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

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Tedizolid Phosphate Compared to Linezolid for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Gram-Positive Bacteria

Tedizolid and linezolid have antibacterial activity against the most important acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSIs) pathogens. The objective of this work was to apply PK/PD analysis to evaluate the probability of attaining the pharmacodynamic target of these antimicrobials based on the susceptibility patterns of different clinical isolates causing ABSSSI. Pharmacokinetic and microbiological data were obtained from the literature. PK/PD breakpoints, the probability of target attainment (PTA) and the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. PTA and CFR are indicative of treatment success. PK/PD breakpoints of tedizolid and linezolid were 0.5 and 1 mg/L, respectively. Probability of treatment success of tedizolid was very high (>90%) for most staphylococci strains, including MRSA and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). Only for methicillin- and linezolid-resistant S. aureus (MLRSA) and linezolid resistant (LR) CoNS strains was the CFR of tedizolid very low. Except for LR, daptomycin-non-susceptible (DNS), and vancomycin-resistant (VRE) E. faecium isolates, tedizolid also provided a high probability of treatment success for enterococci. The probability of treatment success of both antimicrobials for streptococci was always higher than 90%. In conclusion, for empiric treatment, PK/PD analysis has shown that tedizolid would be adequate for most staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, even those LR whose linezolid resistance is mediated by the cfr gene.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin, Linezolid, Tedizolid, and Daptomycin in Treating Patients with Suspected or Proven Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Skin and soft structure infections (SSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pose serious health risks and cause significant cost burdens, and a conclusive recommendation about antibiotics has not yet been generated. Therefore, we performed this updated network meta-analysis to determine the preferred drug for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify any potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative efficacy and safety of any two of vancomycin, linezolid, tedizolid, and daptomycin in MRSA-caused SSTIs. All statistical analyses were conducted with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software.

Results

Twenty eligible RCTs involving 7804 patients were included for the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis suggested that linezolid was superior to vancomycin in improving clinical (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.99; P = 0.02) and microbiological (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24–2.86; P = 0.003) success, which were all confirmed by network meta-analyses. No statistical differences were identified regarding other comparisons. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between any two antibiotics related to safety. Moreover, ranking probabilities indicated that linezolid had the highest probability of being ranked best in terms of clinical and microbiological success.

Conclusion

Based on the limited evidence, linezolid may be a preferred antibiotic for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs because it showed superiority in clinical and microbiological success without difference regarding safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00456-0.

Emerging Treatment Options for Multi-Drug-Resistant Bacterial Infections

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remains one of the top public health issues of global concern. Among the most important strategies for AMR control there is the correct and appropriate use of antibiotics, including those available for the treatment of AMR pathogens. In this article, after briefly reviewing the most important and clinically relevant multi-drug-resistant bacteria and their main resistance mechanisms, we describe the emerging antimicrobial options for both MDR Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative bacilli, including recently marketed agents, molecules just approved or under evaluation and rediscovered older antibiotics that have regained importance due to their antimicrobial spectrum. Specifically, emerging options for Gram-positive cocci we reviewed include ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, tedizolid, dalbavancin, and fosfomycin. Emerging treatment options for Gram-negative bacilli we considered comprise ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, imipenem-relebactam, aztreonam-avibactam, minocycline, fosfomycin, eravacycline, plazomicin, and cefiderocol. An exciting scenario is opening today with the long awaited growing availability of novel molecules for the treatment of AMR bacteria. Knowledge of mechanisms of action and resistance patterns allows physicians to increasingly drive antimicrobial treatment towards a precision medicine approach. Strict adherence to antimicrobial stewardship practices will allow us to preserve the emerging antimicrobials for our future.

Appropriate Use of Short-Course Antibiotics in Common Infections: Best Practice Advice From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

Antimicrobial overuse is a major health care issue that contributes to antibiotic resistance. Such overuse includes unnecessarily long durations of antibiotic therapy in patients with common bacterial infections, such as acute bronchitis with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), urinary tract infections (UTIs), and cellulitis. This article describes best practices for prescribing appropriate and short-duration antibiotic therapy for patients presenting with these infections.

METHODS

The authors conducted a narrative literature review of published clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and individual studies that addressed bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, CAP, UTIs, and cellulitis. This article is based on the best available evidence but was not a formal systematic review. Guidance was prioritized to the highest available level of synthesized evidence.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1

Clinicians should limit antibiotic treatment duration to 5 days when managing patients with COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis who have clinical signs of a bacterial infection (presence of increased sputum purulence in addition to increased dyspnea, and/or increased sputum volume).

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2

Clinicians should prescribe antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia for a minimum of 5 days. Extension of therapy after 5 days of antibiotics should be guided by validated measures of clinical stability, which include resolution of vital sign abnormalities, ability to eat, and normal mentation.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3

In women with uncomplicated bacterial cystitis, clinicians should prescribe short-course antibiotics with either nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. In men and women with uncomplicated pyelonephritis, clinicians should prescribe short-course therapy either with fluoroquinolones (5 to 7 days) or TMP-SMZ (14 days) based on antibiotic susceptibility.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4

In patients with nonpurulent cellulitis, clinicians should use a 5- to 6-day course of antibiotics active against streptococci, particularly for patients able to self-monitor and who have close follow-up with primary care.

New-Generation Antibiotics for Treatment of Gram-Positive Infections: A Review with Focus on Endocarditis and Osteomyelitis

Infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and osteosynthesis-associated infections are mostly caused by Gram-positive bacteria. They are often difficult to treat and are associated with a poor prognosis. In the past 20 years, nine antibiotic drugs with predominant activity against Gram-positive bacteria have been introduced and approved by the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency: ceftaroline, daptomycin, telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, linezolid, tedizolid, delafloxacin, and omadacycline. This narrative review aims to provide an overview on these antibiotics with a special focus on their use in infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and osteosynthesis-associated infections. Although some of these approved antibiotics are promising, they should not be used as first- or second-line therapy, awaiting more clinical data.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Single-dose Tedizolid Phosphate in Children 2 to <12 Years of Age

BACKGROUND

Infections with Gram-positive bacteria, including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), are common in children. We describe a single-dose pharmacokinetics and safety study of tedizolid phosphate, a new oxazolidinone under investigation for the treatment of ABSSSIs in children, in hospitalized participants 2 to <12 years of age.

