Abstract
Background
Daptomycin has proven efficacy in patients with Gram-positive complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs), including those caused by Staphylococcus aureus, regardless of methicillin susceptibility.
Objective
This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of daptomycin in elderly patients.
Study Design
This was an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase IIIb study conducted in hospitalized patients
Patients
Patients aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of Gram-positive cSSTIs with or without bacteraemia were included. In addition, infections were required to be of sufficient severity to require inpatient hospitalization and treatment with parenteral antibiotics for at least 96 h. The main exclusion criterion was the presence of a non-complicated SSTI that could heal by itself or be cured by surgical removal of the site of infection.
Intervention
Patients were randomized (2:1) to intravenous daptomycin or pooled intravenous standard therapies (semi-synthetic penicillin or vancomycin, referred to as the ‘comparator’). Duration of treatment was between 5 and 14 days for cSSTIs without bacteraemia and between 10 and 28 days for cSSTIs with bacteraemia.
Main Outcome Measure
The primary objective was descriptive comparison of clinical success in clinically evaluable patients at test of cure, 7–14 days post treatment. Secondary objectives were microbiological outcome, duration of treatment and safety.
Results
In total, 120 patients were randomized (81 to daptomycin; 39 to the comparator) and 102 patients completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Common infections included cellulitis, ulcers and abscesses; six patients had bacteraemia [five documented (daptomycin, n = 3; comparator, n = 2); and one suspected (daptomycin, n = 1)]. Test-of-cure clinical success rates were numerically higher for daptomycin than for the comparator [89.0 % (65/73) vs. 83.3 % (25/30); odds ratio 1.65 (95 % confidence interval 0.49–5.54)]. For patients with S. aureus infections, cure rates were 89.7 % (35/39) versus 69.2 % (9/13), respectively; percentage points difference, 20.5 (95 % confidence interval −12.2 to 50.9)]. Rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar in both treatment arms; however, discontinuation rates for AEs/serious AEs were lower for daptomycin than for the comparator (3.8 % vs. 10.0 %). Three serious AEs were considered to be related to the study drug: one case each of pancytopenia (semi-synthetic penicillin), renal failure (vancomycin) and asymptomatic increase in creatine phosphokinase concentrations (daptomycin).
Conclusion
In elderly patients, for whom data were previously limited, the efficacy and safety of daptomycin have been confirmed, including for infections caused by S. aureus, regardless of methicillin susceptibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Melzer M, Eykyn SJ, Gransden WR, Chinn S. Is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus more virulent than methicillin-susceptible S. aureus? A comparative cohort study of British patients with nosocomial infection and bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(11):1453–60.
McClelland RS, Fowler VG Jr, Sanders LL, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia among elderly vs younger adult patients: comparison of clinical features and mortality. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(11):1244–7.
Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. Global prevalence of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(5):1047–53.
Pather M. The prevalence of renal impairment in the elderly hospitalized population. Int J Gen Med. 2009;2(1):117–9.
Zhang QL, Rothenbacher D. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in population-based studies: systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2008;8(1):117.
Sader HS, Farrell DJ, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of daptomycin tested against Gram-positive strains collected in European hospitals: results from 7 years of resistance surveillance (2003–2009). J Chemother. 2011;23(4):200–6.
Arbeit RD, Maki D, Tally FP, et al. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(12):1673–81.
Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):653–65.
Gollnick H, Fierlbeck G, Seaton RA, et al. Efficacy and safety of daptomycin versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a multicentre, randomized, assessor-blind trial. In: 20th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Vienna, Austria, 2012; Poster P1551.
Cubicin® (daptomycin): summary of product characteristics [online]. Horsham: United Kingdom, 2012. http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/17341. Accessed 20 Feb 2013.
Quist SR, Fierlbeck G, Seaton RA, et al. Comparative randomised clinical trial against glycopeptides supports the use of daptomycin as first-line treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;39(1):90–1.
EARSS management team. European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System annual report 2011 [online]. 2011. http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-europe-2011.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2013.
Edelsberg J, Berger A, Weber DJ, et al. Clinical and economic consequences of failure of initial antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(2):160–9.
Martone WJ, Lamp KC. Efficacy of daptomycin in complicated skin and skin-structure infections due to methicillin-sensitive and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus: results from the CORE Registry. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(12):2337–43.
Acknowledgements and Disclosures
The authors thank Margaretha Bindschedler, MD, for helpful discussions. Editorial support for the authors of this article was provided by Laura Saunderson of Chameleon Communications International, with Novartis Pharma AG sponsorship. This support encompassed the preparation of a preliminary draft, incorporating authors’ contributions and revisions, editing and referencing, all under the direction of the authors. At all stages the authors have had control over the content of this manuscript, for which they have given final approval and take full responsibility. Novartis Pharma AG enforces a ‘no ghost-writing’ policy. This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG.
Alexander Konychev, Alexander Kreuter and Gerhard Fierlbeck have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Rose K. C. Moritz has received grants/honorarium, support for travel to study meetings, and equipment, medicines and administrative support for the purpose of the study from Novartis Pharma AG.
Alexander Shulutko has received grants from Novartis Pharma AG.
Rashidkhan Pathan, Markus Heep, Kamel Bouylout, Uwe Trostmann and Ricardo L. Chaves are employees of Novartis Pharma AG; Markus Heep and Ricardo L. Chaves own stock options with the company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Trial Registration Number: EudraCT no. 2009-014391-22; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01184872 (completed).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Konychev, A., Heep, M., Moritz, R.K.C. et al. Safety and Efficacy of Daptomycin as First-Line Treatment for Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in Elderly Patients: An Open-Label, Multicentre, Randomized Phase IIIb Trial. Drugs Aging 30, 829–836 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-013-0114-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-013-0114-8