Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Осложненные инфекции кожи и мягких тканей: современные особенности антибактериальной терапии
Осложненные инфекции кожи и мягких тканей: современные особенности антибактериальной терапии
Белобородов В.Б. Осложненные инфекции кожи и мягких тканей: современные особенности антибактериальной терапии.
Consilium Medicum. 2017; 19 (7.2. Хирургия): 7–12. DOI: 10.26442/2075-1753_19.7.2.7-12
Consilium Medicum. 2017; 19 (7.2. Хирургия): 7–12. DOI: 10.26442/2075-1753_19.7.2.7-12
________________________________________________
Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Аннотация
Осложненные инфекции кожи и мягких тканей относятся к наиболее тяжелым, отличаются клиническим разнообразием, способны поражать глубокие ткани, часто требуют хирургического лечения, особенно в случаях развития тяжелого сепсиса и септического шока. Наиболее частыми возбудителями этих инфекций являются золотистые стафилококки, которые включают много штаммов, отличающихся вирулентностью и чувствительностью к антибиотикам. С эпидемиологической точки зрения стафилококки разделяются на возбудителей внебольничных и внутрибольничных инфекций, отличающихся чувствительностью к антибиотикам, что требует корректного выбора стартовых режимов антимикробной терапии. Еще одно отличие заключается в способности к продукции очень важного токсина – лейкоцидина Panton–Valentine. Полимикробные инфекции развиваются у больных сахарным диабетом и термическими травмами. Успешное лечение осложненных инфекций кожи и мягких тканей требует своевременной диагностики, дренирования или хирургической санации, правильно выбранной антибактериальной и, в наиболее тяжелых случаях, – интенсивной терапии. Основными антибиотиками являются пенициллины, цефалоспорины, клиндамицин, ко-тримоксазол, комбинации b-лактамов и ингибиторов b-лактамаз (при полимикробных инфекциях). Новые антибиотики для лечения инфекций, вызванных резистентными к метициллину S. aureus, обладают преимуществами по сравнению с ванкомицином. Этими препаратами являются: линезолид, даптомицин, тигециклин, телаванцин, цефтаролин и тедизолид.
Ключевые слова: инфекции кожи, полимикробные инфекции, своевременная диагностика, интенсивная антимикробная терапия.
Key words: skin infection, polymicrobial infection, timely diagnosis, intensive antimicrobial therapy.
Ключевые слова: инфекции кожи, полимикробные инфекции, своевременная диагностика, интенсивная антимикробная терапия.
________________________________________________
Key words: skin infection, polymicrobial infection, timely diagnosis, intensive antimicrobial therapy.
Полный текст
Список литературы
1. Eron LJ, Lipsky BA, Low DE et al. Managing skin and soft tissue infections: expert panel recommendations on key decision points. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 3–17.
2. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59: 147–59.
3. Хирургические инфекции кожи и мягких тканей. Российские национальные рекомендации. Под ред. Б.Р.Гельфанда. Изд. 2-е перераб. и доп. М., 2015. / Khirurgicheskie infektsii kozhi i miagkikh tkanei. Rossiiskie natsional'nye rekomendatsii. Pod red. B.R.Gel'fanda. Izd. 2-e pererab. i dop. M., 2015. [in Russian]
4. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Developing drugs for treatment. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); October 2013.
5. Pallin DJ, Egan DJ, Pelletier AJ et al. Increased US emergency department visits for skin and soft tissue infections, and changes in antibiotic choices, during the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 51: 291–8.
6. Edelsberg J, Taneja C, Zervos M et al. Trends in US hospital admissions for skin and soft tissue infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15: 1516–8.
7. May AK, Stafford RE, Bulger EM et al. Treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Surg Infect 2009; 10: 467–99.
8. Fry DE. The economic costs of surgical site infection. Surg Infect 2002; 3 (Suppl.): S1–37.
9. Barie PS, Fry DE, Cheadle WC. Clinician’s Primer: Surgical Site Infections. A Guide to Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Future Directions. Englewood, CO: Consensus Medical Communications, 2007.
10. Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2011; 25: 135–53.
11. Hawn MT, Vick CC, Richman J et al. Surgical site infection prevention: time to move beyond the Surgical Care Improvement Program. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 494–501.
12. Barie PS. SCIP to the Loo? [editorial]. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 161–2.
13. Barie PS. Guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: a must-read, must-heed for every surgeon. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 5–7.
14. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 73–156.
15. Itani KM, Merchant S, Lin S-J et al. Outcomes and management costs in patients hospitalized for skin and skin-structure infections. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39: 42–9.
16. Fung HB, Chang JY, Kuczynski S. A practical guide to the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Drugs 2003; 63: 1459–80.
17. Jones RN, Mendes RE, Sader HS. Ceftaroline activity against pathogens associated with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results from an international surveillance study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S17–31.
18. Sader HS, Flamm RK, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of ceftaroline tested against 10.956 organisms causing acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in the United States medical centers (2012) [poster #C2e1628]. 53 ICAAC; Denver, CO, 2013.
19. Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, Kanafani ZA et al. Severe surgical site infection in community hospitals: epidemiology, key procedures, and the changing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28: 1047–53.
20. Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ et al. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998–2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 57: 7–13.
21. Fry DE. The continued challenge of Staphylococcus aureus in the surgical patient. Am Surg 2013; 79: 1–10.
22. King MD, Humphrey BJ, Wang YF et al. Emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 309–17.
23. Awad SS, Elhabash SI, Lee L et al. Increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft-tissue infections: reconsideration of empiric antimicrobial therapy. Am J Surg 2007; 194: 606–10.
24. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 666–74.
25. Zervos MJ, Freeman K, Vo L et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalized patients. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50: 238–45.
26. Mera RM, Suaya JA, Amrine-Madsen H et al. Increasing role of Staphylococcus aureus and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States: a 10-year trend of replacement and expansion. Microb Drug Resist 2011; 17: 321–8.
27. Davis SL, Perri MB, Donabedian SM et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 1705–1711.
28. Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE et al. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36 (5): 592–8.
29. Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Chen LF et al. Clinical and financial outcomes due to methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection: a multi-center matched outcomes study. PLoS One 2009; 4: 8305.
30. Shallcross LJ, Fragaszy E, Johnson AM et al. The role of the Panton-Valentine leucocidin toxin in staphylococcal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 43–54.
31. Mazuski JE. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: risk factors, surveillance, infections, and treatment. Surg Infect 2008; 9: 567–71.
32. Salgado CD, Farr BM. Outcomes associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 690–8.
33. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 18–55.
34. 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: 160–9.
35. Lee SY, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Antimicrobial management of complicated skin and skin structure infections in the era of emerging resistance. Surg Infect 2005; 6: 283–95.
36. Appelbaum PC. 2012 and beyond: potential for the start of a second pre-antibiotic era? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 2062–8.
37. Moellering RC Jr. The problem of complicated skin and skin structure infections: the need for new agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S3–8.
38. Napolitano LM. Early appropriate parenteral antimicrobial treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Surg Infect 2008; 9 (suppl. 1): S17–27.
39. Moellering RC Jr. Current treatment options for community- acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1032–7.
40. Moran GJ, Abrahamian FM, LoVecchio F et al. Acute bacterial skin infections: developments since the 2005 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines. J Emerg Med 2013; 44: 397–412.
41. Kosowska-Shick K, McGhee PL, Appelbaum PC. Affinity of ceftaroline and other b-lactams for penicillin-binding proteins from Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54: 1670–7.
42. Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 1 investigators. CANVAS 1: the first phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S41–51.
43. Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 2 investigators. CANVAS 2: the second phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S53–65.
44. 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: 1673–81.
45. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 1611–8.
46. Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H et al; the Linezolid MRSA Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 1481–90.
47. Weigelt J, Kaafarani HMA, Itani KMF et al. Linezolid eradicates MRSA better than vancomycin from surgical-site infections. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 760–6.
48. Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D et al; the Linezolid CSSTI Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 2260–6.