METHODS

This open-label, multicenter, phase 1 trial (NCT02750761) enrolled hospitalized children 2 to <12 years of age receiving treatment for a confirmed/suspected Gram-positive bacterial infection. Participants were stratified by age (2 to <6 years and 6 to <12 years) to receive a single oral or intravenous dose of tedizolid phosphate. Evaluations included safety and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid phosphate and its active metabolite, tedizolid. Palatability of the oral suspension was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants were enrolled and received 3-6 mg/kg of study medication. For both routes of administration, tedizolid phosphate was rapidly converted to tedizolid; median time to maximum tedizolid plasma concentration was 1-2 hours after initiation of the 1-hour intravenous infusion and 2-3 hours after oral dosing. The tedizolid mean terminal half-life was 5-6 hours and 6-7 hours for the intravenous and oral administration groups, respectively. The oral tedizolid phosphate suspension demonstrated high bioavailability comparable to that of the parenteral administration. A single dose of intravenous or oral tedizolid phosphate was well tolerated; no unexpected safety findings were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacokinetic and safety observations provide the information necessary for the continued development of tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of Gram-positive infections in children, particularly ABSSSIs.

Tedizolid vs Linezolid for the Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Infections in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Background

Treatment options for nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) infections are limited by the pathogen's intrinsic resistance profile and toxicities. Tedizolid and linezolid display in vitro activity against NTM species. However, safety data and treatment outcomes are limited in the solid organ transplant (SOT) population.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of adult SOT recipients receiving linezolid or tedizolid for an NTM infection from January 1, 2010, to August 31, 2019. The primary outcome compared the hematologic safety profiles of tedizolid vs linezolid. We also described nonhematological adverse drug events (ADEs) and therapy discontinuation rates. In an exploratory analysis, we assessed symptomatic microbiologic and clinical outcomes in those receiving tedizolid or linezolid for at least 4 weeks.

Results

Twenty-four patients were included (15 tedizolid, 9 linezolid). No differences were identified comparing the effects of tedizolid vs linezolid on platelet counts, absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs), and hemoglobin over 7 weeks using mixed-effects analysis of variance models. ANC was significantly decreased in both groups after 7 weeks of therapy (P = .04). Approximately 20% of patients in each arm discontinued therapy due to an ADE. Seven of 12 (58%) and 2 of 3 (67%) patients were cured or clinically cured with tedizolid- and linezolid-containing regimens, respectively.

Conclusions

This study suggests no significant safety benefit of tedizolid over linezolid for the treatment of NTM infections in SOT recipients. Tedizolid or linezolid-containing regimens demonstrated a potential benefit in symptomatic and microbiologic improvement. Larger cohorts are needed to further delineate the comparative role of linezolid and tedizolid for the treatment of NTM infections in SOT recipients.

Safety and Efficacy of Oral and/or Intravenous Tedizolid Phosphate From a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Adolescents With Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

BACKGROUND

Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone prodrug approved in 2014 for treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs); however, efficacy has not previously been evaluated in children. This study compared the safety and efficacy of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) with active antibacterial comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs in adolescents.

METHODS

This was a randomized, assessor-blind, global phase 3 study of tedizolid versus active comparators for the treatment of Gram-positive ABSSSIs in adolescents (12 to <18 years of age; NCT02276482). Enrolled participants were stratified by region and randomized 3:1 to receive tedizolid phosphate 200 mg (oral and/or intravenous) once daily for 6 days or active comparator, selected by investigator from an allowed list per local standard of care, for 10 days. The primary endpoint was safety; blinded investigator's assessment of clinical success at the test-of-cure visit (18-25 days after the first dose) was a secondary efficacy endpoint. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were not performed.

RESULTS

Of the 121 participants enrolled, 120 were treated (tedizolid, n = 91; comparator, n = 29). Treatment-emergent adverse events were balanced between treatment groups (tedizolid, 14.3%; comparator, 10.3%). Overall, 3 participants (3.3%) in the tedizolid group and 1 (3.4%) in the comparator group experienced a single drug-related TEAE. Clinical success rates were high in both treatment groups: 96.7% and 93.1% at the test-of-cure visit for the tedizolid and comparator groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Tedizolid demonstrated safety and efficacy similar to comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs in adolescents.

Surgical Infection Society 2020 Updated Guidelines on the Management of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Background: The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) Guidelines for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) were published in October 2009 in Surgical Infections. The purpose of this project was to provide a succinct update on the earlier guidelines based on an additional decade of data. Methods: We reviewed the previous guidelines eliminating bite wounds and diabetic foot infections including their associated references. Relevant articles on the topic of complicated SSTIs from 2008-2020 were reviewed and graded individually. Comparisons were then made between the old and the new graded recommendations with review of the older references by two authors when there was disparity between the grades. Results: The majority of new studies addressed antimicrobial options and duration of therapy particularly in complicated abscesses. There were fewer updated studies on diagnosis and specific operative interventions. Many of the topics addressed in the original guidelines had no new literature to evaluate. Conclusions: Most recommendations remain unchanged from the original guidelines with the exception of increased support for adjuvant antimicrobial therapy after drainage of complex abscess and increased data for the use of alternative antimicrobial agents.

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): updated guidelines from the UK

These evidence-based guidelines are an updated version of those issued in 2008. They have been produced following a review of the published literature (2007-18) pertaining to the treatment of infections caused by MRSA. The guidelines update, where appropriate, previous recommendations, taking into account changes in the UK epidemiology of MRSA, ongoing national surveillance data and the efficacy of novel anti-staphylococcal agents licensed for use in the UK. Emerging therapies that have not been licensed for use in the UK at the time of the review have also been assessed.

Radiolabeled Tedizolid Phosphate Liposomes for Topical Application: Design, Characterization, and Evaluation of Cellular Binding Capacity

Nowadays, the incidence of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) is increasing. The increased bioavailability and reduced drug resistance of antibiotics are crucial to obtain a more effective treatment response in these infections. These favorable properties could be achieved by different drug delivery systems such as liposomes. In this study, nanosized, radiolabeled tedizolid phosphate liposomal formulations were prepared and evaluated with their in vitro cellular binding capacity and biocompatible profile for topical treatment of ABSSSI. Liposomes were characterized by evaluation of their visual inspection, particle size (about 190-270 nm), zeta potential value (around 0), and encapsulation efficiency (nearly 10%). The release rate of tedizolid phosphate from liposomes was also studied using dialysis membranes and evaluated kinetically. The stability of formulations was observed at three different temperatures and humidity conditions for 28 days. Afterward, liposomes were labeled with ^99mTc, and the optimal amount of reducing agent (stannous chloride) was determined as 500 μg in this direct labeling procedure. All liposome formulations were successfully radiolabeled with high efficiency and exhibited high radiochemical purity (> 80%) during 6 h in different media. Furthermore, the cellular bindings of liposomal formulations were evaluated in human skin fibroblast cells by measuring the radioactivity. Higher radioactivity values were obtained in CCD-1070Sk cells incubated by liposome formulations compared to sodium pertechnetate. This finding suggested that liposomal formulation increased the cellular binding of radioactivity. By the result of our study, nanosized, tedizolid phosphate encapsulated liposome formulation was found to be a favorable carrier system in the treatment of ABSSSI.

