1 University of Washington School of Medicine, and General Internal Medicine Clinic, VA Puget Sound Health Care System (S-111-GIMC), 1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108-1597; 2 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Lexington, MA, USA
Received 2 September 2004; returned 1 October 2004; revised 9 November 2004; accepted 10 November 2004
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The predominant pathogens causing diabetic foot infections are Gram-positive cocci, many of which are now resistant to commonly prescribed antibiotics. Daptomycin is a new agent that is active against most Gram-positive pathogens. To compare the effectiveness of daptomycin against semi-synthetic penicillins or vancomycin, we analysed the subset of diabetic patients with an infected ulcer enrolled in two randomized, controlled investigator-blind trials of patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections presumptively caused by Gram-positive organisms.
Patients and methods:
Patients with a diabetic ulcer infection were prospectively stratified to ensure they were equally represented in the treatment groups, then randomized to either daptomycin [4 mg/kg every 24 h intravenously (iv)] or a pre-selected comparator (vancomycin or a semi-synthetic penicillin) for 714 days.
Results:
Among 133 patients with a diabetic ulcer infection, 103 were clinically evaluable; 47 received daptomycin and 56 received a comparator. Most infections were monomicrobial, and Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant pathogen. Success rates for patients treated with daptomycin or the comparators were not statistically different for clinical (66% versus 70%, respectively; 95% CI, 14.4, 21.8) or microbiological (overall or by pathogen) outcomes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, with most adverse events of mild to moderate severity.
Conclusions:
The clinical and microbiological efficacy and safety of daptomycin were similar to those of commonly used comparator antibiotics for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Daptomycin should be considered for treating these infections, especially those caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens.
Keywords: diabetic ulcers , foot infections , soft tissue infections , antibiotic resistance , Gram-positive infections
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Daptomycin is the first agent of a novel class of cyclic lipopeptide antibiotics.16 Unlike other available agents, it offers once daily dosing and rapid in vitro bactericidal activity17 against MRSA,18,19 as well as penicillin-resistant streptococci19 and vancomycin-resistant enterococci.18,19 Recently, two Phase III trials that enrolled 1092 patients compared daptomycin with either vancomycin or a semi-synthetic penicillin for treating complicated skin and soft-tissue infections.20 Among those enrolled in the trials were diabetic patients with an infected ulcer. Because of the special characteristics of this subset of patients, and the potential severity of these infections, they were separately randomized during enrolment. This report specifically analyses the results of treating infected diabetic ulcers with daptomycin versus the comparators.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Patient eligibility
Eligible patients were those with diabetes between the ages of 18 and 85 years who required hospitalization for an infected ulcer that was known or suspected (based on a Gram-stained smear) to be caused by a Gram-positive organism. Infection was defined as the presence of at least three of the following: elevated body temperature (greater than 38°C); leucocytosis (white blood cell count greater than 12.0 x 109/L) or a left-shifted leucocyte differential (10% or more band forms); local pain; tenderness to palpation; erythema; induration; or purulent secretions.
Patients with minor or superficial skin infections, uncomplicated cellulitis, myositis, multiple infected ulcers at distant sites, infected third-degree burn wounds, osteomyelitis, known bacteraemic shock, hypotension, or any disorder that could interfere with the treatment evaluation were excluded. Other exclusions were pregnancy, infection due to an organism known to be resistant to any study drug before study entry, body weight less than 40 kg, history of hypersensitivity reaction to any study drug, need for haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, impaired renal function (creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min), immunosuppression, serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) more than 50% above the upper limit of normal, or the use of any 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme reductase inhibitor (statin) drugs. Patients were also excluded if they had received more than 24 h of systemic antibiotic therapy for the infected ulcer within the previous 48 h, unless the infecting Gram-positive organism was resistant to that therapy, or it was clinically ineffective. No non-study systemic or topical antimicrobials or antiseptics were allowed.
