Terminé

Linezolid in the Treatment of Subjects With Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Proven to be Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus

0 critères remplis à partir de votre profilVoyez en un coup d'œil comment votre profil répond à chaque critère d'éligibilité.
Ce qui est testé

Collecte de données

Qui peut participer

Infections bactériennes
+6

+ Infections bactériennes et mycoses
+ Maladies Transmissibles
À partir de 18 ans
Voir tous les critères d'éligibilité
Comment se déroule l'étude

Étude thérapeutique

Phase 4
Interventionnel
Date de début : octobre 2004
Voir le détail du protocole

Résumé

Sponsor principalPfizer
Dernière mise à jour : 14 janvier 2026
Issu d'une base de données validée par les autorités. Revendiquer cette étude
Date de début de l'étude : 1 octobre 2004Date à laquelle le premier participant a commencé l'étude.

To determine if linezolid is superior to vancomycin in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to MRSA in adult subjects

Titre officielLinezolid in the Treatment of Subjects With Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Proven to be Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus 
NCT00087490
Sponsor principalPfizer
Dernière mise à jour : 14 janvier 2026
Issu d'une base de données validée par les autorités. Revendiquer cette étude

Protocole

Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan de l'étude, y compris la manière dont l'étude est conçue et ce qu'elle évalue.
Détails du design
1077 participants à inclureNombre total de participants que l'essai clinique vise à recruter.
Traitement
Cette étude teste un ou plusieurs traitements pour évaluer leur efficacité contre une maladie ou un problème de santé spécifique. L'objectif est de voir si un nouveau médicament ou une thérapie fonctionne mieux, ou provoque moins d'effets secondaires que les options existantes.

Comment les participants sont répartis entre les groupes de l'étude
Dans cette étude clinique, les participants sont répartis de manière aléatoire, comme lors d'un tirage au sort. Cela garantit l'équité et réduit les biais, rendant les résultats plus fiables. En attribuant les participants au hasard, les chercheurs peuvent comparer les traitements sans influence extérieure.

Autres méthodes de répartition
Répartition non aléatoire : basée sur des critères spécifiques comme l'état de santé ou la décision du médecin.
Aucune (un seul groupe de participants) : tous les participants reçoivent le même traitement, aucune répartition n'est nécessaire.

Comment les traitements sont administrés aux participants
Les participants sont répartis en groupes distincts, chaque groupe recevant un traitement différent en même temps. Cela permet de comparer directement l'efficacité de plusieurs traitements.

Autres façons d'administrer les traitements
Groupe unique : tous les participants reçoivent le même traitement.
Affectation croisée : les participants passent d'un traitement à un autre au cours de l'étude.
Plan factoriel : les participants reçoivent des combinaisons de traitements pour évaluer leurs interactions.
Plan séquentiel : les traitements sont administrés successivement selon un ordre prédéterminé, pouvant varier selon la réaction du participant.
Autre type d'attribution : L'attribution des traitements ne suit pas de schéma standard ni de protocole prédéfini.

Comment la nature du traitement est tenue confidentielle
Dans une étude en ouvert, tous les participants ainsi que les chercheurs savent quel traitement est administré. Ce type de protocole est utilisé lorsqu'il n'est pas nécessaire ou pas possible de masquer les traitements.

Autres méthodes de masquage
Simple aveugle : les participants ignorent le traitement reçu, mais les chercheurs le connaissent.
Double aveugle : ni les participants ni les chercheurs ne savent quel traitement est administré.
Triple aveugle : Les participants, les chercheurs et les personnes qui analysent les résultats ne savent pas quel traitement est administré.
Quadruple aveugle : Les participants, les chercheurs, les personnes qui analysent les résultats et les professionnels de santé en charge du suivi ne savent pas non plus quel traitement est administré.

Éligibilité

Les chercheurs recherchent des patients correspondant à une certaine description appelée critères d'éligibilité : état de santé général ou traitements antérieurs du patient.
Conditions
Critères
Tout sexeLe sexe biologique des participants éligibles à s'inscrire.
À partir de 18 ansTranche d'âge des participants éligibles à participer.
Volontaires sains non autorisésIndique si les individus en bonne santé et ne présentant pas la condition étudiée peuvent participer.
Conditions
Pathologie
Infections bactériennes
Infections bactériennes et mycoses
Maladies Transmissibles
Infections
Processus pathologiques
Infections staphylococciques
Infections bactériennes à Gram-positif
Infections des tissus mous
Attributs de la maladie
Critères

Inclusion Criteria: * Male and female subjects with signs or symptoms consistent with infection, and if available, laboratory findings consistent with staphylococcal infection (e.g., Gram stain and culture results). * Signs and symptoms consistent with infection * Infection suspected to be due to Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Exclusion Criteria: * Subjects who were treated with a previous antibiotic (systemic or topical) with MRSA activity (other than linezolid or vancomycin) for more than 24 hours and treatment extended into the 72 hour period prior to the first dose of study drug, unless documented to be a treatment failure (72 hours of treatment and not responding). * Subjects with uncomplicated skin or superficial skin structure infection such as superficial/simple cellulitis, impetiginous lesion, furuncle, or simple abscess that only need surgical drainage for cure. * Subjects excluded with necrotizing fasciitis, gas gangrene, osteomyelitis

Plan de l'étude

Découvrez tous les traitements administrés dans cette étude, leur description détaillée et ce qu'ils impliquent.
Objectifs de l'étude
Objectifs de l'étude
Objectifs principaux

Clinical response (CR) was based primarily on global assessment of clinical presentation of participant made by investigator at evaluation time point. At EOS, CR was evaluated as "success" (cure: resolution of clinical signs or (/) symptoms of infection when compared to baseline); "failure": persistence/progression of baseline signs/symptoms of infection after at least 2 days of treatment/development of new clinical findings consistent with active infection; "unknown": extenuating circumstances precluding classification to 1 of above. "Unknown" was excluded from present analysis.
Objectifs secondaires

Duration of Hospital Stay was defined as the number of days the participant was cared as an inpatient in the hospital during the maximum 34 days of the study period. The number of days in the hospital was counted from start of study medication to date of discharge or last date known to be in the hospital (for missing discharge dates and participants who died) or Day 34 for participants who continued hospitalization beyond EOS period.

