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

New drugs for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in the era of increasing antimicrobial resistance

The continuing increase in multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) worldwide has created new challenges in treating complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). A number of novel antimicrobial agents have been developed against resistant pathogens. To target extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing pathogens, novel β-lactam antibiotics, such as ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, aztreonam/avibactam, imipenem/relebactam and S-649266, are antimicrobial alternatives for cIAIs. Two new drugs, eravacycline and plazomicin, have activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and ESBL-producers. New lipoglycopeptides and oxazolidinones provide feasible options against resistant Gram-positive pathogens. These novel antimicrobials may play a role in improving the clinical outcomes of cIAIs caused by MDROs.

Safety profiles of old and new antimicrobials for the treatment of MRSA infections

INTRODUCTION

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a frequent cause of severe nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Various adverse effects have been associated with compounds that are commonly used in the treatment of MRSA.

AREAS COVERED

Prolonged use of high-dose vancomycin has been linked with nephrotoxicity. Linezolid use has been associated with lactic acidosis in regimens longer than 14 days and occurrence of thrombocytopenia in patients with renal impairment. Daptomycin use correlates with reversible and often asymptomatic myopathy. Among new compounds, telavancin has shown increased toxicity compared to vancomycin, especially in patients with severe renal impairment, while a low rate of adverse effects was reported others glycolipopeptides such as dalbavancin and oritavancin and for new cephalosporins. Recently studied oxazolidinones (tedizolid and radezolid) also showed mild adverse effects in Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the constant increase in antimicrobial resistance, the use of higher doses and prolonged regimens of antibiotics employed in the treatment of Gram-positive infections has become more common and linked to increased toxicity. Furthermore, new compounds with MRSA activity have been recently approved and will be regularly employed in clinical practice. The knowledge of the adverse effects and risk factors for the development of toxicity associated with anti-MRSA antimicrobials is paramount for the correct use of old and new compounds, especially in the treatment of severe infections.

Tedizolid: a novel oxazolidinone with potent activity against multidrug-resistant gram-positive pathogens

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone prodrug (converted to the active form tedizolid by phosphatases in vivo) that has been developed and recently approved (June 2014) by the United States FDA for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) caused by susceptible Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone, but differs from other oxazolidinones by possessing a modified side chain at the C-5 position of the oxazolidinone nucleus which confers activity against certain linezolid-resistant pathogens and has an optimized C- and D-ring system that improves potency through additional binding site interactions. The mechanism of action of tedizolid is similar to other oxazolidinones and occurs through inhibition of bacterial protein synthesis by binding to 23S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) of the 50S subunit of the ribosome. As with other oxazolidinones, the spontaneous frequency of resistance development to tedizolid is low. Tedizolid is four- to eightfold more potent in vivo than linezolid against all species of staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, including drug-resistant phenotypes such as MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and linezolid-resistant phenotypes. Importantly, tedizolid demonstrates activity against linezolid-resistant bacterial strains harboring the horizontally transmissible cfr gene, in the absence of certain ribosomal mutations conferring reduced oxazolidinone susceptibility. With its half-life of approximately 12 h, tedizolid is dosed once daily. It demonstrates linear pharmacokinetics, has a high oral bioavailability of approximately 90 %, and is primarily excreted by the liver as an inactive, non-circulating sulphate conjugate. Tedizolid does not require dosage adjustment in patients with any degree of renal dysfunction or hepatic dysfunction. Studies in animals have demonstrated that the pharmacodynamic parameter most closely associated with the efficacy of tedizolid is fAUC(0-24h)/MIC. In non-neutropenic animals, a dose-response enhancement was observed with tedizolid and lower exposures were required compared to neutropenic cohorts. Two Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of a once-daily tedizolid 200 mg dose for 6-10 days versus twice-daily 600 mg linezolid for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Both trials used the primary endpoint of early clinical response at 48-72 h; however, one trial compared oral formulations while the other initiated therapy with the parenteral formulation and allowed oral sequential therapy following initial clinical response. Throughout its development, tedizolid has demonstrated that it is well tolerated and animal studies have shown a lower propensity for neuropathies with long-term use than its predecessor linezolid. Data from the two completed Phase III clinical trials demonstrated that the studied tedizolid regimen (200 mg once daily for 6 days) had significantly less impact on hematologic parameters as well as significantly less gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) than its comparator linezolid. As with linezolid, tedizolid is a weak, reversible MAO inhibitor; however, a murine head twitch model validated to assess serotonergic activity reported no increase in the number of head twitches with tedizolid even at doses that exceeded the C max in humans by up to 25-fold. Tyramine and pseudoephedrine challenge studies in humans have also reported no meaningful MAO-related interactions with tedizolid. With its enhanced in vitro activity against a broad-spectrum of Gram-positive aerobic bacteria, convenient once-daily dosing, a short 6-day course of therapy, availability of both oral and intravenous routes of administration, and an adverse effect profile that appears to be more favorable than linezolid, tedizolid is an attractive agent for use in both the hospital and community settings. Tedizolid is currently undergoing additional Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilated nosocomial pneumonia (VNP).