Patient evaluation
At the baseline (screening) visit, each patient provided a medical history, underwent a physical examination, and then had routine haematology tests, serum chemistries, a pregnancy test (where appropriate) and a urinalysis. Plain radiographs of the affected foot were obtained to exclude patients with osteomyelitis. Specimens were obtained for Gram staining and culture within 48 h before the initiation of study drug. Investigators were encouraged to take samples from the infected ulcer by tissue biopsy or debridement, or by needle aspiration of purulent secretions. Specimens were processed at the clinical microbiology laboratory at each site (all of which were certified by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards). All Gram-positive organisms isolated on culture were tested at the local laboratory for susceptibility to daptomycin, vancomycin and semi-synthetic penicillins, using KirbyBauer disc diffusion methods.21 In addition, all Gram-positive organisms were sent to one of two central reference laboratories for identification of the species level using standard procedures22 and for susceptibility testing by minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and disc diffusion methodologies.21,23 Daptomycin susceptibility was tested at the central reference laboratories and was carried out in accordance with the procedures subsequently published by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards in 2000.24
Randomization and treatment
Before randomization, each eligible patient was assigned to a comparator group (vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillin) by the investigator, based on the investigator's assessment of the patient's clinical history and condition and the likelihood of infection with MRSA (Figure 1). This procedure was designed to ensure that a patient randomized to the comparator antibiotic would receive the most appropriate therapy (i.e. vancomycin if MRSA was suspected). Patients were then randomized to a 714 day course of daptomycin [4 mg/kg every 24 h intravenously (iv) over 30 min] or to their pre-selected comparator [vancomycin 1 g every 12 h iv over 60 min or a semi-synthetic penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, cloxacillin or flucloxacillin, per the investigator's choice) given in equally divided doses totalling 412 g/day iv]. For suspected or proven polymicrobial infection, the investigator was allowed to add aztreonam to cover Gram-negative bacteria, or metronidazole to cover obligate anaerobic bacteria, at his or her discretion. Investigators were encouraged to provide appropriate wound care, including debridement and pressure off-loading.
|
Patients were assessed at end-of-therapy (i.e. within 3 days of the last dose of study drug); test-of-cure (i.e. within 620 days after completing the study drug); and post-study (i.e. within 2028 days after completing the study drug). At each assessment, a blinded investigator categorized the clinical outcome as one of the following: cured if all clinically significant signs and symptoms of infection had resolved; improved if clinical signs and symptoms had partially resolved relative to the baseline assessment, with no further need for antibiotic therapy; failure if the response to therapy was inadequate, there were missing outcomes, or the patient was non-evaluable; or unable to evaluate if the patient was lost to follow-up. The clinical success rate, defined as the percentage of patients deemed either cured or improved at the test-of-cure visit, was the primary efficacy variable. The microbiological success rate, defined as proven or presumed eradication of the baseline wound pathogens, was a secondary efficacy variable. Adverse events were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) as required by the International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines.25 Monitoring for adverse events was conducted throughout the study; treatment-emergent adverse events were rated as mild, moderate, or severe, using standard United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) criteria.26
Statistical analyses
The Phase III studies were powered to test the non-inferiority hypothesis, i.e. that the difference in success rates (comparator minus daptomycin) was less than 10%. Because we did not intend that comparisons within diagnostic subgroups be statistically powered, the presented data are descriptive of the results observed in the diabetic ulcer group. The differences in success rates are described by a 95% confidence interval around the difference in success rates (comparator minus daptomycin) based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.27
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