49. Stryjewski ME, Barriere SL, O’Riordan W et al. Efficacy of telavancin in patients with specific types of complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 1496–1502.
50. Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1683–93.
51. O’Riordan W, Hopkins A et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections associated with surgical procedures. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 791–6.
52. Florescu I, Beuran M, Dimov R et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62 (Suppl. 1): S17e–28.
53. Stein GE, Smith CL, Missavage A et al. Tigecycline penetration into skin and soft tissue. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 465–7.
54. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns of increased risk of death with IV antibacterial Tygacil (tigecycline) and approves new boxed warning. September 2013. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ DrugSafety/ucm369580.htm
55. US Food and Drug Administration. Tygacil (tigecycline): label change increased mortality risk. September 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/Safety AlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm224626.htm
56. Cai Y, Wang R, Liang B et al. Systematic review and meta- analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 1162–72.
57. Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14: 696–705.
58. Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA 2013; 309: 559–69.
2. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59: 147–59.
3. Khirurgicheskie infektsii kozhi i miagkikh tkanei. Rossiiskie natsional'nye rekomendatsii. Pod red. B.R.Gel'fanda. Izd. 2-e pererab. i dop. M., 2015. [in Russian]
4. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Developing drugs for treatment. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); October 2013.
5. Pallin DJ, Egan DJ, Pelletier AJ et al. Increased US emergency department visits for skin and soft tissue infections, and changes in antibiotic choices, during the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 51: 291–8.
6. Edelsberg J, Taneja C, Zervos M et al. Trends in US hospital admissions for skin and soft tissue infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15: 1516–8.
7. May AK, Stafford RE, Bulger EM et al. Treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Surg Infect 2009; 10: 467–99.
8. Fry DE. The economic costs of surgical site infection. Surg Infect 2002; 3 (Suppl.): S1–37.
9. Barie PS, Fry DE, Cheadle WC. Clinician’s Primer: Surgical Site Infections. A Guide to Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Future Directions. Englewood, CO: Consensus Medical Communications, 2007.
10. Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2011; 25: 135–53.
11. Hawn MT, Vick CC, Richman J et al. Surgical site infection prevention: time to move beyond the Surgical Care Improvement Program. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 494–501.
12. Barie PS. SCIP to the Loo? [editorial]. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 161–2.
13. Barie PS. Guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: a must-read, must-heed for every surgeon. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 5–7.
14. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 73–156.
15. Itani KM, Merchant S, Lin S-J et al. Outcomes and management costs in patients hospitalized for skin and skin-structure infections. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39: 42–9.
16. Fung HB, Chang JY, Kuczynski S. A practical guide to the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Drugs 2003; 63: 1459–80.
17. Jones RN, Mendes RE, Sader HS. Ceftaroline activity against pathogens associated with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results from an international surveillance study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S17–31.
18. Sader HS, Flamm RK, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of ceftaroline tested against 10.956 organisms causing acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in the United States medical centers (2012) [poster #C2e1628]. 53 ICAAC; Denver, CO, 2013.
19. Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, Kanafani ZA et al. Severe surgical site infection in community hospitals: epidemiology, key procedures, and the changing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28: 1047–53.
20. Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ et al. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998–2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 57: 7–13.
21. Fry DE. The continued challenge of Staphylococcus aureus in the surgical patient. Am Surg 2013; 79: 1–10.
22. King MD, Humphrey BJ, Wang YF et al. Emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 309–17.
23. Awad SS, Elhabash SI, Lee L et al. Increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft-tissue infections: reconsideration of empiric antimicrobial therapy. Am J Surg 2007; 194: 606–10.
24. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 666–74.
25. Zervos MJ, Freeman K, Vo L et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalized patients. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50: 238–45.
26. Mera RM, Suaya JA, Amrine-Madsen H et al. Increasing role of Staphylococcus aureus and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States: a 10-year trend of replacement and expansion. Microb Drug Resist 2011; 17: 321–8.
27. Davis SL, Perri MB, Donabedian SM et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 1705–1711.
28. Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE et al. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36 (5): 592–8.
29. Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Chen LF et al. Clinical and financial outcomes due to methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection: a multi-center matched outcomes study. PLoS One 2009; 4: 8305.
30. Shallcross LJ, Fragaszy E, Johnson AM et al. The role of the Panton-Valentine leucocidin toxin in staphylococcal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 43–54.
31. Mazuski JE. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: risk factors, surveillance, infections, and treatment. Surg Infect 2008; 9: 567–71.
32. Salgado CD, Farr BM. Outcomes associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 690–8.
33. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 18–55.
34. 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: 160–9.
35. Lee SY, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Antimicrobial management of complicated skin and skin structure infections in the era of emerging resistance. Surg Infect 2005; 6: 283–95.
36. Appelbaum PC. 2012 and beyond: potential for the start of a second pre-antibiotic era? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 2062–8.
37. Moellering RC Jr. The problem of complicated skin and skin structure infections: the need for new agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S3–8.
38. Napolitano LM. Early appropriate parenteral antimicrobial treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Surg Infect 2008; 9 (suppl. 1): S17–27.
39. Moellering RC Jr. Current treatment options for community- acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1032–7.
40. Moran GJ, Abrahamian FM, LoVecchio F et al. Acute bacterial skin infections: developments since the 2005 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines. J Emerg Med 2013; 44: 397–412.
41. Kosowska-Shick K, McGhee PL, Appelbaum PC. Affinity of ceftaroline and other b-lactams for penicillin-binding proteins from Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54: 1670–7.
42. Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 1 investigators. CANVAS 1: the first phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S41–51.
43. Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 2 investigators. CANVAS 2: the second phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S53–65.
44. 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: 1673–81.
45. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 1611–8.
46. Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H et al; the Linezolid MRSA Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 1481–90.
47. Weigelt J, Kaafarani HMA, Itani KMF et al. Linezolid eradicates MRSA better than vancomycin from surgical-site infections. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 760–6.
48. Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D et al; the Linezolid CSSTI Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 2260–6.
49. Stryjewski ME, Barriere SL, O’Riordan W et al. Efficacy of telavancin in patients with specific types of complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 1496–1502.
50. Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1683–93.
51. O’Riordan W, Hopkins A et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections associated with surgical procedures. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 791–6.
52. Florescu I, Beuran M, Dimov R et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62 (Suppl. 1): S17e–28.
53. Stein GE, Smith CL, Missavage A et al. Tigecycline penetration into skin and soft tissue. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 465–7.
54. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns of increased risk of death with IV antibacterial Tygacil (tigecycline) and approves new boxed warning. September 2013. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ DrugSafety/ucm369580.htm
55. US Food and Drug Administration. Tygacil (tigecycline): label change increased mortality risk. September 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/Safety AlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm224626.htm
56. Cai Y, Wang R, Liang B et al. Systematic review and meta- analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 1162–72.
57. Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14: 696–705.
58. Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA 2013; 309: 559–69.
2. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59: 147–59.
3. Хирургические инфекции кожи и мягких тканей. Российские национальные рекомендации. Под ред. Б.Р.Гельфанда. Изд. 2-е перераб. и доп. М., 2015. / Khirurgicheskie infektsii kozhi i miagkikh tkanei. Rossiiskie natsional'nye rekomendatsii. Pod red. B.R.Gel'fanda. Izd. 2-e pererab. i dop. M., 2015. [in Russian]
4. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Developing drugs for treatment. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); October 2013.
5. Pallin DJ, Egan DJ, Pelletier AJ et al. Increased US emergency department visits for skin and soft tissue infections, and changes in antibiotic choices, during the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 51: 291–8.
6. Edelsberg J, Taneja C, Zervos M et al. Trends in US hospital admissions for skin and soft tissue infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15: 1516–8.
7. May AK, Stafford RE, Bulger EM et al. Treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Surg Infect 2009; 10: 467–99.
