Abstract
Patients (n = 409) with severe skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) were randomized to receive clinafloxacin or piperacillin-tazobactam (plus optional vancomycin for methicillin-resistant cocci), administered intravenously, with the option to switch to oral medication. Most patients had cellulitis, wound infections, or diabetic foot infections. Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the most common baseline pathogens. Fewer baseline pathogens were resistant to clinafloxacin (1.8%) than to piperacillin-tazobactam (6.2%) (P = 0.001). The clinafloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam groups did not differ significantly in clinical cure rates (68.8 and 65.2%, respectively) or microbiologic eradication rates (61.5 and 57.2%). Clinafloxacin yielded higher eradication rates for all three of the most common pathogenic species, although no differences were statistically significant. Within the power of this study, the overall frequency of adverse events was similar (P = 0.577) in the two treatment groups. Drug-associated adverse events (P = 0.050) and treatment discontinuations (P = 0.052) were marginally more frequent in the clinafloxacin group, primarily due to phototoxicity in outpatients receiving clinafloxacin. Although most cases of phototoxicity were mild to moderate, four cases were reported as severe. In summary, clinafloxacin monotherapy was equivalent in effectiveness to therapy with piperacillin-tazobactam plus optional vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe SSTIs.
Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), such as spontaneous lymphangitis or cellulitis, and especially complicated infections, such as wound and surgical infections or diabetic foot ulcers, often require hospitalization and intravenous (i.v.) antibacterial treatment. These infections are caused by a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic organisms and are responsible for increased morbidity, prolonged hospital stay, and increased health care costs (3, 13, 19).
Staphylococcus aureus and streptococci; gram-negative bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacteriaceae, and Enterococcus spp.; and anaerobes such as Bacteroides fragilis are frequently isolated (8, 12, 13, 18, 32). Methicillin resistance among S. aureus causing SSTI currently ranges from 11% in Canada to 19% in the United States, with rates as high as 25 to 50% in infected ulcers. Ciprofloxacin resistance among P. aeruginosa ranges from 19 to 36% (R. N. Jones, M. A. Schomberg, M. A. Pfaller, et al. and the SENTRY Participants Group, 38th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. E94, 1997).
Frequently used antimicrobial agents have included expandedspectrum cephalosporins (e.g., cefoxitin, cefotetan, cefmetazole), imipenem-cilastatin, β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (e.g., piperacillin-tazobactam, ticarcillin-clavulanate), and fluoroquinolones (13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 35). However, emerging resistance, particularly among S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and enterococci, is making the choice of treatment increasingly more difficult (23).
Clinafloxacin is an extended-spectrum fluoroquinolone antibacterial that is bactericidal against S. aureus, including methicillin-resistant strains, and most strains of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. aureus (7, 33). Like other fluoroquinolones, clinafloxacin has activity against Pseudomonas spp. and the Enterobacteriaceae; the MICs of clinafloxacin at which 90% of isolates are inhibited (MIC90s) are similar to or lower than those of ciprofloxacin (17, 34). Clinafloxacin is also highly active against most species of anaerobes, and its MIC90s are substantially lower than those of ciprofloxacin (6, 36).
Clinafloxacin steady-state maximum concentrations in plasma in humans averaged 2.6 μg/ml following dosing of 200 mg i.v. every 12 h (q12h) and oral (p.o.) bioavailability of ≥90% (31). Penetration into interstitial fluid and skin blister fluid is rapid and extensive, with mean ratios of concentration in blisters to concentration in plasma of 93.1% (37).
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clinafloxacin versus a regimen consisting of piperacillin-tazobactam with optional vancomycin among patients with complicated SSTIs.
(These data were previously presented as an abstract [Abstr. 39th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. abstr. 1106a, 1999].)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Adult patients with severe or limb-threatening SSTIs serious enough to require hospitalization and i.v. therapy were eligible for inclusion in this randomized, investigator-blind, multicenter, parallel-group trial. Patients with acute (≤5 days prior) physical findings of complicated SSTI of bacterial etiology and a diagnosis of spontaneous infection (e.g., phlegmon, cellulitis, lymphangitis), wound infections (e.g., trauma wound, surgical wound), or diabetic foot infection were included (5). Patients were also required to have material available for culture. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy or breastfeeding, significant hepatobiliary or renal dysfunction (total bilirubin levels of three or more times the upper limit of normal, alanine transaminase or aspartate transaminase levels of five or more times the upper limit of normal, or estimated creatinine clearance of <20 ml/min), immunodeficiency conditions, risk of convulsive disorders, hypersensitivity to study medications, septic shock, infected burns or decubitus ulcers, osteomyelitis, and major amputation. Also, patients were not allowed to have (i) been treated with more than a single dose of systemic antibacterial therapy for the current SSTI, (ii) had the infected site treated with topical antibiotics within 24 h prior to baseline culture collection, (iii) had prior treatment with any study medication within 7 days prior to study entry, or (iv) received treatment with any other investigational drug within 4 weeks prior to randomization. Also excluded were patients (i) receiving corticosteroids (>1 mg/kg of body weight/day, (ii) requiring concomitant topical antimicrobial agents for SSTIs, (iii) receiving other antibacterial therapy for concomitant infections, and (iv) known to have SSTI pathogens resistant to any study medication.
Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio at each site to receive either clinafloxacin (200 mg i.v. q 12h) or piperacillin-tazobactam (3.375 g i.v. q6h). To ensure blinding, patients in the clinafloxacin group also received placebo infusions every 12 h; both clinafloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam were infused over a 30-min period. Patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam arm, but not in the clinafloxacin arm, could also receive i.v. vancomycin if methicillin-resistant staphylococci or enterococci were suspected or isolated. Following a minimum of 3 days of i.v. therapy, patients could be switched to p.o. therapy; patients in the clinafloxacin group received clinafloxacin (200 mg p.o. q12h), and those in the piperacillin-tazobactam group received amoxicillin-clavulanate (500 mg p.o. q8h).
Patients were advised to avoid direct or indirect sunlight and to apply sunscreen as well as wear protective clothing if sunlight exposure was unavoidable. Dosage of study drugs was adjusted in patients with impaired renal function (creatinine clearance, To maintain investigator blinding during outpatient therapy, a third-party member, who was not involved in assessing patient medical status, was responsible for dispensing study medication and retrieving patient diaries.
Dosing of the i.v. and p.o. courses combined was not to exceed 14 days unless approved by the sponsor. Following the completion of treatment, patients were assessed at a test-of-cure (TOC) visit (6 to 14 days posttherapy) and at a long-term follow-up (LTFU) visit (21 to 35 days post-therapy).
Within 48 h prior to the initiation of therapy, the baseline evaluation of patients was conducted, including a medical history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, clinical assessment of signs and symptoms, baseline culture, and clinical laboratory tests.
Pathogen susceptibility to clinafloxacin was determined by broth microdilution using trays manufactured by AccuMed and by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion methods for determination of zones of inhibition.
Tentative clinafloxacin MIC susceptibility breakpoints that were used in this trial were defined as follows: susceptible, ≤1 μg/ml; intermediate, 2 μg/ml; and resistant, ≥4 μg/ml (22). Susceptibilities to piperacillin-tazobactam, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and vancomycin were determined by MIC testing. Susceptibility testing was performed by central laboratories (Covance, Indianapolis Ind.), which strictly conformed with National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines (27).
Efficacy and safety analyses.
The primary efficacy parameters were the clinical cure rates and the by-pathogen microbiological eradication rates determined at the TOC visit, 6 to 14 days posttherapy. Secondary efficacy parameters included the clinical cure rate and the microbiological eradication rates at the LTFU visit, 21 to 35 days posttherapy. In addition, the development of resistance, the amputation rate, and the survival rate were determined at LTFU. An investigator assessment of clinical cure rate in all patients randomized to study treatment (intent-to-treat [ITT] population) was also conducted at the LTFU visit.
Clinical response was assessed as either cure, failure, or not assessable. Cure was defined as remission of signs and symptoms of the baseline infection at the TOC visit and the receipt no more than one dose of a nonallowed antibacterial agent. Failure was defined as the absence of remission of clinical signs and symptoms, major amputation at the baseline site required after ≥3 days of study treatment, death due to SSTI, or receipt of more than one dose of a nonprotocol antibacterial agent. Not assessable was defined as the absence of data.
For the microbiological assessment, pathogens were classified as either eradicated, presumed eradicated, persistent, or presumed persistent. Microbiological eradication included actual eradication that was verified by bacteriological culture of the infection site and of the blood (if performed) and presumed eradication in cases in which no follow-up culture was available with a clinical response of cure and in which the patient received no non-protocol antibacterials. Persistence included actual persistence in the follow-up culture of infection site or blood. Presumed persistence included cases in which no culture was performed or nonbaseline pathogens were isolated, the patient received nonprotocol antibacterials, and the clinical response was failure or not assessable.
The clinical cure rate and microbiological eradication rates by pathogen assessed at LTFU were the same as those at TOC except that they were done at 21 to 35 days posttherapy.
The clinical cure rate and microbiological eradication rate were analyzed in the clinically evaluable and microbiologically evaluable populations, respectively. The clinically evaluable population was composed of patients who had the correct diagnosis, did not take prior antibacterial agents per protocol, completed specified clinical assessments, and received medication as prescribed. In order to be considered an evaluable clinical success, patients must have completed the equivalent of 5 full study days of i.v. or i.v.-p.o. dosing. Patients considered to be evaluable clinical failures must have been treated with 3 full days of study medication. The microbiologically evaluable patient population was a subset of the clinically evaluable population who had at least one baseline pathogen that was susceptible to clinafloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam and/or to vancomycin and who had microbiological assessments performed within the range of days specified by the protocol. Patients who received a concurrent antibacterial agent because they were early treatment failures were included in the microbiologically evaluable population.
The amputation rate and survival rate at LTFU were assessed in the ITT population, which included all patients who were randomized to treatment. The development of resistance was assessed in the modified ITT population, which included all patients who had a pathogen at baseline, the correct diagnosis, and received at least one dose of primary study drug.
All patients randomized to treatment and who received at least one dose of study drug were assessed for safety. Safety was assessed using adverse events, death, treatment discontinuations due to adverse events, and clinical laboratory testing. Adverse events were assessed for severity, duration, and likely relationship to the study drug. Adverse events defined as drug associated were those events considered by the investigator to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to the study drug or for which information was insufficient to assess relationship to treatment.
Statistical methodology.
A sample size of 198 microbiologically evaluable patients (99 per treatment group) was selected to provide 80% power to assess the equivalence of treatments using a two-tailed 95% confidence interval (CI) with limits of ±20%, assuming a clinical response rate of 75%. With an estimated evaluability rate of 50%, a total enrollment of 396 patients was required.
