***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: In a recently completed study of once-a-day ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam every 6 h in the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections , 540 patients were r and omized in a 1rcolon;1 ratio and assigned to 1 of 2 strata : those with a complicating underlying disease or all others . The most common infections in the study were deep soft-tissue abscess ( 18.9 % ) , followed by diabetic lower extremity infection ( 18.1 % ) ; 7.0 % of these were perineal cellulitis/abscess . With the exception of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus , almost all of the predominant aerobic pathogens were susceptible to both study drugs . Eighty-seven patients ( 16 % ) had > /=1 anaerobe identified in their baseline wound cultures , with a total of 232 anaerobic isolates . Of the 141 anaerobes tested for susceptibility , 97.2 % were susceptible to ertapenem and 97.9 % to  piperacillin-tazobactam . Ertapenem had excellent in vitro activity against the most common aerobic pathogens and almost all anaerobes recovered from patients with infections of the skin and skin structures BACKGROUND Severe skin and soft-tissue infections ( SSTIs ) , particularly diabetic foot infections , are a source of considerable morbidity and mortality . Inappropriate antimicrobial therapy may contribute to the increasing emergence of bacterial resistance , as well as to increased health care costs . Thus , there is a continuing search for reasonably safe , well-tolerated , and effective antimicrobial agents that are less susceptible to the development of resistance than older agents . OBJECTIVE The Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) Medical Center in Nashville , Tennessee , was I site in a multicenter , Phase III , r and omized , investigator-blinded clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of clinafloxacin with those of piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of adult patients with SSTI . METHODS Over an 18-month period , patients aged > or = 18 years with physical findings of acute bacterial SSTI requiring hospitalization and intravenous antimicrobial therapy were r and omized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either clinafloxacin 200 mg IV every 12 hours or piperacillin/tazobactam 3.375 g IV every 6 hours . After a minimum of 3 days of intravenous therapy , a switch to oral therapy with clinafloxacin 200 mg PO every 12 hours or amoxicillin/clavulanate 500 mg PO every 8 hours could be made in the respective treatment groups . RESULTS The center enrolled 84 patients ( 42 in each group ) , all but I of whom were male , reflecting the typical VA medical center population . The mean age was 60 years ( range , 36 - 80 years ) in the clinafloxacin group and 65 years ( range , 35 - 87 ) in the piperacillin/tazobactam group ; the latter group was significantly older ( P = 0.0482 ) , which could have affected recovery rates . Sixty-six patients were white and 18 were black . The mean ( + /- SD ) duration of treatment was 10.69 + /- 5.34 days in the clinafloxacin group and 12.07 + /- 5.06 days in the piperacillin/tazobactam group ; the mean length of stay was 10.83 + /- 10.28 days and 14.95 + /- 19.20 days , respectively . Fifty-three ( 63 % ) patients were switched to oral therapy ( 21 in the clinafloxacin group , 32 in the piperacillin/tazobactam group ) . The most commonly isolated pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus , Enterococcus faecalis , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , and Enterobacter cloacae . Clinical cure rates and microbiologic eradication rates were similar between the 2 treatments . The piperacillin/ tazobactam arm experienced more all-cause adverse events than the clinafloxacin arm , although the difference was not statistically significant . The clinafloxacin arm experienced significantly more adverse events ( eg , photosensitivity ) that were judged by the investigator to be drug related ( P = 0.034 ) . CONCLUSIONS In this study population of hospitalized adults , clinafloxacin was as effective as piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated SSTIs . Appropriate pre caution s must be taken against exposure to sunlight and ultraviolet light in patients receiving clinafloxacin , and adequate monitoring is necessary . Further investigation is necessary into how the phototoxic effects of the flu oroquinolones can be limited BACKGROUND Uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections are commonly observed in medical practice . Because these infections typically are confined to the superficial layers and seldom lead to the destruction of skin structures and result ant systemic dissemination , in general they can be treated with an oral antibiotic with potent microbiologic activity against gram-positive pathogens . OBJECTIVE This paper compares the efficacy and tolerability of 3 beta-lactam antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections . METHODS Two double-blind , multicenter , parallel-group studies were conducted , in which patients aged > or = 12 years with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections were r and omized to receive cefditoren 200 or 400 mg , cefuroxime 250 mg , or cefadroxil 500 mg , each BID for 10 days . Study 1 compared cefditoren with cefuroxime ; Study 2 compared cefditoren with cefadroxil .  