays available. It is essential to improve our current knowledge about pharmacokinetic properties of traditional and new antimicrobials to maximize its effectiveness and to minimize toxicity. These issues are even more important in critically ill patients because inadequate empirical therapy is associated with therapeutic failure and a poor outcome. Experts representing two scientific societies (Grupo de estudio de Infecciones en el Paciente Crítico de la SEIMC and Grupo de trabajo de Enfermedades Infecciosas de la SEMICYUC) have elaborated a consensus document based on the current scientific evidence to summarize recommendations for the treatment of serious infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critically ill patients.

Recomendaciones GEIPC-SEIMC y GTEI-SEMICYUC para el tratamiento antibiótico de infecciones por cocos grampositivos en el paciente crítico

In recent years, an increment of infections caused by gram-positive cocci has been documented in nosocomial and hospital-acquired infections. In diverse countries, a rapid development of resistance to common antibiotics against gram-positive cocci has been observed. This situation is exceptional in Spain but our country might be affected in the near future. New antimicrobials active against these multi-drug resistant pathogens are nowadays available. It is essential to improve our current knowledge about pharmacokinetic properties of traditional and new antimicrobials to maximize its effectiveness and to minimize toxicity. These issues are even more important in critically ill patients because inadequate empirical therapy is associated with therapeutic failure and a poor outcome. Experts representing two scientific societies (Grupo de estudio de Infecciones en el Paciente Critico de la SEIMC and Grupo de trabajo de Enfermedades Infecciosas de la SEMICYUC) have elaborated a consensus document based on the current scientific evidence to summarize recommendations for the treatment of serious infections caused by gram-positive cocci in critically ill patients.

Treating diabetic foot infections with sequential intravenous to oral moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin–tazobactam/amoxicillin–clavulanate

OBJECTIVES

Complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), including diabetic foot infections (DFIs), are often polymicrobial, requiring combination or broad-spectrum therapy. Moxifloxacin, a broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone, is approved for cSSSI and can be administered by either intravenous (iv) or oral routes. To assess the efficacy of moxifloxacin for treating DFIs, we analysed a subset of patients with these infections who were enrolled in a prospective, double-blind study that compared the efficacy of moxifloxacin with piperacillin-tazobactam and amoxicillin-clavulanate.

METHODS

Patients>or=18 years of age with a DFI requiring initial iv therapy were randomized to either moxifloxacin (400 mg/day) or piperacillin-tazobactam (3.0/0.375 g every 6 h) for at least 3 days followed by moxifloxacin (400 mg/day orally) or amoxicillin-clavulanate (800 mg every 12 h orally), if appropriate, for 7-14 days. DFI was usually defined as any foot infection plus a history of diabetes. Our primary efficacy outcome was the clinical response of the infection at test-of-cure (TOC), 10-42 days post-therapy.

RESULTS

Among 617 patients enrolled in the original study, 78 with DFIs were evaluable for treatment efficacy. Clinical cure rates at TOC were similar for moxifloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate (68% versus 61%) for patients with investigator-defined infection (P=0.54). Overall pathogen eradication rates in the microbiologically-valid population were 69% versus 66% for moxifloxacin and comparator, respectively (P=1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous+/-oral moxifloxacin was as effective as iv piperacillin-tazobactam+/-amoxicillin-clavulanate in treating moderate-to-severe DFIs. Moxifloxacin may have potential as a monotherapy regimen for DFIs.

Skin and skin structure infections: treatment with newer generation fluoroquinolones

Skin and skin structure infections (SSSI) are an emerging issue in healthcare. They are responsible for increasing heathcare utilization, both in hospitalizations and intravenous antibiotic use. SSSI are caused by an evolving variety of pathogens, including Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and anaerobic bacteria. In combination with mounting resistance patterns, this diverse range of bacteria mandate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage. Historically, cephalosporins and penicillins have been the mainstay of treatment, but recent data suggest newer generation fluoroquinolones are being used with increasing frequency. In 2005, moxifloxacin joined gatifloxacin and levofloxacin as newer generation fluoroquionolones with Food and Drug Administration indications for SSSIs. Even within this group there exist subtle differences that impact optimal management. This paper offers the clinician a comparative review of the antimicrobial spectrum, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and clinical efficacy data to support the appropriate use of fluoroquinolones in SSSIs.