Long-Term Use of Tedizolid in Osteoarticular Infections: Benefits among Oxazolidinone Drugs

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of long-term use of tedizolid in osteoarticular infections. Methods: Multicentric retrospective study (January 2017–March 2019) of osteoarticular infection cases treated with tedizolid. Failure: clinical worsening despite antibiotic treatment or the need of suppressive treatment. Results: Cases (n = 51; 59% women, mean age of 65 years) included osteoarthritis (n = 27, 53%), prosthetic joint infection (n = 17, 33.3%), and diabetic foot infections (n = 9, 18%); where, 59% were orthopedic device-related. Most frequent isolates were Staphylococcus spp. (65%, n = 47; S. aureus, 48%). Reasons for choosing tedizolid were potential drug-drug interaction (63%) and cytopenia (55%); median treatment duration was 29 days (interquartile range -IQR- 15–44), 24% received rifampicin (600 mg once daily) concomitantly, and adverse events were scarce (n = 3). Hemoglobin and platelet count stayed stable throughout treatment (from 108.6 g/L to 116.3 g/L, p = 0.079; and 240 × 10⁹/L to 239 × 10⁹/L, p = 0.942, respectively), also in the subgroup of cases with cytopenia. Among device-related infections, 33% were managed with implant retention. Median follow-up was 630 days and overall cure rate 83%; among failures (n = 8), 63% were device-related infections. Conclusions: Long-term use of tedizolid was effective, showing a better safety profile with less myelotoxicity and lower drug-drug interaction than linezolid. Confirmation of these advantages could make tedizolid the oxazolidinone of choice for most of osteoarticular infections.

Tolerance of Prolonged Oral Tedizolid for Prosthetic Joint Infections: Results of a Multicentre Prospective Study

Objectives: Data on clinical and biological tolerance of tedizolid (TZD) prolonged therapy are lacking. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicentre study including patients with prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) who were treated for at least 6 weeks but not more than 12 weeks. Results: Thirty-three adult patients of mean age 73.3 ± 10.5 years, with PJI including hip (n = 19), knee (n = 13) and shoulder (n = 1) were included. All patients were operated, with retention of the infected implants and one/two stage-replacements in 11 (33.3%) and 17/5 (51.5%/15.2%), respectively. Staphylococci and enterococci were the most prevalent bacteria identified. The mean duration of TZD therapy was 8.0 ± 3.27 weeks (6–12). TZD was associated with another antibiotic in 18 patients (54.5%), including rifampicin in 16 cases (48.5). Six patients (18.2%) had to stop TZD therapy prematurely because of intolerance which was potentially attributable to TZD (n = 2), early failure of PJI treatment (n = 2) or severe anaemia due to bleeding (n = 2). Regarding compliance with TZD therapy, no cases of two or more omissions of medication intake were recorded during the whole TZD treatment duration. Conclusions: These results suggest good compliance and a favourable safety profile of TZD, providing evidence of the potential benefit of the use of this agent for the antibiotic treatment of PJIs.

Staphylococcal Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common bacteria causing purulent skin and soft tissue infections. Many disease-causing S aureus strains are methicillin resistant; thus, empiric therapy should be given to cover methicillin-resistant S aureus. Bacterial wound cultures are important for characterizing local susceptibility patterns. Definitive antibiotic therapy is warranted, although there are no compelling data demonstrating superiority of any one antibiotic over another. Antibiotic choice is predicated by the infection severity, local susceptibility patterns, and drug-related safety, tolerability, and cost. Response to therapy is expected within the first days; 5 to 7 days of therapy is typically adequate to achieve cure.

[New antibiotics for severe infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens : Definitive treatment and escalation]

Multidrug-resistant pathogens often lead to treatment failure of antimicrobial regimens. After a period of imbalance between the occurrence/spread of resistance mechanisms and the development of new substances, some new substances have meanwhile been approved and many more are currently undergoing clinical testing. They are particularly effective against specific resistance mechanisms/pathogens and should be preserved for definitive treatment of an isolated pathogen. In the absence of alternatives reserve antibiotics, such as aztreonam and colistin have experienced a renaissance. They are again used in special infection scenarios and clinically tested in combination with new substances. Despite the introduction and development of new substances the building of resistance will at some time also render these (at least partially) ineffective. Therefore, their implementation must be carried out according to the antibiotic or infectious diseases stewardship.

[Pharmacological action and clinical effect of tedizolid phosphate (SIVEXTRO® Tablets 200 mg, for iv infusion 200 mg), a novel oxazolidinone-class antibacterial drug]

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial agent, is a protein synthesis inhibitor that acts on bacterial ribosomes to inhibit initiation of translation. Tedizolid phosphate, a prodrug of tedizolid, is rapidly converted to the active form of tedizolid by phosphatase after administration. Tedizolid has antimicrobial activity mainly against gram-positive pathogens, and generally shows 4-8 times stronger in vitro activity than linezolid, an oxazolidinone antibacterial agent. Tedizolid has antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) regardless of being methicillin-resistant or susceptible, with 90% minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC₉₀) ranging from 0.25-0.5 μg/mL. Although antimicrobial activity of tedizolid against linezolid-resistant S. aureus (LRSA) is generally reduced, tedizolid is still active to LRSA whose linezolid resistance is caused by cfr gene. Structure-activity relationship analysis suggests that the C-5 hydroxymethyl group, the C-ring pyridine, and the D-ring tetrazole group of tedizolid are associated with enhanced antimicrobial activity of tedizolid and its antimicrobial activity against linezolid-resistant bacteria by the cfr gene. Frequency of spontaneous resistance mutation to tedizolid is low, and about 16-fold lower than that to linezolid. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameter most related to the efficacy of tedizolid is the area under free drug concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration (fAUC/MIC), and fAUC/MIC value required for bacteriostasis under immunocompetent conditions was calculated to be three. Phase III studies of tedizolid phosphate were conducted in Japan and overseas countries and demonstrated its efficacy and safety in patients with skin and soft tissue infections caused by gram positive organisms including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).