Stability of Crushed Tedizolid Phosphate Tablets for Nasogastric Tube Administration

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. To determine whether the expected dose of tedizolid phosphate can be delivered via nasogastric tube in patients who have difficulty swallowing and in whom venous access is not suitable, this in vitro study evaluated the recovery of tedizolid phosphate 200-mg tablets after crushing, dispersion in water, and passage through a nasogastric tube. To analyze the chemical stability of the crushed tablet dispersed in water, the aqueous preparation was assayed initially after dispersion and again after 4 h at room temperature. Recovery of tedizolid phosphate after the crushed tablets were dispersed in water and passed through nasogastric tubes ranged from 92.5 to 97.1 %, which is within the specified acceptance criteria of 90 to 110 %. There was no significant change in recovery values after 4 h of storage at room temperature (93.9 % initially and 94.7 % after 4 h). The stability and recovery findings support the feasibility of administering an aqueous dispersion of crushed tedizolid phosphate tablets through a nasogastric tube in patients who have difficulty swallowing and in whom intravenous administration is not possible.

Dalbavancin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

INTRODUCTION

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) have increased in incidence and severity. The involvement of resistant organisms, particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, presents additional challenges. The lipoglycopeptide dalbavancin has a prolonged half-life, high protein binding, and excellent tissue levels which led to its development as a once-weekly treatment for ABSSSI. In the pivotal DISCOVER 1 and DISCOVER 2 trials, dalbavancin proved non-inferior to vancomycin followed by linezolid when used sequentially for ABSSSI, forming the basis for its recent approval in the US and Europe for ABSSSI.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search of published pharmacologic and clinical data was conducted to review the chemistry, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of dalbavancin. We also discuss its development process, highlighting efficacy and safety data from pertinent clinical trials and the role it could play in the current clinical landscape.

EXPERT OPINION

DISCOVER 1 and DISCOVER 2 demonstrated dalbavancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin followed by linezolid for ABSSSI and confirmed its safety and tolerability. They were among the first trials to use new, early primary efficacy endpoints, and dalbavancin was among the first agents designated a Qualified Infectious Disease Product for expedited review. Dalbavancin may prove to be a valuable option for ABSSSI patients in whom conventional therapy is limited.

In Vitro Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid against Gram-Positive Cocci Associated with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections and Pneumonia