Equivalence between the two treatment groups for the primary efficacy parameters was tested using a prespecified equivalence method (16). A categorical modeling procedure provided point estimates (means and variances) for the difference between treatment group response rates. A two-tailed 95% CI for each primary efficacy parameter was constructed from parameter estimates using a standard normal approximation. The resulting CI was compared to predefined fixed criteria for evaluating treatment equivalence. If the observed maximum response rate was ≥90%, treatments were considered equivalent if the 95% CI was within ±10%. If the observed maximum response rate was between 80 and 89%, treatments were considered equivalent if the 95% CI was ±15%, and if the observed maximum response rate was <80%, treatments were equivalent if the 95% CI was ±20%. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis, adjusting for center, compared response rates between treatments (2). Safety data were summarized, and a CMH analysis, adjusting for center, was used to compare adverse event rates and rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.
The study was conducted in compliance with the Food and Drug Administration's Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at each site, as was written informed consent from each patient.
RESULTS
Four hundred nine patients were randomized to treatment, with 213 in the clinafloxacin group and 196 in the piperacillin-tazobactam group (Table 1). Patient characteristics and baseline diagnoses were similar in the two groups, although there were more patients ≥65 years of age in the piperacillin-tazobactam group than in the clinafloxacin group (32.7 versus 26.8%) (P = 0.196).
TABLE 1.
Patient characteristics (ITT population)
| Characteristic | No. (%) of patients in treatment group displaying characteristic
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Clinafloxacin (n = 213) | Piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 196) | |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 152 (71.4) | 142 (72.4) |
| Female | 61 (28.6) | 54 (27.6) |
| Race | ||
| White or caucasian | 137 (64.3) | 135 (68.9) |
| Black | 44 (20.7) | 34 (17.3) |
| Asian | 4 (1.9) | 1 (0.5) |
| Other | 28 (13.1) | 26 (13.3) |
| Median age (range) | 52 (18–86) | 54 (19–92) |
| Baseline diagnosis | ||
| Spontaneous infection | 86 (40.4) | 84 (42.9) |
| Cellulitis | 70 (32.9) | 68 (34.7) |
| Lymphangitis | 2 (0.9) | 2 (1.0) |
| Phlegmon | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) |
| Other | 13 (6.1) | 13 (6.6) |
| Wound infection | 83 (40.0) | 73 (37.2) |
| Traumatic wound | 36 (16.9) | 30 (15.3) |
| Surgical wound | 25 (11.7) | 26 (13.3) |
| Human bite wound | 3 (1.4) | 3 (1.5) |
| Animal bite wound | 0 | 2 (1.0) |
| Necrotizing cellulitis | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.5) |
| Necrotizing fasciitis | 0 | 2 (1.0) |
| Infectious gangrene | 0 | 1 (0.5) |
| Other | 17 (8.0) | 8 (4.1) |
| Diabetic foot infection | 42 (19.7) | 34 (17.3) |
| Other | 2 (0.9) | 5 (2.6) |
The numbers of patients who completed the study treatment were similar in the clinafloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (69.5 and 74.0%, respectively). More patients discontinued clinafloxacin prematurely because of adverse events than those receiving piperacillin-tazobactam) (11.4 versus 6.3%, respectively) (P = 0.05). More patients discontinued piperacillin-tazobactam prematurely due to treatment failure than those receiving clinafloxacin (8.7 versus 5.6%, respectively), though the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.25).
Of the patients who completed study treatment, the median duration of treatment (primary study drug plus protocol-allowed add-ons) was 13 days in both groups. Six (2.8%) patients received clinafloxacin (300 or 400 mg q12h) at some point during treatment because of suspected antibacterial resistance (n = 5) or obesity (n = 1). Twelve (6.1%) of the patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group received vancomycin for methicillin-resistant staphylococci or enterococci. A total of 290 patients switched to p.o. medication. Approximately 80% of patients received nondrug therapy for their SSTI during the study. Dressing changes, debridement, wound incisions, and drainage were common.
There were 279 patients (144 receiving clinafloxacin and 135 receiving piperacillin-tazobactam) who were clinically evaluable and 204 patients (108 receiving clinafloxacin and 96 receiving piperacillin-tazobactam) who were microbiologically evaluable at the TOC visit. The most common reasons for exclusion from the clinically evaluable population were insufficient treatment duration (<5 days of therapy for evaluable cure or <3 days therapy for evaluable failure) and missed clinical assessment (which includes patients who had telephone contact assessments). The most common reason for exclusion from the microbiologically evaluable group was a lack of a proven pathogen at baseline (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Reasons patients were not evaluable at TOC visit
| Patient group | No. (%) of patientsa
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Clinafloxacin (200 mg i.v. q12h) | Piperacillin-tazobactam (3.375 g q6h) | |
| Not clinically evaluable because: | ||
| No study drug received | 3 (1.4) | 6 (3.1) |
| Disallowed prior antibacterial | 5 (2.3) | 2 (1.0) |
| Wrong diagnosis | 10 (4.7) | 8 (4.1) |
| No baseline signs and symptoms | 3 (1.4) | 6 (3.1) |
| No susceptible pathogen | 10 (4.7) | 13 (6.6) |
| Missed too many consecutive doses | 4 (1.9) | 8 (4.1) |
| Insufficient treatment durationb | 24 (11.3) | 21 (10.7) |
| TOC clinical assessment missed | 23 (10.8) | 29 (14.8) |
| TOC out of range | 16 (7.5) | 7 (3.6) |
| Total not clinically evaluable | 69 (32.4) | 61 (31.1) |
| Clinically evaluable | 144 (67.6) | 135 (68.9) |
| Not microbiologically evaluable because: | ||
| No proven pathogen | 52 (24.4) | 52 (26.5) |
| TOC site culture missed or out of range | 27 (12.7) | 25 (12.8) |
| Total not microbiologically evaluable | 105 (49.3) | 100 (51.0) |
| Microbiologically evaluable | 108 (50.7) | 96 (49.0) |
A patient may be included in more than one category.