Efficient chemical fixation and defixation cycle of carbon dioxide under ambient conditions

Chemical fixation of CO₂ as a C1 feedstock for producing value-added products is an important post-combustion technology reducing the CO₂ emission. As it is an irreversible process, not considered for the CO₂ capture and release. Overall, these chemical transformations also do not help to mitigate global warming, as the energy consumed in different forms is much higher than the amount of CO₂ fixed by chemical reactions. Here we describe the development of re-generable chemical fixation of CO₂ by spiroaziridine oxindole, where CO₂ is captured (chemical fixation) under catalyst-free condition at room temperature both in aqueous and non-aqueous medium even directly from the slow stream of flue gas producing regioselectively spirooxazolidinyl oxindoles, a potential drug. The CO₂-adduct is reversed back to the spiroaziridine releasing CO₂ under mild conditions. Further both the fixation-defixation of CO₂ can be repeated under near ambient conditions for several cycles in a single loop using a recyclable reagent.

Afabicin, a First-in-Class Antistaphylococcal Antibiotic, in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Clinical Noninferiority to Vancomycin/Linezolid

Afabicin (formerly Debio 1450, AFN-1720) is a prodrug of afabicin desphosphono, an enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabI) inhibitor, and is a first-in-class antibiotic with a novel mode of action to specifically target fatty acid synthesis in Staphylococcus spp. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of afabicin were compared with those of vancomycin/linezolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to staphylococci in this multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, and double-dummy phase 2 study.

Afabicin (formerly Debio 1450, AFN-1720) is a prodrug of afabicin desphosphono, an enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabI) inhibitor, and is a first-in-class antibiotic with a novel mode of action to specifically target fatty acid synthesis in Staphylococcus spp. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of afabicin were compared with those of vancomycin/linezolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to staphylococci in this multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, and double-dummy phase 2 study. Randomized patients (1:1:1) received either low-dose (LD) afabicin (intravenous [i.v.] 80 mg, followed by oral 120 mg, twice a day [BID]), high-dose (HD) afabicin (i.v. 160 mg, followed by oral 240 mg, BID), or vancomycin/linezolid (i.v. vancomycin 1 g or 15 mg/kg, followed by oral linezolid 600 mg, BID). The most frequent baseline pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (97.5% of microbiological intent-to-treat [mITT] population), and 50.4% of patients had methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Clinical response rates at 48 to 72 h postrandomization in the mITT population were comparable among treatment groups (94.6%, 90.1%, and 91.1%, respectively). Both LD and HD afabicin were noninferior to vancomycin/linezolid (differences, −3.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −10.8%, 3.9%] and 1.0% [95% CI, −7.3%, 9.2%], respectively). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and were headache (9.1% and 16.8%) and nausea (6.4% and 8.4%) with LD and HD afabicin, respectively. Afabicin was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of ABSSSI due to staphylococci, and these data support further development of afabicin for the treatment of ABSSSI and potentially other types of staphylococcal infections. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02426918.)

Clinical response to antibiotic regimens in lower limb cellulitis: a systematic review

There is variation in the treatment of lower limb cellulitis (LLC) with no agreement on the most effective antibiotic regimen. Many patients with cellulitis fail to respond to first-line antibiotics. This can negatively affect patient care and result in unnecessary hospital admissions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the clinical response and safety of antibiotic regimens for the management of LLC. A systematic review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using OVID MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in January 2019. Outcomes of interest included the clinical response to antibiotic regimens (type, dose, route, duration) and the safety of antibiotics in LLC. Trial quality was identified using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Four RCTs were included. All included studies showed no significant differences between the clinical response to different antibiotic type, administration route, treatment duration or dose. LLC may be overtreated and shorter courses of oral antibiotics, possibly with lower doses, may be more suitable. There is a lack of published data on the clinical response and safety of antibiotics in LLC. Three studies were high risk for bias overall. Further high-quality studies may help determine whether less intensive antibiotic regimens can effectively treat LLC.

In Vitro Activity of Tedizolid Compared to Linezolid and Five Other Antimicrobial Agents against 332 Anaerobic Isolates, Including Bacteroides fragilis Group, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, and Veillonella Species

Tedizolid's anaerobic activity is unappreciated. In this study, it was active against all 332 anaerobic isolates tested at ≤2 μg/ml except Bilophila wadsworthia and was more active than linezolid against Bacteroides fragilis group species (MIC₉₀, 1 μg/ml versus 2 to 4 μg/ml). Tedizolid was active against Gram-positive anaerobes (MIC₉₀ for clostridia, 0.25 to 1 μg/ml; MIC₉₀ for anaerobic cocci, ≤0.06 to 0.25 μg/ml). Our data coupled with clinical reports indicate that clinicians should consider its use in mixed infections where Staphylococcus aureus and anaerobes are involved.

Route and duration of antibiotic therapy in acute cellulitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and harms of antibiotic treatment

OBJECTIVES

Compared with guideline recommendations, antibiotic overuse is common in treating cellulitis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses on antibiotic route and duration of treatment for cellulitis in adults and children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries from inception to Dec 11, 2019 for interventional and observational studies of antibiotic treatment for cellulitis. Exclusions included case series/reports, pre-septal/orbital cellulitis and non-English language articles. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to produce summary relative risk (RR) estimates for our primary outcome of clinical response.

PROSPERO

CRD42018100602.

RESULTS

We included 47/8423 articles, incorporating data from eleven trials (1855 patients) in two meta-analyses. The overall risk of bias was moderate. Only two trials compared the same antibiotic agent in each group. We found no evidence of difference in clinical response rates for antibiotic route or duration (RR(oral:IV)=1.12, 95%CI 0.98-1.27, I²=32% and RR(shorter:longer)=0.99, 95%CI 0•96-1.03, I² = 0%, respectively). Findings were consistent in observational studies. Follow-up data beyond 30 days were sparse.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for antibiotic treatment decisions in cellulitis is flawed by biased comparisons, short follow-up and lack of data around harms of antibiotic overuse. Future research should focus on developing patient-tailored antibiotic prescribing for cellulitis to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.

Antimicrobial Treatment Duration in Sepsis and Serious Infections

Sepsis mortality has improved following advancements in early recognition and standardized management, including emphasis on early administration of appropriate antimicrobials. However, guidance regarding antimicrobial duration in sepsis is surprisingly limited. Decreased antibiotic exposure is associated with lower rates of de novo resistance development, Clostridioides difficile-associated disease, antibiotic-related toxicities, and health care costs. Consequently, data weighing safety versus adequacy of shorter treatment durations in sepsis would be beneficial. We provide a narrative review of evidence to guide antibiotic duration in sepsis. Evidence is significantly limited by noninferiority trial designs and exclusion of critically ill patients in many trials. Potential challenges to shorter antimicrobial duration in sepsis include inadequate source control, treatment of multidrug-resistant organisms, and pharmacokinetic alterations that predispose to inadequate antimicrobial levels. Additional studies specifically targeting patients with clinical indicators of sepsis are needed to guide measures to safely reduce antimicrobial exposure in this high-risk population while preserving clinical effectiveness.