Tedizolid is a novel, expanded-spectrum oxazolidinone with potent activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens. A total of 425 isolates of Gram-positive bacteria were obtained consecutively from patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) or pneumonia. These isolates included methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (n = 100), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (n = 100), Streptococcus pyogenes (n = 50), Streptococcus agalactiae (n = 50), Streptococcus anginosus group (n = 75), Enterococcus faecalis (n = 50), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) (Enterococcus faecium) (n = 50). The MICs of tedizolid and linezolid were determined by the agar dilution method. Tedizolid exhibited better in vitro activities than linezolid against MSSA (MIC90s, 0.5 versus 2 μg/ml), MRSA (MIC90s, 0.5 versus 2 μg/ml), S. pyogenes (MIC90s, 0.5 versus 2 μg/ml), S. agalactiae (MIC90s, 0.5 versus 2 μg/ml), Streptococcus anginosus group (MIC90s, 0.5 versus 2 μg/ml), E. faecalis (MIC90s, 0.5 versus 2 μg/ml), and VRE (MIC90s, 0.5 versus 2 μg/ml). The tedizolid MICs against E. faecalis (n = 3) and VRE (n = 2) intermediate to linezolid (MICs, 4 μg/ml) were 1 μg/ml and 0.5 μg/ml, respectively. The tedizolid MIC90s against S. anginosus, S. constellatus, and S. intermedius were 0.5, 1, and 0.5 μg/ml, respectively, and the rates of susceptibility based on the U.S. FDA MIC interpretive breakpoints to the isolates were 16%, 28%, and 72%, respectively. Tedizolid exhibited 2- to 4-fold better in vitro activities than linezolid against a variety of Gram-positive cocci associated with ABSSSIs and pneumonia. The lower susceptibilities of tedizolid against isolates of S. anginosus and S. constellatus than against those of S. intermedius in Taiwan were noted.

Tedizolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid is a newly approved drug of the oxazolidinone class. It has high in vitro activity against Gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains. Peak plasma concentration of tedizolid is obtained within 3 h of oral dosing (PO), with high bioavailability. Tedizolid is mostly metabolized via the liver, and is excreted in feces in the form of a sulfate conjugate. Tedizolid 200 mg taken once daily demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a good safety profile in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Results of two pivotal Phase III clinical trials showed that 6 days of 200 mg tedizolid PO or sequential intravenous (IV)/PO once-daily treatment was non-inferior to 10 days of 600 mg linezolid PO or sequential IV/PO twice-daily treatment at 48-72 h (primary end point) and at the test-of-cure in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. The Phase II and Phase III trials also demonstrated that tedizolid was well tolerated.

Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management

Staphylococcus aureus is a major human pathogen that causes a wide range of clinical infections. It is a leading cause of bacteremia and infective endocarditis as well as osteoarticular, skin and soft tissue, pleuropulmonary, and device-related infections. This review comprehensively covers the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management of each of these clinical entities. The past 2 decades have witnessed two clear shifts in the epidemiology of S. aureus infections: first, a growing number of health care-associated infections, particularly seen in infective endocarditis and prosthetic device infections, and second, an epidemic of community-associated skin and soft tissue infections driven by strains with certain virulence factors and resistance to β-lactam antibiotics. In reviewing the literature to support management strategies for these clinical manifestations, we also highlight the paucity of high-quality evidence for many key clinical questions.

The times they are a-changin': new antibacterials for skin and skin structure infections

Twenty-one agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the therapy of skin and soft tissue infections. Of these, the five newest agents, tedizolid, telavancin, oritavancin, dalbavancin, and ceftaroline, are active against and "non-inferior" to vancomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Oritavancin is indicated as a single-dose intravenous regimen, while dalbavancin is a two-dose intravenous regimen given 1 week apart. Telavancin has multiple mechanisms of action. A 6-day regimen of once-daily intravenous or oral dose of tedizolid was compared with 10 days of linezolid and found to be "non-inferior" and have fewer side effects. Ceftaroline has not only MRSA activity but also activity against Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. We review the spectra of activity of these new agents, their clinical trials and their therapeutic efficacy, noting differences in their dosing schedules, in vitro activities and costs as potential determinants for appropriate utilization.