<5 or <3 days of treatment for cure and failure, respectively.
A total of 587 pathogens were isolated from 264 patients (141 receiving clinafloxacin, and 123 receiving piperacillin-tazobactam) in the modified ITT population. Multiple pathogens were isolated from 79 clinafloxacin-treated patients and 65 piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients (55% overall). Of the patients with single pathogens, S. aureus was the most common, isolated from 29 clinafloxacin-treated and 33 piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients. Additional single isolates included Streptococcus pyogenes (8 and 6 clinafloxacin- and piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients, respectively) and P. aeruginosa (6 and 1 clinafloxacin- and piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients respectively). Pathogen susceptibility to clinafloxacin was determined in 560 baseline isolates, and that to piperacillin-tazobactam was determined in 552 isolates. Overall the MICs of clinafloxacin for most isolates were ≤1, and most isolates were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam. Twenty-five S. aureus isolates were methicillin resistant. The other commonly isolated pathogens were Enterococcus faecalis (n = 37), P. aeruginosa (n = 34), Streptococcus agalactiae (n = 25), S. pyogenes (n = 25), and Enterobacter cloacae (n = 23) (Table 3).
TABLE 3.
In vitro antibacterial activities of primary study drugs for most-commonly isolated baseline pathogens
| Pathogen (n) | Clinafloxacin MIC (μg/ml)a
|
% for which clinafloxacin MIC was ≤1 μg/ml | Piperacillin-tazobactum MIC (μg/ml)a
|
% Susceptibleb to piperacillin-tazobactam | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | 50% | 90% | Range | 50% | 90% | |||
| Gram positive | ||||||||
| Enterococcus faecalis (37) | 0.06–4 | 0.12 | 2 | 76 | 4–16 | 4 | 8 | 100 |
| Staphylococcus | ||||||||
| Methicillin susceptible (114) | 0.015–2 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 99 | 4–8 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
| Methicillin resistant (25) | 0.03–4 | 0.05 | 2 | 80 | 4–128 | 32 | 128 | 24 |
| Streptococcus agalactiae (25) | 0.03–0.12 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100 | 4–4 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
| Streptococcus anginosus (20) | 0.015–2 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 95 | 4–8 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
| Streptococcus pyogenes (25) | 0.03–0.25 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 100 | 4–4 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
| Gram negative | ||||||||
| Enterobacter cloacae (23) | 0.008–1 | 0.015 | 0.06 | 100 | 4–256 | 4 | 16 | 91 |
| Escherichia coli (17) | 0.004–0.015 | 0.008 | 0.015 | 100 | 4–16 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
| Klebsiella oxytoca (12) | 0.008–0.06 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 100 | 4–8 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
| Proteus mirabilis (10) | 0.015–4 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 90 | 4–4 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (34) | 0.06–8 | 0.12 | 1 | 91 | 4–256 | 4 | 128 | 88 |
| Anaerobe (Bacteroides fragilis) (11) | 0.03–2 | 0.12 | 1 | 91 | 4–4 | 4 | 4 | 100 |
50%, MIC50; 90%, MIC90.
Does not include isolates of intermediate susceptibility.
Fewer baseline isolates were resistant to clinafloxacin (10 of 560 [1.8%] than to piperacillin-tazobactam (34 of 552 [6.2%]; P = 0.001) or amoxicillin-clavulanate (113 of 552 [20.5%]; P = 0.001). Isolates resistant to clinafloxacin included methicillin-resistant S. aureus and E. faecalis, while those resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam included methicillin-resistant S. aureus, E. cloacae, and P. aeruginosa.
Efficacy.
Clinical cure rates in the clinafloxacin-treated patients (68.8%) and the piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients (65.2%) were similar. Cure rates were also similar between treatment groups for each baseline diagnosis category (Table 4).
TABLE 4.
Clinical cure rates and microbiological eradication rates at TOC visit
| Infection | No./total (%)
|
95% CI | P (CMH analysis) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinafloxacin | Piperacillin-tazobactam | |||
| Clinical curea | ||||
| All patients | 99/144 (68.8) | 88/135 (65.2) | −7.5%, 14.6% | 0.423 |
| Spontaneous | 44/58 (75.9) | 44/61 (72.1) | ||
| Wound | 40/57 (70.2) | 32/49 (65.3) | ||
| Diabetic foot | 15/29 (51.7) | 12/25 (48.0) | ||
| Microbiological eradication by pathogenb | ||||
| All pathogens | 152/247 (61.5) | 139/243 (57.2) | −4.4%, 13.0% | 0.500 |
| Spontaneous | 48/69 (69.6) | 56/77 (72.7) | ||
| Wound | 72/105 (68.6) | 68/119 (57.1) | ||
| Diabetic foot | 32/73 (43.8) | 15/47 (31.9) | ||
Clinically evaluable population. The data are numbers of patients.