CR evaluated at EOT visit as "success" (cure: resolution of clinical sign/symptoms of infection when compared with baseline; and improvement: 2/more improvement in clinical sign/symptoms of infection when compared with baseline); "failure": persistence/progression of baseline signs/symptoms of infection after at least 2 days of treatment/development of new clinical findings consistent with active infection; "unknown": extenuating circumstances precluding classification to 1 of above. "Unknown": excluded from present analysis.

CR was based primarily on global assessment of clinical presentation of participant made by investigator at evaluation time point. At EOS, CR was evaluated as "success" (cure: resolution of clinical signs/symptoms of infection when compared to baseline); "failure": persistence/progression of baseline signs/symptoms of infection after at least 2 days of treatment/development of new clinical findings consistent with active infection; "unknown": extenuating circumstances precluding classification to 1 of above. "Unknown" was excluded from present analysis.

CR evaluated at EOT visit as "success" (cure: resolution of clinical sign/symptoms of infection when compared with baseline; and improvement: 2/more improvement in clinical sign/symptoms of infection when compared with baseline); "failure": persistence/progression of baseline signs/symptoms of infection after at least 2 days of treatment/development of new clinical findings consistent with active infection; "unknown": extenuating circumstances precluding classification to 1 of above. "Unknown": excluded from present analysis.

Microbiological outcome dichotomized to "success" (eradication: absence of baseline isolate (BI) in culture of original infection site (IS); presumed eradication: participant cured and no specimen available for culture; superinfection: clinically failed or improved with new pathogen identified from primary IS other than BI; colonization: isolate was present but not producing infection) and "failure" (persistence: BI present in original IS; presumed persistence: clinically failed and no specimen available for culture; recurrence: presence of isolate at EOS, that was eradicated at EOT).

Microbiological outcome dichotomized to "success" (eradication: absence of baseline isolate (BI) in culture of original infection site (IS); presumed eradication: participant cured and no specimen available for culture; superinfection: clinically failed or improved with new pathogen identified from primary IS other than BI; colonization: isolate was present but not producing infection) and "failure" (persistence: BI present in original IS; presumed persistence: clinically failed and no specimen available for culture).

Microbiological outcome dichotomized to "success" (eradication: absence of baseline isolate (BI) in culture of original infection site (IS); presumed eradication: participant cured and no specimen available for culture; superinfection: clinically failed or improved with new pathogen identified from primary IS other than BI; colonization: isolate was present but not producing infection) and "failure" (persistence: BI present in original IS; presumed persistence: clinically failed and no specimen available for culture; recurrence: presence of isolate at EOS, that was eradicated at EOT).

Microbiological outcome dichotomized to "success" (eradication: absence of baseline isolate (BI) in culture of original infection site (IS); presumed eradication: participant cured and no specimen available for culture; superinfection: clinically failed or improved with new pathogen identified from primary IS other than BI; colonization: isolate was present but not producing infection) and "failure" (persistence: BI present in original IS; presumed persistence: clinically failed and no specimen available for culture).

Participant's clinical evaluation of signs and symptoms were based on global assessment by investigator at specific timepoints. Signs and symptoms of an active skin or soft tissue infection caused by suspected MRSA included purulent discharge, nonpurulent discharge, erythema, swelling, induration, tenderness, pain and local skin warmth. It was recorded by the sponsor using wound parameter score ranging from 0 to 3; "0= none, 1= mild, 2= moderate and 3= severe".

Participant's clinical evaluation of signs and symptoms were based on global assessment by investigator at specific timepoints. Signs and symptoms of an active skin or soft tissue infection caused by suspected MRSA included purulent discharge, nonpurulent discharge, erythema, swelling, induration, tenderness, pain and local skin warmth. It was recorded using wound parameter score ranging from 0 to 3; "0= none, 1= mild, 2= moderate and 3= severe".

Duration of Hospital Stay was defined as the number of days the participant was cared as an inpatient in the hospital during the maximum 34 days of the study period. The number of days in the hospital was counted from start of study medication to date of discharge or last date known to be in the hospital (for missing discharge dates and participants who died) or Day 34 for participants who continued hospitalization beyond EOS period.

Duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment was measured as the number of days intravenous doses of study medication was administered, before and after discharge.

Duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment was measured as the number of days intravenous doses of study medication was administered, before and after discharge.

Medical resources utilization included a daily log of the participants' location in the hospital and outside of the hospital (non-hospital location), adjusted duration of stay (difference between duration of stay and the duration of discharge delay) and daily log of study drug dosing.

Centres d'étude

Ce sont les hôpitaux, cliniques ou centres de recherche où l'essai est conduit. Vous pouvez trouver le site le plus proche de vous ainsi que son statut.
Cette étude comporte 126 sites
Suspendu
Pfizer Investigational SiteMontgomery, United StatesVoir le site
Suspendu
Pfizer Investigational SiteTucson, United States
Suspendu
Pfizer Investigational SiteLos Angeles, United States
Suspendu
Pfizer Investigational SitePalm Springs, United States
Terminé126 Centres d'Étude