New developments in the management of severe skin and deep skin structure infections - focus on tedizolid

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone, is approved for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Tedizolid offers several potential advantages over current ABSSSI treatment options. First, tedizolid has a prolonged half-life, which allows for once-daily dosing. Second, tedizolid has broad spectrum activity against Gram-positive organisms including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, and enterococci. Third, tedizolid, available in both intravenous and oral formulations, has high oral bioavailability, allowing for easy oral step-down therapy. Fourth, in patients who have been prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or monoamine oxidase inhibitors, tedizolid may have fewer drug interactions than linezolid. Finally, tedizolid may have fewer or comparatively delayed onset side effects than linezolid, including thrombocytopenia and nausea. This review covers the microbiology, pharmacology, mode of action, and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid as well as patient-focused perspectives such as quality of life, patient satisfaction/acceptability, adherence, and uptake and provides expert opinion on the current use of tedizolid for ABSSSIs and potential future therapeutic applications.

Profile of tedizolid phosphate and its potential in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid phosphate is the first once-daily oxazolidinone approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). It is more potent in vitro than linezolid against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other gram-positive pathogens causing ABSSSI, even retaining activity against some linezolid-resistant strains. Tedizolid is approximately 90% protein bound, leading to lower free-drug concentrations than linezolid. The impact of the effect of food, renal or hepatic insufficiency, or hemodialysis on tedizolid's pharmacokinetic have been evaluated, and no dosage adjustment is needed in these populations. In animal and clinical studies, tedizolid's effect on bacterial killing is optimized by the free-drug area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio (fAUC/MIC). The 200 mg once-daily dose is able to achieve the target fAUC/MIC ratio in 98% of simulated patients. Two Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of tedizolid 200 mg once daily for 6 days to linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days. In vitro, animal, and clinical studies have failed to demonstrate that tedizolid inhibits monoamine oxidase to a clinically relevant extent. Tedizolid has several key advantages over linezolid including once daily dosing, decreased treatment duration, minimal interaction with serotonergic agents, possibly associated with less adverse events associated with the impairment of mitochondrial protein synthesis (eg, myelosuppression, lactic acidosis, and peripheral/optic neuropathies), and retains in vitro activity against linezolid-resistant gram-positive bacteria. Economic analyses with tedizolid are needed to describe the cost-effectiveness of this agent compared with other options used for ABSSSI, particularly treatment options active against MRSA.

Treatment outcome measures for randomized controlled trials of antibiotic treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in the emergency department setting

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), which include cellulitis, abscesses, and wound infections, are among the most commonly encountered conditions in emergency departments (EDs) internationally. Primarily, as a result of the recent epidemic of community-associated methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) in North America, ED attendances and hospital admissions secondary to ABSSSIs have increased significantly. First-line antibiotic drug therapies for ABSSSIs have therefore changed to take account of CA-MRSA and the threat of evolving antibiotic resistance. Prior to 2010, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotic therapy for ABSSSI used broad trial inclusion criteria and utilized investigator-determined clinical resolution, 7 to 14 days after the end of therapy, as the primary outcome measure. In order to produce more objective, reproducible, and quantifiable primary outcome measures, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and a multidisciplinary consortium convened by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) issued significantly changed trial guidance criteria. The currently recommended primary outcome measure is an assessment of greater than 20% reduction in the area of erythema, edema, or induration from baseline, measured at 48 to 72 h after randomization and initiation of drug treatment. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still recommends measurement of clinical resolution at a later time period. We discuss the evolution of changes to trial guidance criteria issued by the FDA since 1998 and the potential difficulties of implementing the recommended primary outcome measured at an earlier time point in RCTs of outpatient antibiotic treatment performed in the ED setting.

Tedizolid Phosphate: a Next-Generation Oxazolidinone

Treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive infections continues to challenge clinicians as the emergence of new resistance mechanisms outpaces introduction of novel antimicrobial agents. Tedizolid phosphate is a next-generation oxazolidinone with activity against both methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. Tedizolid has consistently shown potency advantages over linezolid against Gram-positive microorganisms including those with reduced susceptibility to linezolid. Of particular significance, minimum inhibitory concentrations of tedizolid appear to be largely unaffected by the chloramphenicol-florfenicol resistance (cfr) gene, which has been implicated in a number of published linezolid-resistant organism outbreaks. Tedizolid phosphate also has been found to have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile allowing for once-daily dosing in both oral and intravenous forms. Potency and pharmacokinetic advantages have allowed for lower total daily doses of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, being needed for clinical efficacy in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). The decreased total drug exposure produced may in part be responsible for a decrease in the observed adverse effects including thrombocytopenia. Tedizolid phosphate is currently indicated for the treatment of ABSSSI and under investigation for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Although much of the role of tedizolid remains to be defined by expanding clinical experience, tedizolid is likely a welcomed addition to the mere handful of agents available for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive infections.