Microbiologically evaluable population. The data are numbers of isolates.
Microbiologic eradication rates (actual plus presumed eradication) were equivalent between treatment groups, 61.5% in the clinafloxacin-treated group and 57.2% in the piperacillin-tazobactam-treated group. The methodology used for determining pathogen eradication rates was somewhat influenced by the decision to classify pathogens as presumed persistent if there was no material to culture or nonbaseline pathogens were isolated and the patient received nonprotocol antibacterials. Pathogens from 33 clinafloxacin-treated patients and 30 piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients were classified as presumed persistent based on these criteria. Eradication rates for the most commonly isolated pathogen, S. aureus, were slightly higher in the clinafloxacin group than the piperacillin-tazobactam group, (62.3 versus 59.3%), driven by the higher clinafloxacin eradication rate for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (57.1 versus 35.7%) (P < 0.40). Eradication rates for all other commonly isolated baseline pathogens (i.e., isolated >20 times) were also higher for clinafloxacin but not statistically significant and included E. faecalis, P. aeruginosa, S. pyogenes, S. agalactiae, and E. cloacae (Table 5).
TABLE 5.
Microbiologic eradication rates by pathogen at TOC visit for most-commonly isolated baseline pathogensa
| Pathogen | Number eradicated/total (%)
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Clinafloxacin | Piperacillin-trazobactam | |
| Gram positive | ||
| Enterococcus faecalis | 9/15 (60.0) | 7/16 (43.8) |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 38/61 (62.3) | 32/54 (59.3) |
| Methicillin susceptible | 34/54 (63.0) | 27/40 (67.5) |
| Methicillin resistant | 4/7 (57.1) | 5/14 (35.7) |
| Streptococcus agalactiae | 5/8 (62.5) | 8/14 (57.1) |
| Streptococcus anginosus | 5/9 (55.6) | 6/8 (75.0) |
| Streptococcus pyogenes | 11/12 (91.7) | 7/10 (70.0) |
| Gram negative | ||
| Enterobacter cloacae | 6/13 (46.2) | 2/8 (25.0) |
| Escherichia coli | 6/9 (66.7) | 6/9 (66.7) |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 2/4 (50.0) | 4/7 (57.1) |
| Proteus mirabilis | 5/7 (71.4) | 0/3 (0) |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 8/15 (53.3) | 7/16 (43.8) |
| Anaerobe (Bacteroides fragilis) | 2/4 (50.0) | 5/6 (83.3) |
Microbiologically evaluable population.
In the secondary efficacy analyses at LTFU, the clinical cure rates at the LTFU visit were similar in the clinafloxacin (59 of 99 [59.6%]) and piperacillin-tazobactam (49 of 89 [55.1%]) groups. Likewise, the microbiologic eradication rate by pathogen was similar in the clinafloxacin group (100 of 191 [52.4%]) and piperacillin-tazobactam group (79 of 176 [44.9%]) (P = 0.355). Investigator assessments of clinical effectiveness in the ITT patient population at LTFU were similar in both treatment groups, clinafloxacin (156 of 190 [82.1%]) and piperacillin-tazobactam (147 of 176 [83.5%].
Resistance to clinafloxacin developed in two isolates (E. aerogenes [baseline MIC = 2 μg/ml; follow-up MIC = 16 μg/ml] and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [baseline MIC = 1 μg/ml; follow-up MIC = 4 μg/ml]) and developed to piperacillin-tazobactam in one isolate (P. aeruginosa (baseline piperacillin-tazobactam MIC ≤ 4 and 4 μg/ml, follow-up MIC = 128 and 4 μg/ml). There were two patients in each treatment group from whom the original pathogen had been eradicated at TOC but from whom it was recultured at LTFU. Neither of the pathogens in the clinafloxacin group, S. agalactiae or S. aureus, was resistant to study treatment, while the isolates at LTFU in the piperacillin-tazobactam group, S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, were resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam.
The rates of surgical amputations were similar in both treatment groups. Seven (3.3%) clinafloxacin-treated patients and 11 (5.6%) piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients underwent major amputations. These included multiple toe removal, metatarsal excision, and above- or below-knee amputation. Surgical amputation of limbs occurred within 10 days of study entry, except for three amputations in the piperacillin-tazobactam group which were required on study days 21 to 33.
Patient survival rates at LTFU were high in both treatment groups (clinafloxacin, 98.1% [209 of 213]; piperacillin-tazobactam, 99.0% [194 of 196]). Two deaths in the clinafloxacin group and two in the piperacillin-tazobactam group were considered infection related. In the clinafloxacin group, infection-related deaths consisted of one patient with sepsis secondary to abdominal cancer and one who died due to necrotizing fasciitis. In the piperacillin-tazobactam group both died due to necrotizing fasciitis; one of these patients died after being randomized but did not receive study medication. Investigators considered none of the deaths in either group related to the study drug.
Safety.
Of 409 patients randomized to treatment, 400 received study drug and were evaluable for safety. The majority of adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity (Table 6). There were 82 (39.0%) clinafloxacin-treated patients with drug-associated adverse events compared to 57 (30.0%) piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients with drug-associated events (P = 0.050). The difference in rates of associated adverse events was primarily due to photosensitivity in clinafloxacin-treated patients. The most common drug-associated adverse events reported in at least 5% of patients were phototoxicity (23 of 210 [11.0%]) in the clinafloxacin group and nausea (10 of 190 [5.3%]) and diarrhea (17 of 190 [8.9%]) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group.
