Meta-Analysis of Trials Evaluating Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Clinical Infectious Diseases, Apr 2010

Background. Many trials have been carried out to determine the effectiveness of antimicrobial agents in treating skin and soft tissue infections. The results of these studies are often utilized to make determinations about the use of these antimicrobials against other types of infections. Despite the importance of these trials in determining clinical care, we hypothesized that many of these studies failed to include a variety of infections of significant enough severity to effectively draw objective conclusions about antimicrobial efficacy. Methods. We conducted a modified PubMed search to identify studies of antimicrobial agents in treating soft tissue infections that were published from 1998 through 2008. We then evaluated these trials for specific recommended study criteria, which were based on published US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the conduct of trials of antimicrobials for soft tissue infection. Results. Seventeen studies were identified for inclusion in the trial. Upon review, only 30% of trials required both local and systemic signs of infection for inclusion in the trial. One trial stratified results on the basis of operative intervention, less than half reported patient comorbidities, and only 53% provided a specific definition for “cure.” Conclusions. Our meta-analysis of current trials evaluating antimicrobial therapy for skin and soft tissue infections revealed substantial shortcomings in the design of most of these trials. These data provide evidence for the importance of designing specialist panels to objectively evaluate studies and photographs of included infections to ensure that conclusions drawn from these trials concerning clinical practice are justified.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/8/1120.full.pdf

Meta-Analysis of Trials Evaluating Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Rebecca J. McClaine 0 Thomas L. Husted 0 Renee S. Hebbeler-Clark 0 1 Joseph S. Solomkin 0 0 Received 24 September 2009; accepted 1 December 2009; electronically published 8 March 2010. Care, Dept of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine , 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML0558, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0558 1 Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center , Cincinnati, Ohio Background. Many trials have been carried out to determine the effectiveness of antimicrobial agents in treating skin and soft tissue infections. The results of these studies are often utilized to make determinations about the use of these antimicrobials against other types of infections. Despite the importance of these trials in determining clinical care, we hypothesized that many of these studies failed to include a variety of infections of significant enough severity to effectively draw objective conclusions about antimicrobial efficacy. Methods. We conducted a modified PubMed search to identify studies of antimicrobial agents in treating soft tissue infections that were published from 1998 through 2008. We then evaluated these trials for specific recommended study criteria, which were based on published US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the conduct of trials of antimicrobials for soft tissue infection. Results. Seventeen studies were identified for inclusion in the trial. Upon review, only 30% of trials required both local and systemic signs of infection for inclusion in the trial. One trial stratified results on the basis of operative intervention, less than half reported patient comorbidities, and only 53% provided a specific definition for cure. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis of current trials evaluating antimicrobial therapy for skin and soft tissue infections revealed substantial shortcomings in the design of most of these trials. These data provide evidence for the importance of designing specialist panels to objectively evaluate studies and photographs of included infections to ensure that conclusions drawn from these trials concerning clinical practice are justified. Many trials have been designed to compare the efficacy of antimicrobial agents in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Complicated skin and skin-structure infections have been the initial indication for regulatory approval for all agents active against methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Although these study designs often incorporate blinded and randomized assignment and prespecified outcome criteria, their failure to address other clinically relevant variables that independently predict outcome may significantly weaken their validity. - (FDA) completed an industry guidance document to steer the development of antimicrobial drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated and complicated skin and skin-structure infections [1]. The recommendations from this document, summarized in Table 1, provide definitions of uncomplicated and complicated skin and soft tissue infections, suggest inclusion and exclusion criteria, address specific details concerning study conduct, and provide definitions of outcomes. In evaluating the relevance of a studys results to clinical practice, clinicians strive to determine whether the trials conclusions or recommendations would apply to their patient population. Specifically, information concerning the severity of enrolled patients illnesses, the anatomy of the infections of the patients enrolled, and the agreement between the trials recommendations and current practice guidelines all contribute to this evaluative process. For surgeons, information addressing the drainage or debridement procedures performed during the management of such infections is important. Studies that provide this information as clearly and Include ulcers, burns, major abscesses, deep soft tissue infections, patients with infections concurrent with significant comorbidities, and minor infections in anatomic areas predisposed to be polymicrobial (gram-negative rods and anaerobes) Provide clear inclusion, exclusion, and outcome definitions Provide information about included patients (description of infected site, including severity and anatomic location; cause of infection; underlying medical conditions; previous medical and/or surgical therapy for the infection; picture of infected site [optional]) Consider primary measure of effectiveness to be clinical cure 70% of patients microbiologically evaluable Analysis of treatment outcomes stratified by presence of surgical intervention Analysis of outcomes for clinically evaluable and clinically and microbiologically evaluable subsets of patients (ie, confirm coincidence of clinical cure and bacterial eradication) objectively as possible facilitate clinicians abilities to apply study conclusions to ongoing patient care. Also, a means of explicitly assuring readers that adequate source control procedures were employed is considered to be of great importance. With this background (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/8/1120.full.pdf

Rebecca J. McClaine, Thomas L. Husted, Renee S. Hebbeler-Clark, Joseph S. Solomkin. Meta-Analysis of Trials Evaluating Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2010, pp. 1120-1126, 50/8, DOI: 10.1086/651264