Clinical and microbiologic responses were assessed at a posttreatment visit ( within 48 hours of treatment completion ) and test-of-cure visit ( 7 - 14 days after treatment completion ) . Patients were monitored closely throughout the study with the use of physical examinations , clinical laboratory tests , and assessment of adverse events . RESULTS A total of 1,685 patients ( 855 males , 830 females ; mean age , 41.1 years [ range , 12 - 95 years ] ) were enrolled . Within both studies , the 3 treatment groups were similar at baseline based on demographic characteristics and types of infection . Cellulitis ( 26 % ) , wound infection ( 25 % ) , and simple abscess ( 15 % ) were the most common infections . Clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were 85 % ( 443/523 ) for cefditoren 200 mg , 83 % ( 427/516 ) for cefditoren 400 mg , 88 % ( 234/265 ) for cefuroxime , and 85 % ( 211/248 ) for cefadroxil . At the test-of-cure visit , cefditoren 200 mg had eradicated significantly fewer of the causative pathogens isolated before treatment in microbiologically evaluable patients than did cefuroxime in Study 1 ( P = 0.043 ) but significantly more of the pathogens than did cefadroxil in Study 2 ( P = 0.018 ) . Eradication rates for the most commonly isolated pathogens were generally similar in the 3 treatment groups in both studies , with the only significant difference favoring cefditoren 200 and 400 mg over cefadroxil for Peptostreptococcus species in Study 2 ( P = 0.016 and P = 0.003 , respectively ) . A minority of patients ( < or = 5 % in any treatment group ) discontinued study -drug treatment prematurely due to a treatment-related adverse event , with statistically higher rates for cefditoren 400 mg than for cefditoren 200 mg and the comparator cephalosporins ( each P < 0.05 ) . All 3 cephalosporins were generally well tolerated . Most adverse events ( > 93 % ) were categorized as mild to moderate , with the most common being diarrhea , nausea , and headache . CONCLUSION In this population of patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections , including those due to Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes , the clinical cure rate and tolerability of cefditoren were comparable to those of cefuroxime and cefadroxil IMPORTANCE Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections ( ABSSSIs ) , including cellulitis or erysipelas , major cutaneous abscesses , and wound infections , can be life-threatening and may require surgery and hospitalization . Increasingly , ABSSSIs are associated with drug-resistant pathogens , and many antimicrobial agents have adverse effects restricting their use . Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone in development for the treatment of ABSSSIs . OBJECTIVES To establish the noninferiority of tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid in treating ABSSSIs and compare the safety of the 2 agents . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PATIENTS The Efficacy and Safety of 6-day Oral Tedizolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections vs 10-day Oral Linezolid Therapy ( ESTABLISH-1 ) was a phase 3 , r and omized , double-blind , noninferiority trial that was conducted from August 2010 through September 2011 at 81 study centers in North America , Latin America , and Europe . The intent-to-treat analysis set consisted of data from 667 adults aged 18 years or older with ABSSSIs treated with tedizolid phosphate ( n = 332 ) or linezolid ( n = 335 ) . INTERVENTIONS A 200 mg once daily dose of oral tedizolid phosphate for 6 days or 600 mg of oral linezolid every 12 hours for 10 days . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary efficacy outcome was early clinical response at the 48- to 72-hour assessment ( no increase in lesion surface area from baseline and oral temperature of ≤37.6 ° C , confirmed by a second temperature measurement within 24 hours ) . A 10 % noninferiority margin was predefined . RESULTS In the intent-to-treat analysis set , the early clinical treatment response rates were 79.5 % ( 95 % CI , 74.8 % to 83.7 % ) of 332 patients in the tedizolid phosphate group and 79.4 % ( 95 % CI , 74.7 % to 83.6 % ) of 335 patients in the linezolid group ( a treatment difference of 0.1 % [ 95 % CI , -6.1 % to 6.2 % ] ) . The sustained clinical treatment response rates at the end of treatment ( day 11 ) were 69.3 % ( 95 % CI , 64.0 % to 74.2 % ) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 71.9 % ( 95 % CI , 66.8 % to 76.7 % ) in the linezolid group ( a treatment difference of -2.6 % [ 95 % CI , -9.6 % to 4.2 % ] ) . Results of investigator-assessed clinical treatment success rates at a posttherapy evaluation visit ( 1 - 2 weeks after the end-of-treatment visit ) were 85.5 % ( 95 % CI , 81.3 % to 89.1 % ) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 86.0 % ( 95 % CI , 81.8 % to 89.5 % ) in the linezolid group ( a treatment difference of -0.5 % [ 95 % CI , -5.8 % to 4.9 % ) , and were similar for 178 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from the primary lesion . CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Tedizolid phosphate was a statistically noninferior treatment to linezolid in early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours after initiating therapy for an ABSSSI . Tedizolid phosphate may be a reasonable alternative to linezolid for treating ABSSSI . TRIAL REGISTRATION clinical trials.gov Identifier : NCT01170221 BACKGROUND Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ( MRSA ) is a common cause of complicated skin and skin-structure infection ( cSSSI ) . Increasing antimicrobial resistance in cSSSI has led to a need for new safe and effective therapies . Ceftaroline was evaluated as treatment for cSSSI in 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials , the pooled analysis of which is presented here . The primary objective of each trial was to determine the noninferiority of the clinical cure rate achieved with ceftaroline monotherapy , compared with that achieved with vancomycin plus aztreonam combination therapy , in the clinical ly evaluable ( CE ) and modified intent-to-treat ( MITT ) patient population s. METHODS Adult patients with cSSSI requiring int 
    Output:
    
In the trials that compared different antibiotics for treating MRSA-infected non surgical wounds , there was no evidence that any one antibiotic was better than the others .