TABLE 6.
Most frequent adverse events during treatmenta
| Adverse event | Clinafloxacin (n = 210 patients)
|
Piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 190 patients)
|
|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |
| Photosensitivity reaction | 22 (10.5) | 0 (0.0)b |
| Headache | 17 (8.1) | 7 (3.7) |
| Constipation | 16 (7.6) | 11 (5.8) |
| Nausea | 16 (7.6) | 23 (12.1) |
| Vomiting | 12 (5.7) | 5 (2.6) |
| Insomnia | 11 (5.2) | 9 (4.7) |
| Diarrhea | 8 (3.8) | 22 (11.6)b |
| Rash | 7 (3.3) | 3 (1.6) |
Includes only those patients who received study medication.
Statistically different (P < 0.05).
Phototoxicity reactions in clinafloxacin-treated patients were mild to moderate in intensity in most cases, but four reactions were considered severe in intensity, and two patients required hospitalization for second-degree sunburn. Patients upon discharge from the hospital were advised to avoid sunlight, apply sunscreen, and wear protective clothing. Most phototoxicity reactions (21 of 23 [91%]) occurred while patients were receiving p.o. clinafloxacin as outpatients; however, two patients experienced mild to moderate phototoxicity on i.v. clinafloxacin therapy in the hospital following exposure to sunlight.
Twenty-one patients in the clinafloxacin group and 8 patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group discontinued the study drug because of treatment-related adverse events (P = 0.032). The primary difference in treatment discontinuations in the clinafloxacin group was due to photosensitivity (n = 5) and rash (n = 5), whereas in the piperacillin-tazobactam group diarrhea (n = 3) was the most common reason. Other treatment discontinuations were attributable to a diverse range of body systems in both treatment groups, with no specific event occurring in more than one patient per treatment group. No deaths were attributed to drug-associated adverse events.
Electrocardiograms were obtained prior to and after steady-state drug levels had been achieved in 66 clinafloxacin-treated patients and 68 piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients. Systematic changes in QTc were not observed and increases in QTc were not clinically remarkable in either treatment group. One patient in the piperacillin-tazobactam group developed endoscopically-confirmed pseudomembranous colitis. Three clinafloxacin recipients and two piperacillin-tazobactam recipients experienced decreases in blood glucose reported as adverse events; the lowest level observed in clinafloxacin-treated patients was 54 mg/dl, and in piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients the lowest level was 51 mg/dl. All but one of these recipients were diabetic patients receiving insulin.
Changes in clinical laboratory measurements between baseline and end of treatment were sporadic and similar between treatment groups, except for an increase in platelets in 28 clinafloxacin-treated patients and 15 piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients, and may reflect improved clinical status. Decreases in hemoglobin values (possibly reflecting underlying illness or surgery) occurred in 35 clinafloxacin-treated patients and 48 piperacillin-tazobactam-treated patients.
DISCUSSION
In the present study, microbiologic eradication rates were similar for clinafloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam, with by-pathogen eradication rates of 61.5 and 57.2%. These rates are somewhat lower than the pathogen eradication rates previously reported in a comparison of piperacillin-tazobactam (76%) and ticarcillin-clavulanate (82.8%) (35). The lower rates may reflect the greater number of baseline isolates of P. aeruginosa and enterococci in the present study and the strict criteria used to assess pathogen response, in that persistence (rather than unevaluability) was assessed if the patient received nonantibiotics or was otherwise felt to be clinically failing protocol.
Clinafloxacin exhibited higher by-pathogen eradication rates compared to piperacillin-tazobactam for all three of the most commonly isolated pathogens, S. aureus (including methicillin-resistant S. aureus), E. faecalis, and P. aeruginosa, although no differences were statistically significant.
During the early 1990s, fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin became widely used in the treatment of SSTIs, with reported cure rates between 70 and 85% (18, 19, 20). In a randomized trial, i.v. fleroxacin administered once daily was shown to be as efficacious as ceftazidime administered two or three times daily in the treatment of patients with severe SSTIs, achieving cure rates of 82 and 73%, respectively (29). Likewise, a randomized, multicenter trial compared sequential i.v.-to-p.o. ofloxacin (400 mg) with i.v. ampicillin-sulbactam (1 to 2 g and 0.5 to 1 g) followed by p.o. amoxicillin-clavulanate (500 and 125 mg) in the treatment of diabetic patients hospitalized with foot infections; clinical success rates (cure and improvement) were 85% in the ofloxacin group and 83% in the aminopenicillin group, and microbiological eradication rates were 78 and 88%, respectively (26).
Despite these encouraging results, the development of high and rapidly increasing rates of ciprofloxacin resistance among isolates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus as well as P. aeruginosa has discouraged the role of fluoroquinolones in the empiric therapy of severe SSTIs (8, 21, 30). This has led to the development of newer fluoroquinolones such as levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and trovafloxacin, with higher potencies against quinolone-resistant S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and anaerobes (4, 25). In a randomized, multicenter study with p.o. trovafloxacin (200 mg once daily) versus p.o. amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (500 and 125 mg three times daily) in the treatment of complicated SSTIs, high pathogen eradication rates (eradication plus presumed eradication) were observed for S. aureus (80 versus 73%), E. faecalis (93 versus 85%), and P. aeruginosa (70 versus 60%), respectively (9).