Probability of target attainment for ceftobiprole as derived from a population pharmacokinetic analysis of 150 subjects

Ceftobiprole is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that is undergoing phase III trials for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections and nosocomial pneumonia. The objectives were to describe the pharmacodynamic profiles of ceftobiprole given at 500 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 8 h (q8h) (2-h infusion) and 500 mg i.v. every 12 h (q12h) (1-h infusion) to determine the overall probability of target attainment (PTA) by weighting for the expected distributions of renal function in the populations of interests, to determine the PTA against representative pathogens encountered in clinical trials, and to determine the optimal renal dose adjustment for ceftobiprole at 500 mg i.v. q8h (2-h infusion). Data for a total of 150 subjects in phase I/II trials were analyzed by using the population pharmacokinetic modeling program BigNPOD (nonparametric optimal design). Monte Carlo simulation was performed with the ADAPT II program to estimate the PTA at which the free drug concentrations exceed the MIC for 30 to 60% of the dosing interval (30 to 60% fT > MIC). For ceftobiprole at 500 mg i.v. q12h, the probabilities of achieving 30% and 50% fT > MIC exceeded 90% for MICs < or =2 mg/liter and < or =1 mg/liter, respectively, For ceftobiprole at 500 mg i.v. q8h, the probabilities of achieving 40 and 60% fT > MIC exceeded 90% for MICs < or =4 mg/liter and < or =2 mg/liter, respectively. For ceftobiprole at both 500 mg i.v. q12h and 500 mg i.v. q8h, the probability of achieving a nearly bactericidal effect (50% fT > MIC) exceeded 90% for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus and MRSA. For gram-negative pathogens, the PTA for achieving a nearly maximal bactericidal effect (60% fT > MIC) for ceftobiprole at 500 mg i.v. q8h exceeded 90% for non-AmpC-producing gram-negative organisms. Ceftobiprole at 500 mg i.v. q12h, for patients who had a creatinine clearance rate of < or =50 ml/min, was identified as the most appropriate treatment regimen for patients who require renal dose adjustment for mild to moderate renal impairment.

Optimising Antimicrobial Therapy in Diabetic Foot Infections

Foot infections are common and the most serious lower extremity complication contributing to amputations, particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus. Infection is most often a consequence of foot ulcerations, which typically follows trauma to a neuropathic foot. Foot infections may be classified as mild, moderate and severe; this largely determines the approach to therapy. Gram-positive bacteria are the sole causative pathogens for most mild and moderate infections. These infections can usually be treated with culture-based narrow-spectrum antibacterials along with appropriate surgical debridement in an outpatient setting. In contrast, severe infections are often polymicrobial, requiring hospitalisation and treatment with broad-spectrum antibacterials along with appropriate medical and surgical interventions. The initial empirical antibacterial regimen may be tailored based on the results of culture and sensitivity tests from properly obtained specimens. Several antibacterial regimens have demonstrated effectiveness in randomised controlled trials, but no single regimen has shown superiority. Managing diabetic foot osteomyelitis is particularly controversial and requires reliable cultures to select an appropriate antibacterial regimen. Surgical resection of the infected and necrotic bone favours a good outcome in chronic osteomyelitis. The recommended duration of antibacterial therapy ranges from 1 to 4 weeks for soft tissue infection, to >6 weeks for unresected osteomyelitis. The incidence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection is increasing in both the healthcare setting and the community. This should be considered when selecting an antibacterial, especially if the patient does not improve with initial antibacterial therapy. Certain other organisms, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus spp., while potentially pathogenic, are often colonisers that do not require targeted therapy.

Fluoroquinolones vs beta-lactams for empirical treatment of immunocompetent patients with skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of fluoroquinolones with beta-lactams in the treatment of patients with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and references of relevant articles for study reports published between January 1980 and February 2006.

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials that enrolled 4817 patients were included in the analysis. Fluoroquinolones as empirical treatment of patients with SSTIs were more effective than beta-lactams for the clinically evaluable patients (90.4% vs 88.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.66). This was also true in subset analyses of randomized controlled trials that studied ciprofloxacin (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.45-4.26) and for patients with mild to moderate infections (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.13-2.96). In contrast, no difference was found between the compared regimens for patients with moderate to severe infections (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.80-1.55), for patients who did not receive third-generation cephalosporins as the comparator antibiotic (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.34), or for the microbiologically evaluable patients (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89-1.59). Fluoroquinolones were also associated with more adverse effects (19.2% vs 15.2%; OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.57).