Novel antibiotics: are we still in the pre-post-antibiotic era?

Purpose

Therapeutic efficacy and safety in infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria can be improved by the clinical development of new compounds and devising new derivatives of already useful antibiotics. Due to a striking global increase in multidrug-resistant Gram-positive but even more Gram-negative organisms, new antibiotics are urgently needed.

Methods

This paper provides a review of novel antibiotic compounds which are already in clinical development, mainly in phase III clinical trials.

Conclusion

Each of these new trials increases the possibility of new antibiotics receiving approval.

Development of novel antibacterial drugs to combat multiple resistant organisms

BACKGROUND

Infections due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria are increasing both in hospitals and in the community and are characterized by high mortality rates. New molecules are in development to face the need of active compounds toward resistant gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. In particular, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has supported the initiative to develop ten new antibacterials within 2020. Principal targets are the so-called ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacteriaceae).

PURPOSE

To review the characteristics and the status of development of new antimicrobials including new cephalosporins, carbapenems, beta-lactamase inhibitors, aminoglycosides, quinolones, oxazolidones, glycopeptides, and tetracyclines.

CONCLUSIONS

While numerous new compounds target resistant gram-positive pathogens and have been approved for clinical use, very few new molecules are active against MDR gram-negative pathogens, especially carbapenemase producers. New glycopeptides and oxazolidinones are highly efficient against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and new cephalosporins and carbapenems also display activity toward MDR gram-positive bacteria. Although new cephalosporins and carbapenems have acquired activity against MRSA, they offer few advantages against difficult-to-treat gram-negatives. Among agents that are potentially active against MDR gram-negatives are ceftozolane/tazobactam, new carbapenems, the combination of avibactam with ceftazidime, and plazomicin. Since a relevant number of promising antibiotics is currently in development, regulatory approvals over the next 5 years are crucial to face the growing threat of multidrug resistance.

Nonclinical and pharmacokinetic assessments to evaluate the potential of tedizolid and linezolid to affect mitochondrial function

Prolonged treatment with the oxazolidinone linezolid is associated with myelosuppression, lactic acidosis, and neuropathies, toxicities likely caused by impairment of mitochondrial protein synthesis (MPS). To evaluate the potential of the novel oxazolidinone tedizolid to cause similar side effects, nonclinical and pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted. In isolated rat heart mitochondria, tedizolid inhibited MPS more potently than did linezolid (average [± standard error of the mean] 50% inhibitory concentration [IC50] for MPS of 0.31 ± 0.02 μM versus 6.4 ± 1.2 μM). However, a rigorous 9-month rat study comparing placebo and high-dose tedizolid (resulting in steady-state area under the plasma concentration-time curve values about 8-fold greater than those with the standard therapeutic dose in humans) showed no evidence of neuropathy. Additional studies explored why prolonged, high-dose tedizolid did not cause these mitochondriopathic side effects despite potent MPS inhibition by tedizolid. Murine macrophage (J774) cell fractionation studies found no evidence of a stable association of tedizolid with eukaryotic mitochondria. Monte Carlo simulations based on population pharmacokinetic models showed that over the course of a dosing interval using standard therapeutic doses, free plasma concentrations fell below the respective MPS IC50 in 84% of tedizolid-treated patients (for a median duration of 7.94 h) and 38% of linezolid-treated patients (for a median duration of 0 h). Therapeutic doses of tedizolid, but not linezolid, may therefore allow for mitochondrial recovery during antibacterial therapy. The overall results suggest that tedizolid has less potential to cause myelosuppression and neuropathy than that of linezolid during prolonged treatment courses. This, however, remains a hypothesis that must be confirmed in clinical studies.