8. Fry DE. The economic costs of surgical site infection. Surg Infect 2002; 3 (Suppl.): S1–37.
9. Barie PS, Fry DE, Cheadle WC. Clinician’s Primer: Surgical Site Infections. A Guide to Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Future Directions. Englewood, CO: Consensus Medical Communications, 2007.
10. Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2011; 25: 135–53.
11. Hawn MT, Vick CC, Richman J et al. Surgical site infection prevention: time to move beyond the Surgical Care Improvement Program. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 494–501.
12. Barie PS. SCIP to the Loo? [editorial]. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 161–2.
13. Barie PS. Guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: a must-read, must-heed for every surgeon. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 5–7.
14. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 73–156.
15. Itani KM, Merchant S, Lin S-J et al. Outcomes and management costs in patients hospitalized for skin and skin-structure infections. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39: 42–9.
16. Fung HB, Chang JY, Kuczynski S. A practical guide to the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Drugs 2003; 63: 1459–80.
17. Jones RN, Mendes RE, Sader HS. Ceftaroline activity against pathogens associated with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results from an international surveillance study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S17–31.
18. Sader HS, Flamm RK, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of ceftaroline tested against 10.956 organisms causing acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in the United States medical centers (2012) [poster #C2e1628]. 53 ICAAC; Denver, CO, 2013.
19. Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, Kanafani ZA et al. Severe surgical site infection in community hospitals: epidemiology, key procedures, and the changing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28: 1047–53.
20. Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ et al. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998–2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 57: 7–13.
21. Fry DE. The continued challenge of Staphylococcus aureus in the surgical patient. Am Surg 2013; 79: 1–10.
22. King MD, Humphrey BJ, Wang YF et al. Emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 309–17.
23. Awad SS, Elhabash SI, Lee L et al. Increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft-tissue infections: reconsideration of empiric antimicrobial therapy. Am J Surg 2007; 194: 606–10.
24. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 666–74.
25. Zervos MJ, Freeman K, Vo L et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalized patients. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50: 238–45.
26. Mera RM, Suaya JA, Amrine-Madsen H et al. Increasing role of Staphylococcus aureus and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States: a 10-year trend of replacement and expansion. Microb Drug Resist 2011; 17: 321–8.
27. Davis SL, Perri MB, Donabedian SM et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 1705–1711.
28. Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE et al. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36 (5): 592–8.
29. Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Chen LF et al. Clinical and financial outcomes due to methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection: a multi-center matched outcomes study. PLoS One 2009; 4: 8305.
30. Shallcross LJ, Fragaszy E, Johnson AM et al. The role of the Panton-Valentine leucocidin toxin in staphylococcal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 43–54.
31. Mazuski JE. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: risk factors, surveillance, infections, and treatment. Surg Infect 2008; 9: 567–71.
32. Salgado CD, Farr BM. Outcomes associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 690–8.
33. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 18–55.
34. 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: 160–9.
35. Lee SY, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Antimicrobial management of complicated skin and skin structure infections in the era of emerging resistance. Surg Infect 2005; 6: 283–95.
36. Appelbaum PC. 2012 and beyond: potential for the start of a second pre-antibiotic era? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 2062–8.
37. Moellering RC Jr. The problem of complicated skin and skin structure infections: the need for new agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S3–8.
38. Napolitano LM. Early appropriate parenteral antimicrobial treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Surg Infect 2008; 9 (suppl. 1): S17–27.
39. Moellering RC Jr. Current treatment options for community- acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1032–7.
40. Moran GJ, Abrahamian FM, LoVecchio F et al. Acute bacterial skin infections: developments since the 2005 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines. J Emerg Med 2013; 44: 397–412.
41. Kosowska-Shick K, McGhee PL, Appelbaum PC. Affinity of ceftaroline and other b-lactams for penicillin-binding proteins from Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54: 1670–7.
42. Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 1 investigators. CANVAS 1: the first phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S41–51.
43. Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 2 investigators. CANVAS 2: the second phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S53–65.
44. 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: 1673–81.
45. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 1611–8.
46. Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H et al; the Linezolid MRSA Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 1481–90.