CONCLUSION

The high proportion of successfully treated patients in the compared groups of antibiotics and the development of more adverse effects associated with fluoroquinolone use suggest that these antibiotics do not have substantial advantages compared with beta-lactams for empirical treatment of patients with SSTIs.

Comparison of the adverse event profiles of levofloxacin 500 mg and 750 mg in clinical trials for the treatment of respiratory infections

OBJECTIVE

To compare safety data with levofloxacin 500 mg and 750 mg from clinical trials for the treatment of respiratory infections.

METHODS

We compared adverse event data for levofloxacin 500 mg and 750 mg from clinical trials in acute bacterial sinusitis, acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, and community-acquired pneumonia. Adverse events occurring after the initiation of therapy were classified as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE); drug-related adverse events (DRAE) were TEAE assessed by the clinical investigator as definitely/very likely or probably related to levofloxacin therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, the safety profile of the two doses was similar but not identical. TEAE occurred in 49.0% (1601/3268) of those treated with 500 mg and in 45.5% (519/1141) of those treated with 750 mg (p = 0.042); the corresponding rates of DRAE were 7.6% (248/3268) and 8.0% (91/1141) (p = 0.699). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of overall TEAE and DRAE rates within each of the three infectious conditions, but there were in specific events, all of which are expected with levofloxacin therapy. The limitations of this analysis include that it utilized a subset of available safety data, that it includes data only from clinical trials, and that we report primarily on events occurring in > or = 2% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Given similar adverse event profiles and the advantages of higher dose therapy, including shorter courses of therapy and potential impact on preventing resistance, clinicians should consider utilizing the 750 mg dose of levofloxacin when choosing between dosage strengths for treatment of indicated infections.

Levofloxacin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in patients with severe burn injury

Levofloxacin pharmacokinetics were studied in 11 patients with severe burn injuries. Patients (values are means +/- standard deviations; age, 41 +/- 17 years; weight, 81 +/- 12 kg; creatinine clearance, 114 +/- 40 ml/min) received intravenous levofloxacin at 750 mg (n = 10 patients) or 500 mg (n = one patient) once daily. Blood samples were collected on day 1 of levofloxacin therapy; eight patients were studied again on days 4 to 6. The pharmacodynamic probability of target attainment (PTA) was evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. Mean systemic clearance, half-life, and area under the concentration-time curve over 24 h after levofloxacin at 750 mg were 9.0 +/- 3.2 liters/h, 7.8 +/- 1.6 h, and 93 +/- 31 mg . h/liter, respectively. There were no differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between day 1 and day 4; however, large intrapatient and interpatient variability was observed. Levofloxacin pharmacokinetics in burned patients were similar to those reported in other critically ill populations. Levofloxacin at 750 mg achieved >90% PTA for gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens with MICs of < or =0.5 microg/ml and MICs of < or =1 microg/ml, respectively. However, satisfactory PTA was not obtained with less-susceptible gram-negative organisms with MICs of 1 microg/ml or any organism with a MIC of > or =2 microg/ml. The results of this study indicate that levofloxacin should be administered at 750 mg/day for treatment of systemic infections in severely burned patients. However, even 750 mg/day may be inadequate for gram-negative organisms with MICs of 1 to 2 microg/ml even though they are defined as susceptible. Alternative antibiotics or treatment strategies should be considered for infections due to these pathogens.

Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. Foot infections in patients with diabetes cause substantial morbidity and frequent visits to health care professionals and may lead to amputation of a lower extremity. 2. Diabetic foot infections require attention to local (foot) and systemic (metabolic) issues and coordinated management, preferably by a multidisciplinary foot-care team (A-II). The team managing these infections should include, or have ready access to, an infectious diseases specialist or a medical microbiologist (B-II). 3. The major predisposing factor to these infections is foot ulceration, which is usually related to peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral vascular disease and various immunological disturbances play a secondary role. 4. Aerobic Gram-positive cocci (especially Staphylococcus aureus) are the predominant pathogens in diabetic foot infections. Patients who have chronic wounds or who have recently received antibiotic therapy may also be infected with Gram-negative rods, and those with foot ischemia or gangrene may have obligate anaerobic pathogens. 5. Wound infections must be diagnosed clinically on the basis of local (and occasionally systemic) signs and symptoms of inflammation. Laboratory (including microbiological) investigations are of limited use for diagnosing infection, except in cases of osteomyelitis (B-II). 6. Send appropriately obtained specimens for culture before starting empirical antibiotic therapy in all cases of infection, except perhaps those that are mild and previously untreated (B-III). Tissue specimens obtained by biopsy, ulcer curettage, or aspiration are preferable to wound swab specimens (A-I). 7. Imaging studies may help diagnose or better define deep, soft-tissue purulent collections and are usually needed to detect pathological findings in bone. Plain radiography may be adequate in many cases, but MRI (in preference to isotope scanning) is more sensitive and specific, especially for detection of soft-tissue lesions (A-I). 8. Infections should be categorized by their severity on the basis of readily assessable clinical and laboratory features (B-II). Most important among these are the specific tissues involved, the adequacy of arterial perfusion, and the presence of systemic toxicity or metabolic instability. Categorization helps determine the degree of risk to the patient and the limb and, thus, the urgency and venue of management. 9. Available evidence does not support treating clinically uninfected ulcers with antibiotic therapy (D-III). Antibiotic therapy is necessary for virtually all infected wounds, but it is often insufficient without appropriate wound care. 10. Select an empirical antibiotic regimen on the basis of the severity of the infection and the likely etiologic agent(s) (B-II). Therapy aimed solely at aerobic Gram-positive cocci may be sufficient for mild-to-moderate infections in patients who have not recently received antibiotic therapy (A-II). Broad-spectrum empirical therapy is not routinely required but is indicated for severe infections, pending culture results and antibiotic susceptibility data (B-III). Take into consideration any recent antibiotic therapy and local antibiotic susceptibility data, especially the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or other resistant organisms. Definitive therapy should be based on both the culture results and susceptibility data and the clinical response to the empirical regimen (C-III). 11. There is only limited evidence with which to make informed choices among the various topical, oral, and parenteral antibiotic agents. Virtually all severe and some moderate infections require parenteral therapy, at least initially (C-III). Highly bioavailable oral antibiotics can be used in most mild and in many moderate infections, including some cases of osteomyelitis (A-II). Topical therapy may be used for some mild superficial infections (B-I). 12. Continue antibiotic therapy until there is evidence that the infection has resolved but not necessarily until a wound has healed. Suggestions for the duration of antibiotic therapy are as follows: for mild infections, 12 weeks usually suffices, but some require an additional 12 weeks; for moderate and severe infections, usually 24 weeks is sufficient, depending on the structures involved, the adequacy of debridement, the type of soft-tissue wound cover, and wound vascularity (A-II); and for osteomyelitis, generally at least 46 weeks is required, but a shorter duration is sufficient if the entire infected bone is removed, and probably a longer duration is needed if infected bone remains (B-II). 13. If an infection in a clinically stable patient fails to respond to 1 antibiotic courses, consider discontinuing all antimicrobials and, after a few days, obtaining optimal culture specimens (C-III). 14. Seek surgical consultation and, when needed, intervention for infections accompanied by a deep abscess, extensive bone or joint involvement, crepitus, substantial necrosis or gangrene, or necrotizing fasciitis (A-II). Evaluating the limb's arterial supply and revascularizing when indicated are particularly important. Surgeons with experience and interest in the field should be recruited by the foot-care team, if possible. 15. Providing optimal wound care, in addition to appropriate antibiotic treatment of the infection, is crucial for healing (A-I). This includes proper wound cleansing, debridement of any callus and necrotic tissue, and, especially, off-loading of pressure. There is insufficient evidence to recommend use of a specific wound dressing or any type of wound healing agents or products for infected foot wounds. 16. Patients with infected wounds require early and careful follow-up observation to ensure that the selected medical and surgical treatment regimens have been appropriate and effective (B-III). 17. Studies have not adequately defined the role of most adjunctive therapies for diabetic foot infections, but systematic reviews suggest that granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy may help prevent amputations (B-I). These treatments may be useful for severe infections or for those that have not adequately responded to therapy, despite correcting for all amenable local and systemic adverse factors. 18. Spread of infection to bone (osteitis or osteomyelitis) may be difficult to distinguish from noninfectious osteoarthropathy. Clinical examination and imaging tests may suffice, but bone biopsy is valuable for establishing the diagnosis of osteomyelitis, for defining the pathogenic organism(s), and for determining the antibiotic susceptibilities of such organisms (B-II). 19. Although this field has matured, further research is much needed. The committee especially recommends that adequately powered prospective studies be undertaken to elucidate and validate systems for classifying infection, diagnosing osteomyelitis, defining optimal antibiotic regimens in various situations, and clarifying the role of surgery in treating osteomyelitis (A-III).