Current Treatment Options for Acute Skin and Skin-structure Infections

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) are a common reason for seeking care at acute healthcare facilities, including emergency departments. Staphylococcus aureus is the most common organism associated with these infections, and the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has represented a considerable challenge in their treatment. To address this need, a number of new antibiotics have been developed for the treatment of ABSSSIs in the past several years. Most of these agents focus primarily on gram-positive organisms, particularly MRSA; however, there has not been an oral agent that can reliably treat MRSA, as well as relevant gram-negative pathogens. Acute skin infections that involve mixed gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens must also be considered as they can be associated with discordant antimicrobial therapy. Here, I review ABSSSI treatment guidelines in the hospital setting and discuss current and future antibiotic options for treatment of this commonly encountered infection.

Safety and Tolerability of More than Six Days of Tedizolid Treatment

Tedizolid has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in clinical trials; however, data concerning its tolerability in long-term treatments are scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the indications and to describe the long-term safety profile of tedizolid. A multicentric retrospective study of patients who received tedizolid for more than 6 days was conducted. Adverse events (AEs) were identified from patients' medical records and laboratory data. The World Health Organization causality categories were used to discern AEs that were probably associated with tedizolid. Eighty-one patients, treated with tedizolid 200 mg once daily for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of 28 (14 to 59) days, were included; 36 (44.4%) had previously received linezolid. The most common reasons for selecting tedizolid were to avoid linezolid potential toxicities or interactions (53.1%) or due to previous linezolid-related toxicities (27.2%). The most common indications were off-label, including prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis, and respiratory infections (77.8%). Overall, 9/81 patients (11.1%) experienced a probably associated AE. Two patients (2.5%) developed gastrointestinal disorders, 1 (1.2%) developed anemia, and 6 developed thrombocytopenia (7.4%) after a median (IQR) duration of treatment of 26.5 (17 to 58.5) days. Four (5%) patients discontinued tedizolid due to AEs. Among 23 patients with chronic renal failure (CRF), the rate of myelotoxicity was 17.4%, and only 8.7% had to stop tedizolid; 20 out of 22 with previous linezolid-associated toxicity had no AE. Long-term tedizolid treatments had good tolerance with rates of gastrointestinal AE and hematological toxicity lower than those reported with linezolid, particularly in patients with CRF and in those with a history of linezolid-associated toxicity.

Tedizolid (torezolid) for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections

INTRODUCTION

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are among the most frequent infectious diseases. Recently, several new antibiotics with activity against MRSA have been approved. Tedizolid, a second-generation oxazolidinone approved for ABSSSI offers theoretical advantages over first-generation oxazolidinones.

AREAS COVERED

A comprehensive online search of Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference presentations was made, selecting articles between January 2000 and April 2020. In this review, the authors discuss the chemical and microbiological properties of tedizolid, summarize its efficacy, safety, and potential role in the treatment of ABSSSI as well as the potential for future indications.

EXPERT OPINION

Tedizolid has proven to be non-inferior compared to linezolid for the treatment of ABSSSI in two registrational phase III clinical trials, being well tolerated. Tedizolid exhibits antibacterial activity against the most important ABSSSI pathogens (including multidrug-resistant strains of MRSA), as well as mycobacteria and Nocardia. It appears to have a safe profile, including decreased myelotoxicity and no significant drug interactions. Preliminary studies with longer duration of therapy seem to confirm these potential benefits. Overall, tedizolid expands the newly acquired armamentarium to treat ABSSSI. The role of tedizolid for other indications is under investigation and has yet to be determined.

Vancomycin loading dose is associated with increased early clinical response without attainment of initial target trough concentration at a steady state in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Vancomycin therapeutic guidelines suggest a loading dose of 25-30 mg/kg for seriously ill patients. However, high-quality data to guide the use of loading doses are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether a loading dose (a) achieved a target trough concentration at steady state and (b) improved early clinical response.

METHODS

Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m² were included. A loading dose of 25 mg/kg vancomycin followed by 15 mg/kg twice daily was compared with traditional dosing. A C_min sample was obtained before the fifth dose. An early clinical response 48-72 hours after the start of therapy and clinical success at end of therapy (EOT) was evaluated in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococci or Enterococcus faecium.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in C_min between the regimen with and without a loading dose (median: 10.4 and 10.2 µg/mL, P = .54). Proportions of patients achieving 10-20 and 15-20 µg/mL were 56.9% and 5.6%, respectively, in patients with a loading dose. Although there was no significant difference in success rate at EOT between groups, a loading dose was associated with increased early clinical response for all infections (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 4.588, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.373-15.330) and MRSA infections (OR: 12.065, 95% CI: 1.821-79.959). Study limitations included no C_min measurements within 24 hours and the inclusion of less critically ill patients.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

A loading dose of 25 mg/kg followed by 15 mg/kg twice daily did not achieve the optimal Cmin at steady state in patients with normal renal function. However, more early clinical responses were obtained with a loading dose compared with traditional dosing, possibly because of a prompt albeit temporary achievement of a more effective concentration.

Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections: Skin and soft tissue infections

This is the ninth chapter of the guideline "Calculated Parenteral Initial Therapy of Adult Bacterial Disorders - Update 2018" in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience. The chapter contains the first German S2k guidelines for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections. They encompass recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of the defined entities erysipelas (caused by beta-hämolytic streptococci), limited superficial cellulitis (S. aureus), severe cellulitis, abscess, complicated skin and soft tissue infections, infections of feet in diabetic patients ("diabetic foot"), necrotizing soft tissue infection and bite injuries.

A pooled analysis of patients with wound infections in the Phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Introduction. Iclaprim is a diaminopyrimidine antibiotic for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to Gram-positive pathogens.Aim. This analysis evaluates patients with wound infections from two Phase 3 trials of ABSSSI.Methodology. Six-hundred-two patients with wound infections from two Phase 3, double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active controlled trials (REVIVE-1/-2) were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of iclaprim 80 mg compared with vancomycin 15 mg kg^-1 administered intravenously every 12 h for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint was to determine whether iclaprim was non-inferior (10 % margin) to vancomycin in achieving a ≥20 % reduction from baseline in lesion size 48-72 h after starting study drug (early clinical response [ECR]). Safety was assessed.Results. In REVIVE-1, ECR was 83.5 % with iclaprim versus 79.7 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 3.77%, 95 % CI -4.50%, 12.04%). In REVIVE-2, ECR was 82.7 % with iclaprim versus 76.3 % with vancomycin (treatment difference 6.38%, 95 % CI -3.35%, 16.12%). In the pooled dataset, iclaprim had similar ECR rates compared with vancomycin among wound infection patients (83.2 % vs 78.2 %) with a treatment difference of 5.01 % (95 % CI -1.29%, 11.32%). The safety profile was similar in iclaprim- and vancomycin-treated patients, except for a higher incidence of diarrhea with vancomycin (n=17) compared with iclaprim (n=6) and fatigue with iclaprim (n=17) compared with vancomycin (n=8).Conclusion. Based on early clinical response, iclaprim achieved non-inferiority to vancomycin with a similar safety profile in patients with wound infections suspected or confirmed as caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Iclaprim may be a valuable treatment option for wound infections.