Platelet profile in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections receiving tedizolid or linezolid: findings from the Phase 3 ESTABLISH clinical trials

Tedizolid, the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate, is a recently approved oxazolidinone antibacterial with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, including resistant strains such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. To date, 6 days of 200 mg tedizolid once daily has been shown to be noninferior to 10 days of 600 mg linezolid twice daily in two randomized, double-blind phase 3 trials (ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2) for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The intent of this study was to characterize the platelet profiles of patients receiving tedizolid relative to linezolid over the course of treatment using pooled data from these two trials. The occurrences of clinically defined and statistical analysis plan-specified reduced platelet counts were assessed at the study days 7 to 9 visit, the study days 11 to 13 visit, and the posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visit. At the study days 7 to 9 visit, incidences of reduced platelet counts were low and largely similar between the groups. The only notable difference was a lower incidence of thrombocytopenia (platelet counts, <150,000 cells/mm(3)) among patients who received tedizolid (3.2%) relative to those who received linezolid (5.6%). At the study days 11 to 13 visit, patients who received tedizolid had lower incidences of platelet counts of <150,000 cells/mm(3) (-5.9%), <112,500 cells/mm(3) (-2.4%), and <100,000 cells/mm(3) (-1.9%) than patients in the linezolid group. Similar differences were noted at the PTE visit. Findings across the two phase 3 ABSSSI trials suggest that 6 days of 200 mg tedizolid daily confers a low potential for reduced platelet counts among patients with ABSSSIs. (The ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2 trials have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration numbers NCT01170221 and NCT01421511, respectively.).

Analysis of the phase 3 ESTABLISH trials of tedizolid versus linezolid in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, was evaluated in two noninferiority phase 3 acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection trials. The data from individual trials showed its noninferior efficacy compared to that of linezolid and a favorable tolerability profile. To evaluate potential differences, the pooled data were analyzed. The patients received 200 mg of tedizolid once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid twice daily for 10 days. Efficacy was evaluated at 48 to 72 h (primary endpoint), on days 11 to 13 (end of therapy [EOT]), and 7 to 14 days after the EOT (posttherapy evaluation). Treatment-emergent adverse events and hematologic and clinical laboratory parameters were collected. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups: 852/1,333 (64%) patients were from North America, and the majority of infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid (early clinical responses, 81.6% versus 79.4%, respectively). The early responses remained relatively consistent across various host/disease factors and severity measures. Nausea was the most frequently reported adverse event (tedizolid, 8.2%; linezolid, 12.2%; P=0.02), with onset occurring primarily during the first 6 days. Fewer tedizolid than linezolid patients had platelet counts of <150,000 cells/mm3 at the EOT (tedizolid, 4.9%; linezolid, 10.8%; P=0.0003) and during the postbaseline period through the last day of active drug visit (tedizolid, 6.4%; linezolid, 12.6%; P=0.0016). Efficacy was achieved with a 6-day once-daily course of therapy with the option of an intravenous/oral regimen, and fewer low platelet counts and gastrointestinal side effects were reported with tedizolid than with linezolid, all of which aligns well with antimicrobial stewardship principles. (These studies have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.).

[New antibiotics prior to approval: is this the end of the innovative stagnation?]

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic efficacy and safety in infections due to multiresistant bacteria can be improved by the clinical development of new compounds and devising new derivatives of already useful antibiotics. Due to a striking global increase of multiresistant gram-negative and gram-positive organisms, new antibiotics are urgently needed. This paper provides a review of new pharmaceuticals which are already in clinical development, mainly in phase III trials.

CONCLUSION

Each of these new trials increases the possibility of new antibiotics receiving approval.

Tedizolid phosphate

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The November 2014 monograph topics are suvorexant, idelalisib, belinostat for injection, C1 esterase inhibitor, and ledipasvir. The DUE/MUE is on suvorexant.