In the present study the effectiveness of clinafloxacin given alone, i.v. (200 mg q 12 h) with an optional switch to p.o. therapy, was similar to that of piperacillin-tazobactam (3.375 g i.v. q 6 h), followed by oral amoxicillin-clavulanate (500 mg q8 h), with the optional addition of vancomycin for methicillin-resistant staphylococci or enterococci. Clinical cure rates were 68.8% for the clinafloxacin group and 65.2% for the piperacillin-tazobactam group. Overall clinical cure rates were somewhat lower than those in previously published reports (9, 10, 20) and may be a reflection of differences in methodology. The clinical cure rate reported in the present study was determined 6 to 14 days posttherapy rather than the more common endpoint at end-of-therapy. Patient outcomes were assessed bimodally as cure or failure; thus, the patient with only improved clinical status with partial resolution of symptoms would conservatively be considered a failure. This approach is in contrast to the more common approach which allows for a cure, improved, or failed outcome as assessment options. A multicenter study with ticarcillin-clavulanate versus piperacillin-tazobactam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (half of which were graded severe) demonstrated a 61% cure rate in both treatment groups (similar to the present study), while another 16 and 15% were considered improved, respectively (35). Stricter criteria for patient evaluability and handling of nonstudy antibacterial therapy may also have resulted in fewer patients being classified as evaluable cures, since patients who received nonprotocol antibacterials were considered treatment failures rather than nonevaluable. As in other recently published reports, the most commonly isolated baseline pathogens in the present study were S. aureus, E. faecalis, and P. aeruginosa (14, 24); B. fragilis was the most predominate anerobic pathogen, being found 11 of 95 isolates.
In this study a there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of resistance in baseline pathogens, favoring clinafloxacin (P = 0.001). The baseline susceptibility of >95% of pathogens to clinafloxacin confirms the broad spectrum of activity of this antibacterial; 4 of the 10 clinafloxacin-resistant isolates were enterococci. In contrast, 21 of the 34 isolates resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam were staphylococci, supporting this antibacterial's recognized lack of activity against methicillin-resistant cocci (1).
Fluoroquinolones containing a halogen group at position 8 of the quinolone ring, including lomefloxacin, fleroxacin, and sparfloxacin, have been associated with high rates of photosensitivity reactions (11, 28). Photosensitivity, at the rate of 11% in patients treated with clinafloxacin, was the most frequently reported drug-associated adverse event in the clinafloxacin treatment group. The majority of cases of photosensitivity were of mild to moderate intensity; however, four cases were considered severe and required treatment discontinuation. Outpatients were more likely to experience photosensitivity reactions, although two hospitalized patients exposed to direct or indirect sunlight developed photosensitivity reactions. Photosensitivity appears to be a manageable adverse event in clinafloxacin-treated inpatients. The rates of other adverse events were similar between the two treatment groups.
In summary, clinafloxacin's broad range of activity against the pathogens most frequently associated with SSTIs, including many resistant species that have become increasingly problematic in recent years, allows clinafloxacin monotherapy to achieve efficacy equivalent to that of a regimen of piperacillin-tazobactam plus optional vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe SSTIs.
Appendix
Additional members of the Clinafloxacin Severe Skin and Soft Tissue Infection Study Group are L. Parish, John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pa.; L. Nicolle, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; M. Zervos, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich.; S. Wilson, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, Calif.; J. Caldwell, Kern Medical Center, Bakersfield, Calif.; D. Talan, Olive View/UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, Calif.; B. Lipsky, Veterans Affairs Hospital, Seattle, Wash.; J. Ramirez, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.; H. Liu, Presbyterian Medical Center Philadelphia, Pa.; J. Tan, Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; T. Lee, Biltmore Center, Asheville, N. C.; S. Heard, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Mass.; J. Breen, St. Joseph's Hospital, Tampa, Fla.; N. Kirmani, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.; D. Gremillion, Wake Medical Center, Raleigh, N. C.; H. Resnick, Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Tex.; L. Rumans, St. Francis Hospital and Stormont-Vail Hospital, Topeka, Kans.; M. Metzler, Health Science Center, Columbia, Mo.; J. Wolf, The Graduate Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa.; R. Geckler, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, Md.; R. Kirsner, Cedars Medical Center, Miami, Fla.; J. Napoli, Clara Maass Medical Center, Belleville, N. J.; A. Sawchuck, Purdue University at Indianpolis, Indianapolis, Ind.; and L. Danziger, University of Illinois, Chicago.