47. Weigelt J, Kaafarani HMA, Itani KMF et al. Linezolid eradicates MRSA better than vancomycin from surgical-site infections. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 760–6.
48. Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D et al; the Linezolid CSSTI Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 2260–6.
49. Stryjewski ME, Barriere SL, O’Riordan W et al. Efficacy of telavancin in patients with specific types of complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 1496–1502.
50. Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1683–93.
51. O’Riordan W, Hopkins A et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections associated with surgical procedures. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 791–6.
52. Florescu I, Beuran M, Dimov R et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62 (Suppl. 1): S17e–28.
53. Stein GE, Smith CL, Missavage A et al. Tigecycline penetration into skin and soft tissue. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 465–7.
54. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns of increased risk of death with IV antibacterial Tygacil (tigecycline) and approves new boxed warning. September 2013. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ DrugSafety/ucm369580.htm
55. US Food and Drug Administration. Tygacil (tigecycline): label change increased mortality risk. September 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/Safety AlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm224626.htm
56. Cai Y, Wang R, Liang B et al. Systematic review and meta- analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 1162–72.
57. Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14: 696–705.
58. Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA 2013; 309: 559–69.
________________________________________________
2. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59: 147–59.
3. Khirurgicheskie infektsii kozhi i miagkikh tkanei. Rossiiskie natsional'nye rekomendatsii. Pod red. B.R.Gel'fanda. Izd. 2-e pererab. i dop. M., 2015. [in Russian]
4. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Developing drugs for treatment. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); October 2013.
5. Pallin DJ, Egan DJ, Pelletier AJ et al. Increased US emergency department visits for skin and soft tissue infections, and changes in antibiotic choices, during the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 51: 291–8.
6. Edelsberg J, Taneja C, Zervos M et al. Trends in US hospital admissions for skin and soft tissue infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15: 1516–8.
7. May AK, Stafford RE, Bulger EM et al. Treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Surg Infect 2009; 10: 467–99.
8. Fry DE. The economic costs of surgical site infection. Surg Infect 2002; 3 (Suppl.): S1–37.
9. Barie PS, Fry DE, Cheadle WC. Clinician’s Primer: Surgical Site Infections. A Guide to Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Future Directions. Englewood, CO: Consensus Medical Communications, 2007.
10. Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2011; 25: 135–53.
11. Hawn MT, Vick CC, Richman J et al. Surgical site infection prevention: time to move beyond the Surgical Care Improvement Program. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 494–501.
12. Barie PS. SCIP to the Loo? [editorial]. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 161–2.
13. Barie PS. Guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: a must-read, must-heed for every surgeon. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 5–7.
14. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect 2013; 14: 73–156.
15. Itani KM, Merchant S, Lin S-J et al. Outcomes and management costs in patients hospitalized for skin and skin-structure infections. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39: 42–9.
16. Fung HB, Chang JY, Kuczynski S. A practical guide to the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Drugs 2003; 63: 1459–80.
17. Jones RN, Mendes RE, Sader HS. Ceftaroline activity against pathogens associated with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results from an international surveillance study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S17–31.
18. Sader HS, Flamm RK, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of ceftaroline tested against 10.956 organisms causing acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in the United States medical centers (2012) [poster #C2e1628]. 53 ICAAC; Denver, CO, 2013.
19. Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, Kanafani ZA et al. Severe surgical site infection in community hospitals: epidemiology, key procedures, and the changing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28: 1047–53.
20. Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ et al. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998–2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 57: 7–13.
21. Fry DE. The continued challenge of Staphylococcus aureus in the surgical patient. Am Surg 2013; 79: 1–10.
22. King MD, Humphrey BJ, Wang YF et al. Emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 309–17.
23. Awad SS, Elhabash SI, Lee L et al. Increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft-tissue infections: reconsideration of empiric antimicrobial therapy. Am J Surg 2007; 194: 606–10.
24. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 666–74.
25. Zervos MJ, Freeman K, Vo L et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in hospitalized patients. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50: 238–45.