Use of linezolid susceptibility test results as a surrogate for the susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens to tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone

Background

Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial with potent activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Although tedizolid is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection, commercial susceptibility testing products for tedizolid are not currently available. This study evaluated the usefulness of applying linezolid susceptibility test results as a surrogate for predicting susceptibility to tedizolid in clinically significant Gram-positive pathogens.

Methods

Gram-positive isolates (N = 10,702) were obtained from annual surveillance programs conducted between 2009 and 2012, from 3 tedizolid clinical trials, and from a preclinical study of the antibacterial activity of tedizolid. Susceptibility testing of linezolid and tedizolid was performed using the reference broth microdilution method in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute methods.

Results

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distribution for tedizolid and linezolid against this set of isolates was consistent with that of previous reports. Scatter plot analysis of relevant subsets of organisms was performed and showed high categorical agreement between linezolid and tedizolid MIC results (>99% for staphylococci and streptococci; >98% for enterococci). Very major error rates (ie, tedizolid false-susceptible errors) were very low and within acceptable limits for a surrogate agent: S. aureus and other staphylococcal species, 0%; Enterococcus spp, 0.2%; and Streptococcus spp, 0%.

Conclusions

High categorical agreement between MIC values for tedizolid and linezolid and low very major error rates were shown for all organism groups tested, supporting the use of linezolid as a reliable surrogate for tedizolid susceptibility testing.

Pharmacokinetics of tedizolid in subjects with renal or hepatic impairment

Two open-label, single-dose, parallel-group studies were conducted to characterize the pharmacokinetics of the novel antibacterial tedizolid and the safety of tedizolid phosphate, its prodrug, in renally or hepatically impaired subjects. Tedizolid pharmacokinetics in subjects with severe renal impairment without dialysis support was compared with that of matched control subjects with normal renal function. Effects of hemodialysis on tedizolid pharmacokinetics were determined in a separate cohort of subjects undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Effects of hepatic impairment on tedizolid pharmacokinetics were determined in subjects with moderate or severe hepatic impairment and compared with those of matched control subjects with normal hepatic function. Each participant received a single oral (hepatic impairment) or intravenous (renal impairment) dose of tedizolid phosphate at 200 mg; hemodialysis subjects received two doses (separated by 7 days), before and after dialysis, in a crossover fashion. The pharmacokinetics of tedizolid was similar in subjects with severe renal impairment and controls (∼8% lower area under the concentration-time curve [AUC], with a nearly identical peak concentration) and in subjects undergoing hemodialysis before and after tedizolid phosphate administration (∼9% lower AUC, with a 15% higher peak concentration); <10% of the dose was removed during 4 h of hemodialysis. Tedizolid pharmacokinetics was only minimally altered in subjects with moderate or severe hepatic impairment; the AUC was increased approximately 22% and 34%, respectively, compared with that of subjects in the control group. Tedizolid phosphate was generally well tolerated in all participants. These results suggest that tedizolid phosphate dose adjustments are not necessary in patients with any degree of renal or hepatic impairment. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration numbers NCT01452828 [renal study] and NCT01431833 [hepatic study].).

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of GSK1322322 in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

GSK1322322 represents a new class of antibiotics that targets an essential bacterial enzyme required for protein maturation, peptide deformylase. This multicenter, randomized, phase IIa study compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of GSK1322322 at 1,500 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with that of linezolid at 600 mg b.i.d. in patients suspected of having Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The primary endpoint was assessment of the safety of GSK1322322, and a key secondary endpoint was the number of subjects with a ≥20% decrease in lesion area from the baseline at 48 and 72 h after treatment initiation. GSK1322322 administration was associated with mild-to-moderate drug-related adverse events, most commonly, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and headache. Adverse events (86% versus 74%) and withdrawals (28% versus 11%) were more frequent in the GSK1322322-treated group. Treatment with GSK1322322 and linezolid was associated with ≥20% decreases from the baseline in the lesion area in 73% (36/49) and 92% (24/26) of the patients, respectively, at the 48-h assessment and in 96% (44/46) and 100% (25/25) of the patients, respectively, at the 72-h assessment. Reductions in exudate/pus, pain, and skin infection scores were comparable between the GSK1322322 and linezolid treatments. The clinical success rates within the intent-to-treat population and the per-protocol population that completed this study were 67 and 91%, respectively, in the GSK1322322-treated group and 89 and 100%, respectively, in the linezolid-treated group. These results will be used to guide dose selection in future studies with GSK1322322 to optimize its tolerability and efficacy in patients with ABSSSIs. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01209078 and at http://www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com [PDF113414].).