REFERENCES
- 1.Acar J F, Goldstein F W, Kitzis M D. Susceptibility survey of piperacillin alone and in the presence of tazobactam. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31:23–28. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.suppl_a.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. New York, N.Y: John Wiley and Sons; 1990. pp. 230–234. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Apelqvist J. Wound healing in diabetes: outcome and costs. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 1998;15:21–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Blondeau J. Expanded activity and utility of the new fluoroquinolones: a review. Clin-Ther. 1999;21:3–40. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(00)88266-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Calandra B B, Norton C, Nelson J D, Mader J T. General guidelines for the evaluation of new anti-infective drugs and for the treatment of skin, skin structure, bone, and joint infections. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15(Suppl. 1):S148–154. doi: 10.1093/clind/15.supplement_1.s148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cohen M A, Huband M D, Gage J W, Yoder S L, Roland G E, Gracheck S J. In-vitro activity of clinafloxacin, trovafloxacin, and ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;40:205–211. doi: 10.1093/jac/40.2.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cohen M A, Huband M D. Activity of ciprofloxacin, trovafloxacin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, and other antimicrobial agents versus Staphylococcus aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;33:43–46. doi: 10.1016/s0732-8893(98)00121-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Colsky A S, Kirsner R S, Kerdel F A. Analysis of antibiotic susceptibilities of skin wound flora in hospitalised dermatology patients. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1006–1009. doi: 10.1001/archderm.134.8.1006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Daniel R. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral trovafloxacin and 3-times daily amoxicillin/clavulanic acid for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections. Drugs. 1999;58(Suppl. 2):288–290. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Daniel R. Once daily oral trovafloxacin in the treatment of diabetic foot infections. Drugs. 1999;58(Suppl. 2):291–292. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Domagala J M. Structure-activity and structure-side-effect relationships for the quinolone antibacterials. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1994;33:685–706. doi: 10.1093/jac/33.4.685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Failla D M, Pankey G A. Optimum outpatient therapy of skin and skin structure infections. Drugs. 1994;48:172–178. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199448020-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.File T M, Jr, Tan J S. Treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Am J Surg. 1995;169:27S–33S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.File T M, Jr, Tan J S. Efficacy and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam in skin and soft tissue infections. Eur J Surg. 1994;573:51–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.File T M, Jr, Tan J S. Ticarcillin-clavulanate therapy for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections. Rev Infect Dis. 1991;13:S733–S736. doi: 10.1093/clinids/13.supplement_9.s733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.FDA Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products. Points to consider-clinical development and labeling of anti-infective drug products, October 26, 1992. Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Administration; 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ford A S, Baltch A L, Smith R P, Ritz W. In-vitro susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas spp. to the new fluoroquinolones clinafloxacin and PD 131628 and nine other antimicrobial agents. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31:523–532. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.4.523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gentry L O. Review of quinolones in the treatment of infections of the skin and skin structure. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;28:97–110. doi: 10.1093/jac/28.suppl_c.97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Gentry L O. Treatment of skin and soft tissue infections with quinolone antimicrobial agents. In: Hooper D C, Wolfson J S, editors. Quinolone antimicrobial agents, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Microbiology; 1993. pp. 413–422. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gentry L O, Ramirez-Ronda C H, Rodriguez-Noriega E, Thadepalli H, del Rosal P L, Ramirez C. Oral ciprofloxacin vs parenteral cefotaxime in the treatment of difficult skin and skin structure infections. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:2579–2583. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Harrington G D, Zarins L T, Ramsey M A, Bradley S F, Kauffman C A. Susceptibility of ciprofloxacin-resistant staphylococci and enterococci to clinafloxacin. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;21:27–31. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(94)00143-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Jones R N, Erwin M E, Barrett M S. Interpretative criteria for CI-960 (AM-1091, PD127391) disk diffusion tests using 5-μg disks. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992;15:379–381. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(92)90029-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jones R N, Low D E, Pfaller M A. Epidemiologic trends in nosocomial and community-acquired infections due to antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive bacteria: the role of streptogramins and other newer compounds. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;33:101–112. doi: 10.1016/s0732-8893(98)00108-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Joseph W S, Axler D A. Microbiology and antimicrobial therapy of diabetic foot infections. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 1990;7:467–481. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Karchmer A W. Fluoroquinolone treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Drugs. 1999;58(Suppl. 2):82–84. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199958002-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lipsky B A, Baker P D, Landon G C, Fernau R. Antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections: comparison of two parenteral-to-oral regimens. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24:643–646. doi: 10.1093/clind/24.4.643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. NCCLS document M100–S5. 14, no. 16. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Norrby S R, Lietman P S. Safety and tolerability of fluoroquinolones. Drugs. 1993;45:59–64. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199300453-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Parrish L C, Jungkind D L. Systemic antimicrobial therapy for skin and skin structure infections: comparison of fleroxacin and ceftazidime. Am J Med. 1993;94:166–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Parry M F, Panzer K B, Yukna M E. Quinolone resistance-susceptibility data from a 300-bed community hospital. Am J Med. 1989;87:12S–16S. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(89)90012-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Randinitis E J, Brodfuehrer J, Vassos A B. Pharmacokinetics of oral and intravenous clinafloxacin. Drugs. 1999;58:252–253. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Rode H, Brown R A, Millar A J W. Surgical skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 1993;6:683–690. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Shonekan D, Handwerger S, Mildvan D. Comparative in-vitro activities of RP59500 (quinupristin/dalfopristin), CL 329998, CL 331002, trovafloxacin, clinafloxacin, teicoplanin and vancomycin against gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;39:405–409. doi: 10.1093/jac/39.3.405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Tack K J, McGuire N M, Eiseman I A. Initial clinical experience with clinafloxacin in the treatment of serious infections. Drugs. 1995;49:488–491. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199500492-00145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Tan J S, Wishnow R M, Talan D A, Duncanson F P, Norden C W the Piperacillin/Tazobactam Skin and Skin Structure Study Group. Treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: double-blind, randomized, multicenter study of piperacillin-tazobactam versus ticarcillin-clavulanate. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993;37:1580–1586. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.8.1580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Wise R. Future management of serious infections with quinolones: place of clinafloxacin. Clin Drug Investig. 1998;15:39–46. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Wise R, Jones S, Das I, Andrews J M. Pharmacokinetics and inflammatory fluid penetration of clinafloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42:428–430. doi: 10.1128/aac.42.2.428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]