As shown in Table 1, the overall clinical success rate was 66% for patients treated with daptomycin and 70% for patients treated with a comparator agent (95% CI, 14.421.8). Looking at individual comparators, the clinical success rates for patients randomized to daptomycin versus a semi-synthetic penicillin were 64.0% and 70.4%, respectively, whereas for those randomized to daptomycin versus vancomycin rates were 71.4% and 69.0%, respectively. None of these differences was statistically significant.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The choice of an antibiotic regimen for treating diabetic foot infections should be based on several factors, including its proven clinical efficacy, convenience, cost (of the drug and its administration) and safety. With the data available from this study, there are now three main antibiotic options to consider if infection with MRSA is suspected: vancomycin, linezolid and daptomycin. Vancomycin had not been specifically studied for treating diabetic foot infections before this study, but it has a long clinical track record for treating complicated soft-tissue infection.29 Acquisition costs for generic vancomycin are relatively low, but total costs must take into consideration that it usually must be administered twice daily, often requires monitoring of drug levels to ensure efficacy and avoid toxicity,30 and is only slowly bactericidal against staphylococci and enterococci.31 Overuse of vancomycin has resulted in the emergence of resistant strains of enterococci32 and staphylococci,33 diminishing its utility and leading the US Centers for Disease Control to discourage unnecessary use.34 Furthermore, recent studies of soft-tissue infection have shown that, compared with vancomycin, newer agents, such as linezolid, may be more clinically active and even cost-effective.35,36
Linezolid has demonstrated efficacy for treating diabetic foot infections in a large randomized, controlled trial.7 Clinical cure rates with linezolid and the aminopenicillin-penicillinase inhibitor comparators were statistically equivalent overall (81% versus 71%, respectively) but were significantly higher for linezolid-treated patients with an infected foot ulcer (81% versus 68%; P=0.018).7 Linezolid was associated with more drug-related adverse effects, however, and routine blood count monitoring is recommended for more than a 2 week course of therapy.37,38 Fortunately, most soft-tissue diabetic foot infections do not require a prolonged course of antibiotics. Both the linezolid study and the current one with daptomycin demonstrate that 2 weeks of antibiotic therapy is usually a sufficient duration for soft-tissue infections of mild to moderate severity. The oral formulation of linezolid allows convenient initial or switch therapy, but it must be given twice daily, and there have been reports of clinical failures in bacteraemic patients with linezolid-susceptible MRSA.39,40 These rare cases highlight the continual need for clinical vigilance and for developing alternative treatment options.
Daptomycin is a newly licensed, rapidly bactericidal,41
concentration-dependent antibiotic.42
A recent study of over 6700 Gram-positive isolates (staphylococci, streptococci, enterococci, Bacillus spp., Corynebacterium spp. and Listeria spp.) from Europe, North America and South America demonstrated that 99.4% had an MIC of 2 mg/L, well below the usual therapeutic serum levels.19
Furthermore, in a European study of S. aureus isolates with genotypic resistance to oxacillin and ciprofloxacin, daptomycin MICs were
0.5 mg/L.18
Daptomycin must be administered parenterally, but only once daily, thus reducing drug administration costs and making it particularly convenient for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy.
In this study, daptomycin achieved a clinical success rate of 66%, similar to the 70% for the comparators, and similar to results of other reported trials treating diabetic foot infection in hospitalized patients.2,28 The number of evaluable patients enrolled (103 total) was greater than in most previous studies of diabetic foot infections, and, unlike most other studies, the evaluating investigator was blinded to therapy. Consistent with other studies,5,7 S. aureus was the most frequently isolated pathogen. For methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), clinical success rates were 79% in each arm, and eradication rates were 63% in the daptomycin group and 68% in the comparator group. The prevalence of MRSA was too low to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy of daptomycin and comparators against this pathogen. Daptomycin was well tolerated, with only one severe drug-related adverse event, a reversible elevation of serum CPK levels. In randomized, controlled trials, clinically significant CPK elevations have been rare, asymptomatic, and reversible upon discontinuing treatment. Limitations of this study include the fact that there were few patients infected with MRSA, and a small proportion of patients with an infected diabetic ulcer did not have a confirmed location to the foot.