Tedizolid population pharmacokinetics, exposure response, and target attainment

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel antibacterial prodrug that is rapidly and extensively converted to its active moiety, tedizolid. We developed a population pharmacokinetics (PK) model for tedizolid using pooled data from seven densely and sparsely sampled clinical trials evaluating oral and intravenous tedizolid. Model-derived exposure estimates were evaluated for relationships to select efficacy and safety outcomes. A two-compartment model with sigmoidal absorption, absolute bioavailability, and linear elimination described the PK data well. Variability was small (clearance, 31% coefficient of variation; volume, 13.4% coefficient of variation), and absolute bioavailability was high (86%). No clinically significant covariate effects on tedizolid PK were found. Based on phase 3 data evaluating 200-mg once-daily tedizolid for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), no relationships were seen between various efficacy outcomes and estimated tedizolid exposure; the estimated exposure range (free-drug area under the concentration-time curve over 24 h at steady state [AUCss(0-24)], 7 to 50 μg · h/ml) in these patients was modest. Safety data modeling, using once-daily doses of up to 400 mg, showed a small increase in the probability of an adverse event with increasing model-estimated tedizolid exposure; no such relationship was observed when specifically evaluating the 200-mg dose. There were no trends in neutrophil or platelet counts with increasing tedizolid exposure. Target attainment simulations for 200-mg tedizolid indicated a 98.31% probability of attaining the target measure (AUC for the free, unbound fraction of a drug [fAUC]/MIC = 3) against a Staphylococcus aureus strain for which the MIC was ≤0.5 μg/ml. These findings support 200-mg tedizolid once daily as the optimum dose for treatment of ABSSSI.

Tedizolid phosphate (sivextro): a second-generation oxazolidinone to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid phosphate: a second-generation oxazolidinone for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability of tedizolid

Objectives

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel antibacterial under investigation for the treatment of gram-positive infections. This study was conducted to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of intravenous tedizolid phosphate as well as the oral bioavailability of tedizolid phosphate.

Design

Double-blind, single-ascending dose, multiple-dose pharmacokinetics study, as well as tolerability and open-label crossover studies.

Setting

Single center in the United States (Covance Clinical Research Unit, Madison, WI) between September 2009 and January 2010.

Participants

Ninety healthy volunteers.

Intervention

Single intravenous (IV) doses of tedizolid phosphate 50 mg (lead-in) and 100–400 mg. Single oral and IV dose of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg in crossover fashion. Multiple IV doses of tedizolid phosphate 200 and 300 mg for up to 7 days.

Measurements and Main Results

A dose-dependent increase was observed in the maximum plasma concentration (1.2–5.1 μg/ml) and the area under the concentration-time curve (17.4–58.7 μg × hr/ml) of tedizolid (the microbiologically active moiety of tedizolid phosphate) after single IV doses of tedizolid phosphate 100–400 mg. Administration of IV tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once/day for 7 days resulted in minimal (28%) tedizolid accumulation. The absolute oral bioavailability of tedizolid after a single 200-mg dose of tedizolid phosphate was 91%; pharmacokinetic parameters of tedizolid were similar with oral and IV administration. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 41% of subjects. Most adverse events were related to infusion site and became more frequent with multiple dosing. In an additional 3-day tolerability study, IV tedizolid phosphate 200 mg and placebo were similarly tolerated, based on visual infusion phlebitis scores.

Conclusion

These results from a population of healthy volunteers support once/day dosing of tedizolid phosphate 200 mg with both the oral and IV formulations, without the need for dose adjustment when switching administration routes.