Retrospective Real-World Evaluation of Outcomes in Patients with Skin and Soft Structure Infections Treated with Tedizolid in an Outpatient Setting

INTRODUCTION

Outcomes data for patients who received tedizolid for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) are scant. We provide a real-world analysis of economic and clinical outcomes following tedizolid use in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study of adults with skin infections treated with tedizolid (index period: 1 July 2014-31 May 2016) used data from the Optum Research and Impact National Benchmark databases.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients received tedizolid for the treatment of skin infections (with complications, n = 18; without complications, n = 73). Some patients had > 1 complication and infection site. Among patients with complications, pre-index complications during the [index date - 30] through [index date + 1] period included osteomyelitis (44.4%), septicemia (44.4%), and prosthetic joint/device/graft infection (16.7%). For the [index date - 7] through [index date + 1] period, the infection site included abscesses (55.6%) and chronic ulcers (38.9%). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) days supplied for the index tedizolid claim was 6.8 (2.3) days. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) during the 30-day post-index period included ≥ 1 ambulatory visit (100.0%), ≥ 1 emergency department (ED) visit (16.7%), and ≥ 1 hospitalization (22.2%). Median 30-day post-index all-cause costs were $11,098 [lower quartile (Q1), $5688; upper quartile (Q3), $16,246; mean (SD), $14,637 ($11,435)]. Among patients without complications, the pre-index infection site from ([index date - 7] through [index date + 1]) included abscesses (60.3%), chronic ulcers (37.0%), and cellulitis (2.7%). Mean (SD) days supplied for the index tedizolid claim was 6.6 (2.5) days. Thirty-day post-index HCRU included ≥ 1 ambulatory visit (91.8%), ≥ 1 ED visit (17.8%), and ≥ 1 hospitalization (5.5%). Median 30-day post-index all-cause costs were $3230 (Q1, $2345; Q3, $6847; mean [SD], $6898 [$11,129]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with tedizolid in the outpatient setting experienced a short duration of therapy, low hospital admission, and modest post-index HCRU indicators, suggesting its utility for outpatient therapy of ABSSSIs.

S2k guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections Excerpts from the S2k guidelines for "calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults - update 2018"

These first German S2k guidelines for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections were developed as one chapter of the recommendations for "calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections" issued under the auspices of the Paul-Ehrlich Society, of which the main part is presented here. Well-calculated antibiotic therapies require precise diagnostic criteria. Erysipelas is defined as non-purulent infection considered to be caused by beta-hemolytic strepto-cocci. It is diagnosed clinically by its bright-red erythema and early fever or chills at disease onset. Penicillin is the treatment of choice. Limited soft tissue infection (cellulitis) is usually caused by Staphylococcus (S.) aureus, frequently originates from chronic wounds and presents with a more violaceous-red hue and only rarely with initial fever or chills. Treatment consists of first- or second--generation cephalosporins or flucloxacillin (IV). Severe cellulitis is a purulent, partially necrotic infection which extends through tissue boundaries to fascias and requires surgical management in addition to antibiotics. Moreover, it frequently fulfills the criteria for "complicated soft tissue infections", as previously defined by the Food and Drug Administration for use in clinical trials (they include comorbidities such as uncontrolled diabetes, peripheral artery disease, neutropenia). It requires antibiotics which besides S. aureus target anaerobic and/or gramnegative bacteria. The rare so-called necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections represent a distinct entity. They are characterized by rapid, life-threatening progression due to special bacterial toxins that cause ischemic necrosis and shock and need rapid and thorough debridement in addition to appropriate antibiotics. For cutaneous abscesses the first-line treatment is adequate drainage. Additional antibiotic therapy is required only under certain circumstances (e.g., involvement of the face, hands, or anogenital region, or if drainage is somehow complicated). The present guidelines also contain consensus-based recommendations for higher doses of antibiotics than those approved or usually given in clinical trials. The goal is to deliver rational antibiotic treatment that is both effective and well-tolerated and that exerts no unnecessary selection pressure in terms of multidrug resistance.

Novel strategies for the management of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with liver cirrhosis: focus on new antimicrobials

Introduction: Liver cirrhosis is a frequent condition caused by different etiologies. Bacterial and fungal infections are common complications, representing an independent prognostic stage in patients with cirrhosis, dramatically worsening their clinical outcomes.Areas covered: The present review article addresses manifold points and to this purpose an inductive literature search of MEDLINE database through PubMed was performed. First, it provides an overview on the mechanisms underlying immune disfunctions in patients with cirrhosis, who are prone to develop infections being at higher risk than the general population. Second, commonest types of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with advanced liver disease are described, focusing on their deleterious impact as decompensating events. Third, the rise of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria and fungi as causative agents of infection in cirrhotic subjects is illustrated. Eventually, the most promising novel therapeutic options against MDR pathogens and fungi are reviewed.Expert opinion: The management of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with cirrhosis is difficult, due to the frequent co-existence of renal impairment, low platelet count and other conditions that limit the antimicrobial choice. New antibacterial and antifungal compounds may overcome this issue by providing a better tolerability profile, along with equal or superior efficacy compared with older drugs.

Considerations and Caveats in Combating ESKAPE Pathogens against Nosocomial Infections

ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) are among the most common opportunistic pathogens in nosocomial infections. ESKAPE pathogens distinguish themselves from normal ones by developing a high level of antibiotic resistance that involves multiple mechanisms. Contemporary therapeutic strategies which are potential options in combating ESKAPE bacteria need further investigation. Herein, a broad overview of the antimicrobial research on ESKAPE pathogens over the past five years is provided with prospective clinical applications.

Inpatient Management of Uncomplicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in 34 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers: A Medication Use Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are a key antimicrobial stewardship target because they are a common infection in hospitalized patients, and non-guideline-concordant antibiotic use is frequent. To inform antimicrobial stewardship interventions, we evaluated the proportion of veterans hospitalized with SSTIs who received guideline-concordant empiric antibiotics or an appropriate total duration of antibiotics.