26. Mera RM, Suaya JA, Amrine-Madsen H et al. Increasing role of Staphylococcus aureus and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States: a 10-year trend of replacement and expansion. Microb Drug Resist 2011; 17: 321–8.
27. Davis SL, Perri MB, Donabedian SM et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 1705–1711.
28. Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE et al. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36 (5): 592–8.
29. Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Chen LF et al. Clinical and financial outcomes due to methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection: a multi-center matched outcomes study. PLoS One 2009; 4: 8305.
30. Shallcross LJ, Fragaszy E, Johnson AM et al. The role of the Panton-Valentine leucocidin toxin in staphylococcal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 43–54.
31. Mazuski JE. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: risk factors, surveillance, infections, and treatment. Surg Infect 2008; 9: 567–71.
32. Salgado CD, Farr BM. Outcomes associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 690–8.
33. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 18–55.
34. 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: 160–9.
35. Lee SY, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Antimicrobial management of complicated skin and skin structure infections in the era of emerging resistance. Surg Infect 2005; 6: 283–95.
36. Appelbaum PC. 2012 and beyond: potential for the start of a second pre-antibiotic era? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 2062–8.
37. Moellering RC Jr. The problem of complicated skin and skin structure infections: the need for new agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S3–8.
38. Napolitano LM. Early appropriate parenteral antimicrobial treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Surg Infect 2008; 9 (suppl. 1): S17–27.
39. Moellering RC Jr. Current treatment options for community- acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1032–7.
40. Moran GJ, Abrahamian FM, LoVecchio F et al. Acute bacterial skin infections: developments since the 2005 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines. J Emerg Med 2013; 44: 397–412.
41. Kosowska-Shick K, McGhee PL, Appelbaum PC. Affinity of ceftaroline and other b-lactams for penicillin-binding proteins from Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54: 1670–7.
42. Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 1 investigators. CANVAS 1: the first phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S41–51.
43. Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH et al; CANVAS 2 investigators. CANVAS 2: the second phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (Suppl. 4): S53–65.
44. 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: 1673–81.
45. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 1611–8.
46. Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H et al; the Linezolid MRSA Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 1481–90.
47. Weigelt J, Kaafarani HMA, Itani KMF et al. Linezolid eradicates MRSA better than vancomycin from surgical-site infections. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 760–6.
48. Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D et al; the Linezolid CSSTI Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 2260–6.
49. Stryjewski ME, Barriere SL, O’Riordan W et al. Efficacy of telavancin in patients with specific types of complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 1496–1502.
50. Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 1683–93.
51. O’Riordan W, Hopkins A et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections associated with surgical procedures. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 791–6.
52. Florescu I, Beuran M, Dimov R et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62 (Suppl. 1): S17e–28.
53. Stein GE, Smith CL, Missavage A et al. Tigecycline penetration into skin and soft tissue. Surg Infect 2011; 12: 465–7.
54. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns of increased risk of death with IV antibacterial Tygacil (tigecycline) and approves new boxed warning. September 2013. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ DrugSafety/ucm369580.htm
55. US Food and Drug Administration. Tygacil (tigecycline): label change increased mortality risk. September 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/Safety AlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm224626.htm
56. Cai Y, Wang R, Liang B et al. Systematic review and meta- analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 1162–72.
57. Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR et al. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14: 696–705.
58. Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E et al. Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. JAMA 2013; 309: 559–69.
Авторы
В.Б.Белобородов*
ФГБОУ ДПО «Российская медицинская академия непрерывного профессионального образования» Минздрава России. 125993, Россия, Москва, ул. Баррикадная, д. 2/1
*vb_beloborodov@mail.ru
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. 125993, Russian Federation,
Moscow, ul. Barrikadnaia, d. 2/1
*vb_beloborodov@mail.ru
ФГБОУ ДПО «Российская медицинская академия непрерывного профессионального образования» Минздрава России. 125993, Россия, Москва, ул. Баррикадная, д. 2/1
*vb_beloborodov@mail.ru
________________________________________________
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. 125993, Russian Federation,
Moscow, ul. Barrikadnaia, d. 2/1
*vb_beloborodov@mail.ru
Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.