Levofloxacin in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia

The use of levofloxacin in critically ill patients has progressively increased since commercial marketing of the drug in 1999, despite the fact that few studies have been designed to assess the use of levofloxacin in this population. Pharmacological characteristics, broad spectrum of activity, and tolerability account for the high interest in the drug for the treatment of different infectious diseases, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and the recommendation of levofloxacin in guidelines developed by a number of scientific societies. According to pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data, it seems reasonable to assume that an increase in activity follows from a larger dose, so that 500 mg/12 h is adequate in patients with VAP. In critically ill patients with VAP, levofloxacin monotherapy is indicated for empirical treatment of patients with early onset pneumonia without risk factors for multiresistant pathogens, and in combination therapy for late onset VAP or for patients at risk for multiresistant pathogens. The use of levofloxacin in combination therapy is supported by multiple reasons, including: increased empirical coverage in infections with suspected intracellular pathogens; substitution for more toxic antimicrobial agents (e.g., aminoglycosides) in patients with renal dysfunction and in those at risk for renal insufficiency; and severity of systemic response to infection (septic shock) that justifies multiple treatment with better tolerated antibiotics. The availability of the oral formulation allows sequential therapy, switching from the intravenous route to the oral route. Levofloxacin is well tolerated by critically ill patients, with few adverse events of mild to moderate severity.

Fluoroquinolones and Anaerobes

The usefulness of fluoroquinolones for the treatment of mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections has been investigated since these agents started being used in clinical practice. Newer compounds have increased in vitro activity against anaerobes, but clinically relevant susceptibility breakpoints for these bacteria have not been established. Pharmacodynamic analyses and corroboration by new data from clinical trials have enhanced our knowledge concerning the use of fluoroquinolones to treat selective anaerobic pathogens. These studies suggest that newer agents could be useful in the treatment of several types of mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections, including skin and soft-tissue, intra-abdominal, and respiratory infections. The major concerns with expanding the use of fluoroquinolones to treat anaerobic infections have been reports of increasing resistance in Bacteroides group isolates and the impact of these antibiotics on the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated disease.

Pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa: the levofloxacin clinical trials experience

Respiratory infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa present significant treatment challenges, including that of overcoming intrinsic and adaptive resistance by these organisms. The fluoroquinolones may provide an effective option for treating these infections. In this analysis, we report on the efficacy of levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and nosocomial pneumonia caused by P. aeruginosa using information from nine clinical studies supported by Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development (Raritan, NJ) or Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical (Raritan, NJ). From these studies, a total of 36 patients were identified with pneumonia caused by P. aeruginosa and treated with levofloxacin (750 mg or 500 mg). For patients diagnosed with nosocomial pneumonia, levofloxacin treatment achieved a 64.7% (11/17) clinical success rate, compared with 41.2% (7/17) with comparator treatment (imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin) in the microbiologically evaluable population. Eradication rates were 58.8% with levofloxacin treatment vs. 29.4% with comparator (95% CI, -64.2 to 5.4). For levofloxacin-treated CAP patients with P. aeruginosa infections (n = 19), clinical success and microbiological eradication rates in the microbiologically evaluable population were 89.5% and 78.9%, respectively. Several limitations of this analysis exist including that this was a retrospective evaluation that pooled data from multiple studies with varying protocols, the number of patients included was limited, and the nosocomial pneumonia patients used adjunctive therapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam in most cases. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that levofloxacin may play a role in the treatment of these difficult respiratory infections.

Efficacy of tigecycline in complicated skin and skin structure infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections

Treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) currently present a therapeutic challenge because many of the pathogens involved are becoming resistant to standard antimicrobial therapy. Tigecycline is a novel glycylcycline that exhibits expanded broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against certain resistant pathogens. Results from randomised Phase III studies comparing the clinical and microbiological efficacy of tigecycline with combination antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of cSSSI and cIAI are encouraging. Tigecycline has the potential to be used as monotherapy for the treatment of cSSSI and cIAI.

