Daptomycin Versus Other Antimicrobial Agents for the Treatment of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Spanish

French

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are common in everyday clinical practice. Daptomycin has been shown to achieve very good concentrations in skin and soft tissues.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and toxicity of daptomycin with that of other antimicrobials for the treatment of SSTIs.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles published up to March 2009. Comparative studies in which daptomycin was used in the intervention group were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcome of interest was clinical success; secondary outcomes were microbiologic success, clinical success in subsets with complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs) or infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; (MRSA), clinical success of daptomycin-versus vancomycin-treated patients, time to clinical cure, treatment-related adverse events, withdrawal from treatment due to toxicity, all-cause mortality, and development of resistance.

RESULTS

Four studies were included in the analysis (3 were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Vancomycin and semisynthetic penicillins were used in the comparator arm. Three studies reported on patients with cSSTIs. The intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 1557 patients. No statistically significant difference between daptomycin and comparators was found regarding clinical success in clinically evaluable (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25 in the 3 RCTs and OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.38 to 4.66 with all 4 studies included), ITT, MRSA-infected patients, and those with cSSTIs. Two studies reported that significantly fewer patients with cSSTIs required prolonged treatment in the daptomycin arm and that clinical cure was faster than with comparators. No difference between the compared regimens was found in other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Daptomycin is effective and safe for the treatment of SSTIs. Studies evaluating the optimal duration of daptomycin therapy for cSSTIs, comparing daptomycin with new agents, and focusing on proven MRSA SSTIs will be helpful for the further evaluation of the drug.

Keywords

abscess burn cellulitis erysipelas glycopeptide lipopeptide ulcer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Hersh

Chambers

Maselli

Gonzales

National trends in ambulatory visits and antibiotic prescribing for skin and soft-tissue infections. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1585–91.

2. Johnson

Khoie

Shurland

Kreisel

Stine

Roghmann

MC.

Skin and soft tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 clone. Emerg Infect Dis 2007;13:1195–200.

3. Conly

Stiver

Weiss

Becker

Rosner

Miller

A retrospective analysis of practice patterns in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections at three Canadian tertiary care centres. Can J Infect Dis 2003;14:315–21.

4. Rajendran

Young

Maurer

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cephalexin for treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses in a population at risk for community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51:4044–8.

5. Ruhe

Smith

Bradsher

Menon

Community-onset methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft-tissue infections: impact of antimicrobial therapy on outcome. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:777–84.

6. King

Humphrey

Wang

Kourbatova

Ray

Blumberg

HM.

Emergence of community-acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:309–17.

7. Chou

Lin

Wang

Peng

Chang

FY.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia: comparison of clinical features and outcome between Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2008;41:124–9.

8. Szumowski

Cohen

Kanaya

Mayer

KH.

Treatment and outcomes of infections by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at an ambulatory clinic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51:423–8.

9. Eron

Lipsky

Low

Nathwani

Tice

Volturo

; Expert panel on managing skin and soft tissue infections. Managing skin and soft tissue infections: expert panel recommendations on key decision points. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52(suppl 1):i3–17.

10.

10. Eisenstein

BI.

Treatment challenges in the management of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14(suppl 2):17–25.

11.

11. Jeu

Fung

HB.

Daptomycin: a cyclic lipopeptide antimicrobial agent. Clin Ther 2004;26:1728–57.

12.

12. Kim

Suecof

Sutherland

Gao

Kuti

Nicolau

DP.

In vivo microdialysis study of the penetration of daptomycin into soft tissues in diabetic versus healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:3941–6.

13.

13. Jadad

Moore

Carroll

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12.

14.

14. Higgins

JPT

Green

, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration 2008. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed 2009 Apr 3).

15.

15. Yusuf

Peto

Lewis

Collins

Sleight

Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomised trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1985;27:335–71.

16.

16. Egger

Davey Smith

Schneider

Minder

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.

17.

17. Arbeit

Maki

Tally

Campanaro

Eisenstein

; Daptomycin 98-01 and 99-01 Investigators. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1673–81.

18.

18. Katz

Lindfield

Steenbergen

A pilot study of high-dose short duration daptomycin for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Int J Clin Pract 2008;62:1455–64.

19.

19. Pertel

Eisenstein

Link

The efficacy and safety of daptomycin vs vancomycin for the treatment of cellulitis and erysipelas. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:368–75.

20.

20. Davis

McKinnon

Hall

Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy 2007;27:1611–8.

21.

21. Krige

Lindfield

Friedrich

Effectiveness and duration of daptomycin therapy in resolving clinical symptoms in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:2147–56.

22.

22. Lipsky

Stoutenburgh

Daptomycin for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers: evidence from a randomized, controlled trial comparing daptomycin with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillins for complicated skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;55:240–5.

23.

23. Davis

Mckinnon

PS.

Daptomycin reduces time to successful treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections when compared with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillins (abstract 426). Presented at: 42nd Annual Meeting of Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Boston, MA, October 1, 2004.

24.

24. Campanaro

Tally

Eisenstein

Arbeit

RD.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of daptomycin (DAP) versus semi-synthetic penicillin (SSP) and vancomycin (VAN) in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) (abstract L737). Presented at: 43rd Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICCAC), Chicago, IL, September 15, 2003.

25.

25. Friedrich

Krige

Lindfield

Daptomycin is clinically more rapidly effective than comparator for treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections (abstract P839). Presented at: 17th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Munich, Germany, April 2007.

26.

26. Chirurgi

Edelstein

Oster

Randomized comparison trial of teicoplanin i.v., teicoplanin i.m., and cefazolin therapy for skin and soft tissue infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. South Med J 1994;87:875–80.

27.

27. Weigelt

Itani

Stevens

Lau

Dryden

Knirsch

; Linezolid CSSTI Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:2260–6.

28.

28. Falagas

Siempos

Vardakas

KZ.

Linezolid versus glycopeptide or β-lactam for treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:53–66.

29.

29. Li

Willke

Pinto

Comparison of length of hospital stay for patients with known or suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus species infections treated with linezolid or vancomycin: a randomized, multicenter trial. Pharmacotherapy 2001;21:263–74.

30.

30. Sharpe

Shively

Polk

Jr. Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA-complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2005;189:425–8.

31.

31. Florescu

Beuran

Dimov

; on behalf of the 307 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62(suppl.1):i17–i28.

32.

32. McCollum

Sorensen

Liu

LZ.

A comparison of costs and hospital length of stay associated with intravenous/oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in elderly US patients. Clin Ther 2007;29:469–77.

33.

33. Cosgrove

Kaye

Harbarth

Karchmer

Carmeli

The impact of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on patient outcomes: mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:166–74.

34.

34. Silverman

Oliver

Andrew

Resistance studies with daptomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45:1799–802.

35.

35. Pfaller

Sader

Jones

RN.

Evaluation of the in vitro activity of daptomycin against 19615 clinical isolates of Gram-positive cocci collected in North American hospitals (2002–2005). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007;57:459–65.

36.

36. Sader

Streit

Fritsche

Jones

RN.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of Gram-positive bacteria isolated from European medical centres: results of the Daptomycin Surveillance Programme (2002–2004). Clin Microbiol Infect 2006;12:844–52.

37.

37. Castanheira

Jones

Sader

HS.

Update of the in vitro activity of daptomycin tested against 6710 Gram-positive cocci isolated in North America (2006). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;61:235–9.

38.

38. Stevens

Bisno

Chambers

Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:1373–406.

39.

39. Lipsky

Berendt

Deery

; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:885–910.