METHODS

A retrospective medication use evaluation was performed in 34 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers between 2016 and 2017. Hospitalized patients who received antibiotics for uncomplicated SSTI were included. Exclusion criteria were complicated SSTI, severe immunosuppression, and antibiotics for any non-SSTI indication. Data were collected by manual chart review. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving both guideline-concordant empiric antibiotics and appropriate treatment duration, defined as 5-10 days of antibiotics. Data were analyzed and reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 3890 patients manually evaluated for inclusion, 1828 patients met inclusion criteria. There were 1299 nonpurulent (71%) and 529 purulent SSTIs (29%). Overall, 250 patients (14%) received guideline-concordant empiric therapy and an appropriate duration. The most common reason for non-guideline-concordance was receipt of antibiotics targeting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 906 patients (70%) with a nonpurulent SSTI. Additionally, 819 patients (45%) received broad-spectrum Gram-negative coverage, and 860 patients (48%) received an antibiotic duration >10 days.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 3 common opportunities to improve antibiotic use for patients hospitalized with uncomplicated SSTIs: use of anti-MRSA antibiotics in patients with nonpurulent SSTIs, use of broad-spectrum Gram-negative antibiotics, and prolonged durations of therapy.

Is coverage of S. aureus necessary in cellulitis/erysipelas? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Empirical treatment of patients with cellulitis/erysipelas usually targets both streptococci and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). However, the recommendation to empirically cover MSSA is weak and based on low-quality evidence.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed and clinical trial registries to assess the role of S. aureus in cellulitis/erysipelas and the need for empirical MSSA coverage.

RESULTS

Combined microbiological and serological data, and response to penicillin monotherapy suggest that streptococci are responsible for the vast majority of cases of cellulitis/erysipelas. However, most cases are non-culturable and the specificity of microbiological and serological studies is questionable based on recent studies using molecular techniques. According to epidemiological data and three randomized controlled trials, empirical coverage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is not recommended for most patients, despite the high prevalence of MRSA in many areas. If MRSA is indeed not an important cause of uncomplicated cellulitis/erysipelas, then the same may apply to MSSA. Based on indirect comparison of data from clinical studies, cure rates with penicillin monotherapy (to which most MSSA are resistant) are comparable to the cure rates reported in many studies using wider-spectrum antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limitations of microbiological studies in identifying the pathogens responsible for cellulitis/erysipelas, treatment needs to be guided by clinical trials. Trials comparing penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy to MSSA-covering regimens are needed to definitively answer whether empirical coverage of MSSA is needed and to identify the subset of patients that can be safely treated with penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy.

Antibiotic treatment for 6 days versus 12 days in patients with severe cellulitis: a multicentre randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether antibiotic treatment of 6 days' duration is non-inferior to treatment for 12 days in patients hospitalized for cellulitis.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial enrolled adult patients hospitalized for severe cellulitis who were treated with intravenous flucloxacillin. At day 6 participants with symptom improvement who were afebrile were randomized between an additional 6 days of oral flucloxacillin or placebo in a 1:1 ratio, stratified for diabetes and hospital. The primary outcome was cure by day 14, without relapse by day 28. Secondary outcomes included a modified cure assessment and relapse rate by day 90.

RESULTS

Between August 2014 and June 2017, 151 of 248 included participants were randomized. The intention-to-treat population consisted of 76 and 73 participants allocated to 12 and 6 days of antibiotic therapy, respectively (mean age 62 years, 67% males, 24% diabetics); 38/76 (50.0%) and 36/73 (49.3%) were cured in the 12- and 6-day groups respectively (ARR 0.7 percentage points, 95%CI: -15.0 to 16.3). Cure rates were 56/76 (73.7%) and 49/73 (67.1%) with the modified cure assessment (ARR 6.6, 95%CI: -8.0 to 20.8). After initial cure without relapse, day 90 relapse rates were higher in the 6-day group (6% versus 24%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the wide confidence intervals, we can neither confirm nor refute our hypothesis that 6 days of therapy is non-inferior to 12 days of therapy. However, a 6-day course resulted in significantly more frequent relapses by day 90. These findings require confirmation in future studies.

Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77-1.19, I² = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64-1.27, I² = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42-2.03, I² = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66-2.51, I² = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49-2.90, I² = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.

Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK

UK good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) were published in 2012 and 2015 for adult and paediatric patients, respectively. Here we update the initial good practice recommendations in a combined document based on a further review of the OPAT literature and an extensive consultation process. As with the previous good practice recommendations, these updated recommendations are intended to provide pragmatic guidance for new and established OPAT services across a range of settings and to act as a set of quality indicators for service evaluation and quality improvement.

Assessment of Antibiotic Treatment of Cellulitis and Erysipelas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The optimum antibiotic treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas lacks consensus. The available trial data do not demonstrate the superiority of any agent, and data are limited on the most appropriate route of administration or duration of therapy.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapy for non-surgically acquired cellulitis.

Data Sources

The following databases were searched to June 28, 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, issue 5), Medline (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Information System (LILACS) (from 1982). In addition, 5 trials databases and the reference lists of included studies were searched. Further searches of PubMed and Google Scholar were undertaken from June 28, 2016, to December 31, 2018.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing different antibiotics, routes of administration, and treatment durations were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

For data collection and analysis, the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. For dichotomous outcomes, the risk ratio and its 95% CI were calculated. A summary of findings table was created for the primary end points, adopting the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients cured, improved, recovered, or symptom-free or symptom-reduced at the end of treatment, as reported by the trial. The secondary outcome was any adverse event.

Results

A total of 43 studies with a total of 5999 evaluable participants, whose age ranged from 1 month to 96 years, were included. Cellulitis was the primary diagnosis in only 15 studies (35%), and in other studies the median (interquartile range) proportion of patients with cellulitis was 29.7% (22.9%-50.3%). Overall, no evidence was found to support the superiority of any 1 antibiotic over another, and antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus did not add an advantage. Use of intravenous antibiotics over oral antibiotics and treatment duration of longer than 5 days were not supported by evidence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, only low-quality evidence was found for the most appropriate agent, route of administration, and duration of treatment for patients with cellulitis; future trials need to use a standardized set of outcomes, including severity scoring, dosing, and duration of therapy.