The role of daptomycin in treating diabetic foot infections will need further exploration, but based on these results, as well as its in vitro spectrum of activity, its efficacy and safety in treating complicated skin and soft-tissue infections, its good tolerability, and its once-daily dosing, it should be considered for those requiring parenteral therapy, particularly if MRSA infection is suspected.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2 . Lipsky, B. A., Berendt, A. R., Deery, H. G. et al. (2004). Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases 39, 885910.[CrossRef][Medline]
3 . Lipsky, B. A., Pecoraro, R. E., Larson, S. A. et al. (1990). Outpatient management of uncomplicated lower-extremity infections in diabetic patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 150, 7907.[Abstract]
4
.
American Diabetes Association. (1999). Consensus Development Conference on Diabetic Foot Wound Care: 78 April 1999, Boston, Massachusetts. Diabetes Care 22, 135460.
5 . Lipsky, B. A., Pecoraro, R. E. & Wheat, L. J. (1990). The diabetic foot. Soft tissue and bone infection. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 4, 40932.[Medline]
6 . Lipsky, B. A. (2001). Diabetic foot infections: progress in a pedestrian problem. Contemporary Surgery 57, S7S19.
7 . Lipsky, B. A., Itani, K. & Norden, C. (2004). Treating foot infections in diabetic patients: a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of linezolid versus ampicillin-sulbactam/co-amoxiclav. Clinical Infectious Diseases 38, 1724.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
8 . NNIS. (2003). National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2003, issued August 2003. American Journal of Infection Control 31, 48198.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
9 . Eady, E. A. & Cove, J. H. (2003). Staphylococcal resistance revisited: community-acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureusan emerging problem for the management of skin and soft tissue infections. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 16, 10324.[ISI][Medline]
10
.
Naimi, T. S., LeDell, K. H., Como-Sabetti, K. et al. (2003). Comparison of community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Journal of the American Medical Association 290, 297684.
11 . Dang, C. N., Prasad, Y. D., Boulton, A. J. et al. (2003). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the diabetic foot clinic: a worsening problem. Diabetic Medicine 20, 15961.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12 . Fejfarova, V., Jirkovska, A., Skibova, J. et al. (2002). Pathogen resistance and other risk factors in the frequency of lower limb amputations in patients with the diabetic foot syndrome. Vnitrni Lekarstvi 48, 3026.[Medline]
13 . Tentolouris, N., Jude, E. B., Smirnof, I. et al. (1999). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an increasing problem in a diabetic foot clinic. Diabetic Medicine 16, 76771.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
14 . Mantey, I., Hill, R. L., Foster, A. V. et al. (2000). Infection of foot ulcers with Staphylococcus aureus associated with increased mortality in diabetic patients. Communicable Disease and Public Health/PHLS 3, 28890.
15 . Wagner, A., Reike, H. & Angelkort, B. (2001). Highly resistant pathogens in patients with diabetic foot syndrome with special reference to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 126, 13536.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
16 . Carpenter, C. F. & Chambers, H. F. (2004). Daptomycin: another novel agent for treating infections due to drug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Clinical Infectious Diseases 38, 9941000.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17
.
Cha, R., Brown, W. J. & Rybak, M. J. (2003). Bactericidal activities of daptomycin, quinupristindalfopristin, and linezolid against vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model with simulated endocardial vegetations. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 47, 39603.
18
.
Fluit, A. C., Schmitz, F. J., Verhoef, J. et al. (2004). In vitro activity of daptomycin against Gram-positive European clinical isolates with defined resistance determinants. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 48, 100711.
19
.
Streit, J. M., Jones, R. N. & Sader, H. S. (2004). Daptomycin activity and spectrum: a worldwide sample of 6737 clinical Gram-positive organisms. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 53, 66974.
20 . Arbeit, R. D., Maki, D., Tally, F. P. et al. (2004). The safety and efficacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases 38, 167381.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
21 . National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. (1997). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility TestsSixth Edition: Approved Standard M2-A6. NCCLS, Villanova, PA, USA.