Second-line treatment of limb-threatening diabetic foot infections with intravenous fosfomycin

Diabetic foot infections (DFI) expanding to bones and joints are associated with a poor prognosis of limb salvage. The bactericidal epoxide fosfomycin accumulates in inflamed soft and bone tissue, and may represent a potential treatment option for targeting severe DFI. Fifty-two patients (35 men, 17 women, mean age 62.9 +/- SD 9.2 years) with limb-threatening DFI (that is, Wagner grade 3 and higher) were enrolled in a multi-center compassionate use program of fosfomycin. Twenty-two patients (42.4%) had unsuccessfully been pretreated with other antimicrobials. Besides standard treatment (topical wound care and surgical debridement), eligible subjects received a combination of 8 to 24 g fosfomycin daily, and a conventional antibiotic agent, usually a beta-lactam compound. Treatment duration averaged 14.4 +/- 8.3 days. Limb-sparing surgery was possible in 48 patients (92.3%, 95% confidence interval 81.5-97.9%). Only four participants faced mild drug-related side effects (nausea, rash). Logistic regression analysis showed a trend towards better results with prolonged treatment, whereas a dose increase above 12 g daily did not affect outcomes. In DFI being resistant to conventional antibiotic agents, intravenous fosfomycin offers an effective treatment choice that may increase the likelihood of limb preservation. The present data warrant a larger comparative trial to stabilize effect estimates.

Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of Once-Weekly Dalbavancin versus Twice-Daily Linezolid Therapy for the Treatment of Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections

BACKGROUND

Dalbavancin, a novel lipoglycopeptide with a pharmacokinetic profile that allows weekly dosing, is active against gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The efficacy of dalbavancin for treatment of skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs) was demonstrated in a phase 2 study.

METHODS

In a phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with complicated SSSIs, including infections known or suspected to involve MRSA, were randomized (ratio, 2 : 1) in a double-blind manner to receive dalbavancin (1000 mg given intravenously on day 1 and 500 mg given intravenously on day 8) or linezolid (600 mg given intravenously or intravenously/orally every 12 h for 14 days). Efficacy was assessed by determining clinical and microbiological responses at the end of therapy and at the test-of-cure visit. Relapses were identified by additional follow-up approximately 1 month later.

RESULTS

MRSA was identified in 51% of patients from whom a pathogen was isolated at baseline. Dalbavancin and linezolid demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy in the clinically evaluable population at the test-of-cure visit (88.9% and 91.2% success, respectively). The rate of clinical success at the end of therapy was >90% in both arms. Less than 1.0% of patients in either treatment arm experienced relapse after the test-of-cure visit. Both treatments yielded successful microbiological response in excess of 85% among microbiologically evaluable patients at end of therapy and at the test-of-cure visit for all pathogens combined, for all S. aureus strains, and for MRSA. Gastrointestinal symptoms were among the most common adverse events in both arms. A higher proportion of patients in the linezolid arm reported adverse events that were judged by the investigator to be probably/possibly related to treatment (dalbavancin arm, 25.4% of subjects; linezolid arm, 32.2% of subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

Two doses of dalbavancin (1000 mg given on day 1 followed by 500 mg given on day 8) were as well tolerated and as effective as linezolid given twice daily for 14 days for the treatment of patients with complicated SSSI, including those infected with MRSA.

Sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin versus intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam followed by oral amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection

In this prospective, double-blind, multicentre trial, adult patients with complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) randomly received sequential intravenous (i.v.)/oral (p.o.) moxifloxacin (400 mg once a day) or a control regimen of i.v. piperacillin-tazobactam (3.0/0.375 g every 6 h) followed by p.o. amoxicillin-clavulanate (800 mg every 12 h), each for 7-14 days. Clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit (10-42 days post therapy) for the efficacy-valid population were 79% (143/180) for the moxifloxacin-treated group and 82% (153/187) for the control group (95% confidence interval, -12.04, 3.29). Bacteriological eradication rates for Staphylococcus aureus, the most prevalent organism, were 78% and 80%, respectively. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar for both groups (31% moxifloxacin, 30% control). Sequential i.v./p.o. moxifloxacin was as effective and well tolerated as i.v. piperacillin-tazobactam followed by p.o. amoxicillin-clavulanate in treating patients with cSSSI.