Microbiology of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections in Greece: A proposed clinical prediction score for the causative pathogen

Although clinical definitions of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSI) are now well established, guidance of the prediction of likely pathogens based on evidence is missing. This was a large survey of the microbiology of ABSSSIs in Greece. During the period November 2014 to December 2016, all admissions for ABSSSI in 16 departments of internal medicine or surgery in Greece were screened to determine the likely bacterial aetiology. Samples were cultured on conventional media. Expression of the SA442, mecA/mecC and SCCmec-orfX junction genes was assessed. Following univariate and forward logistic regression analysis, clinical characteristics were used to develop scores to predict the likely pathogen with a target of 90% specificity. In total, 1027 patients were screened and 633 had positive microbiology. Monomicrobial infection by Gram-positive cocci occurred in 52.1% and by Gram-negative bacteria in 20.5%, and mixed infection by Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative bacteria in 27.3%. The most common isolated pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Resistance to methicillin was 57.3% (53.5-61.1%). Three predictive scores were developed: one for infection by methicillin-resistant S. aureus, incorporating recent hospitalisation, atrial fibrillation, residency in long-term care facility (LTCF) and stroke; one for mixed Gram-positive and Gram-negative infections, incorporating localisation of ABSSSI in lumbar area, fluoroquinolone intake in last 6 days, residency in LTCF and stroke; and another for Gram-negative infection, incorporating skin ulcer presentation, peptic ulcer and solid tumour malignancy. In conclusion, methicillin-resistant staphylococci are the main pathogens of ABSSSIs. The scores developed may help to predict the likely pathogen.

Novel Antibiotics for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Positive Microorganisms

Increasing multidrug-resistance to Gram-positive pathogens, particularly to staphylococci, enterococci and streptococci, is a major problem, resulting in significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. In recent years, only a small number of novel antibiotics effective against Gram-positive bacteria has been approved. This review will discuss the current evidence for novel branded antibiotics that are highly effective in the treatment of multidrug-resistant infections by Gram-positive pathogens, namely ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, telavancin, oritavancin, dalbavancin, tedizolid, besifloxacin, delafloxacin, ozenoxacin, and omadacycline. The mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, microbiological spectrum, efficacy and safety profile will be concisely presented. As for any emerging antibiotic agent, resistance is likely to develop against these highly effective antibiotics. Only through appropriate dosing, utilization and careful resistance development monitoring will these novel antibiotics continue to treat Gram-positive pathogens in the future.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Oxazolidinones

Oxazolidinones are a class of synthetic antimicrobial agents with potent activity against a wide range of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Oxazolidinones exhibit their antibacterial effects by inhibiting protein synthesis acting on the ribosomal 50S subunit of the bacteria and thus preventing formation of a functional 70S initiation complex. Currently, two oxazolidinones have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: linezolid and more recently tedizolid. Other oxazolidinones are currently under investigation in clinical trials. These antimicrobial agents exhibit a favourable pharmacokinetic profile with an excellent bioavailability and a good tissue and organ penetration. In-vitro susceptibility studies have shown that oxazolidinones are bacteriostatic against enterococci and staphylococci, and bactericidal for the majority of strains of streptococci. In the context of emergence of resistance to glycopeptides, oxazolidinones have become an effective alternative to vancomycin treatment frequently associated with nephrotoxicity. However, oxazolidinones, and linezolid in particular, are associated with significant adverse events, myelosuppression representing the main unfavourable side effect. More recently, tedizolid has been shown to effectively treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. This newer oxazolidinone offers the advantages of once-daily dosing and a better safety profile in healthy volunteer studies (fewer gastrointestinal and haematological side effects). The potential use of tedizolid for other infections that could require longer therapy warrants further studies for positioning this new oxazolidinone in the available antimicrobial armamentarium. Moreover, other oxazolidinones are currently under active investigation.

Significant Publications on Infectious Diseases Pharmacotherapy in 2018

PURPOSE

To summarize the top 10 most influential peer-reviewed infectious diseases (ID) pharmacotherapy articles published in the year 2018.

SUMMARY

Members of the Houston Infectious Diseases Network (HIDN) nominated articles that were thought to have most notably contributed to ID pharmacotherapy in 2018, including those related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). A total of 26 articles were nominated: 22 articles pertaining to general ID pharmacotherapy and 4 articles involving HIV/AIDS. To select the most significant articles of 2018, a survey was created and distributed to members of the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) asking members to vote on their top 10 general ID publications and 1 HIV publication. Of the 462 members surveyed, 213 (46%) and 108 (23%) voted for general ID pharmacotherapy- and HIV-related articles, respectively. The top article(s) for both categories are summarized.

CONCLUSION

With the increased emphasis on antimicrobial stewardship initiatives and the growing problem of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms, the amount of ID literature centered on stewardship, appropriate treatment durations, and newly approved antimicrobial agents continues to expand, making it challenging for clinicians to stay informed on the most relevant publications. This review summarizes significant ID-related publications in 2018 with the goal of aiding clinicians in staying up to date on the most noteworthy publications in ID pharmacotherapy.

The optimal duration of treatment for skin and soft tissue infections and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current finding on SSTIs/ABSSSIs treatment duration.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2013, the FDA approved the definition of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). From a clinical point of view, the new definition may present some advantages: the definition of the severity of the disease, the measurement of reduction in lesion size, and effectiveness of treatment primary endpoint at 48-72 h after treatment initiation. New therapeutic options with improved efficacy, safety, and/or pharmacodynamics are available for ABSSSIs and so far, several questions still need to be addressed for the management of these infections, including treatment duration.

SUMMARY

There is a wide variation of duration of antimicrobial treatment in skin and soft tissue infections. Plenty of published data available suggest that we should focus on the early response to shorten duration of treatment, and that the antimicrobial stewardship perspective is extremely helpful in underscoring the need for composite outcomes in clinical practice, as multiple tools are available to increase cost-efficacy, including reduction of treatment changes, early oral switch, early discharge (even from the Emergency Department), outpatient antimicrobial treatment, long-acting antibiotics, and all together, de-escalation treatment strategies.

When to switch to an oral treatment and/or to discharge a patient with skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Skin and soft tissue infections prevalence is increasing and represent a frequent cause of hospital admission. New guidelines have become available in order to better define these infections and their response to antimicrobial treatment. Gram-positive bacteria, in particular Staphylococcus aureus, remain the most frequently isolated pathogens in skin and soft tissue infections. To treat complicated forms and infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria, hospital admission and administration of intravenous antibiotics are often required, impacting on healthcare costs and patients' morbidity.

RECENT FINDINGS

New therapeutic options offer efficacy against drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria as well as potential to favor early patients' discharge, including the possibility for intravenous to oral switch and infrequent drug administration because of prolonged drug half-life. Although data from real-world studies on new antimicrobials is awaited, clinicians need clear direction on how to optimize the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections in order to avoid prolonged hospitalizations and extra costs. Early assessment of patient's clinical conditions and response to treatment appear useful in order to facilitate patients' discharge.

SUMMARY

We have reported the evidence for early intravenous to oral switch and early hospital discharge for patients with skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options that represent promising tools in promoting an optimized management of these infections have also been reviewed.