22 . Murray, P. R., Baron, E. J., Jorgensen, J. H., et al. (2004). Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 6th edn. ASM Press, Washington, DC, USA.
23 . National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. (1997). Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow AerobicallyFourth Edition: Approved Standard M7-A4. NCCLS, Villanova, PA, USA.
24 . National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. (2000). Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow AerobicallyFifth Edition: Approved Standard M7-A5. NCCLS, Villanova, PA, USA.
25 . Food and Drug Administration. (2004). MedDRA: medical dictionary for regulatory activities. [Online.] http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report/meddra.htm (20 August 2004, date last accessed).
26 . Food and Drug Administration. (1996). Guideline for Industry: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
27 . Hauck, W. & Anderson, S. (1986). A comparison of large sample confidence interval methods for the difference of two binomial probabilities. American Statistician 40, 31822.[ISI]
28 . Lipsky, B. A. (1999). Evidence-based antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology 26, 26776.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
29 . Kirby, W. M. (1984). Vancomycin therapy of severe staphylococcal infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 14, Suppl. D, 738.[ISI][Medline]
30 . Shah, N. P., Reddy, P., Paladino, J. A. et al. (2004). Direct medical costs associated with using vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: an economic model. Current Medical Research and Opinion 20, 77990.[ISI][Medline]
31 . Levine, D. P., Fromm, B. S. & Reddy, B. R. (1991). Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Annals of Internal Medicine 115, 67480.[ISI][Medline]
32 . Diekema, D. J., BootsMiller, B. J., Vaughn, T. E. et al. (2004). Antimicrobial resistance trends and outbreak frequency in United States hospitals. Clinical Infectious Diseases 38, 7885.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
33 . Miller, D., Urdaneta, V. & Weltman, A. (2002). Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusPennsylvania, 2002. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51, 902.[Medline]
34 . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1995). Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Recommendations and Reports 44, 113.
35 . Vinken, A. G., Li, J. Z., Balan, D. A. et al. (2003). Comparison of linezolid with oxacillin or vancomycin in the empiric treatment of cellulitis in US hospitals. American Journal of Therapeutics 10, 26474.[CrossRef][Medline]
36 . Li, J. Z., Willke, R. J., Rittenhouse, B. E. et al. (2003). Effect of linezolid versus vancomycin on length of hospital stay in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by known or suspected methicillin-resistant staphylococci: results from a randomized clinical trial. Surgical Infections 4, 5770.[CrossRef][Medline]
37
.
Rubinstein, E., Isturiz, R., Standiford, H. C. et al. (2003). Worldwide assessment of linezolid's clinical safety and tolerability: comparator-controlled phase III studies. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 47, 182431.
38 . Kuter, D. J. & Tillotson, G. S. (2001). Hematologic effects of antimicrobials: focus on the oxazolidinone linezolid. Pharmacotherapy 21, 10103.[ISI][Medline]
39 . Ruiz, M. E., Guerrero, I. C. & Tuazon, C. U. (2002). Endocarditis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: treatment failure with linezolid. Clinical Infectious Diseases 35, 101820.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
40 . Sperber, S. J., Levine, J. F. & Gross, P. A. (2003). Persistent MRSA bacteremia in a patient with low linezolid levels: correspondence. Clinical Infectious Diseases 36, 6756.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
41
.
Silverman, J. A., Perlmutter, N. G. & Shapiro, H. M. (2003). Correlation of daptomycin bactericidal activity and membrane depolarization in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 47, 253844.
42
.
Rybak, M. J., Hershberger, E., Moldovan, T. et al. (2000). In vitro activities of daptomycin, vancomycin, linezolid, and quinupristindalfopristin against staphylococci and enterococci, including vancomycin-intermediate and -resistant strains. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 44, 10626.
|