In vitro activity of tedizolid against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae collected in 2013 and 2014 from sites in Latin American countries, Australia, New Zealand, and China

In Vitro Activities of Ceftobiprole, Dalbavancin, Tedizolid and Comparators against Clinical Isolates of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Associated with Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are associated with significant morbidity and healthcare costs, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Vancomycin is a preferred antimicrobial therapy for the management of complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs) caused by MRSA, with linezolid and daptomycin regarded as alternative therapeutic options. Due to the increased rates of antimicrobial resistance in MRSA, several new antibiotics with activity against MRSA have been recently introduced in clinical practice, including ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, and tedizolid. We evaluated the in vitro activities of the aforementioned antibiotics against 124 clinical isolates of MRSA obtained from consecutive patients with SSTIs during the study period (2020-2022). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for vancomycin, daptomycin, ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, linezolid and tedizolid were evaluated by the MIC Test Strip using Liofilchem strips. We found that when compared to the in vitro activity of vancomycin (MIC₉₀ = 2 μg/mL), dalbavancin possessed the lowest MIC₉₀ (MIC₉₀ = 0.094 μg/mL), followed by tedizolid (MIC₉₀ = 0.38 μg/mL), linezolid, ceftobiprole, and daptomycin (MIC₉₀ = 1 μg/mL). Dalbavancin demonstrated significantly lower MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ values compared to vancomycin (0.064 vs. 1 and 0.094 vs. 2, respectively). Tedizolid exhibited an almost threefold greater level of in vitro activity than linezolid, and also had superior in vitro activity compared to ceftobiprole, daptomycin and vancomycin. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) phenotypes were detected among 71.8% of the isolates. In conclusion, ceftobiprole, dalbavancin and tedizolid exhibited potent activity against MRSA and are promising antimicrobials in the management of SSTIs caused by MRSA.

Antibacterial activity of recently approved antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are considered an important public health problem, and treatment options are limited. Accordingly, in this meta-analysis, we analyzed published studies to survey in vitro activity of recently approved antibiotics against MRSA isolates.

Methods

We searched electronic databases; PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies (until November 30, 2020) that have focused on the in vitro activity of telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and tedizolid against MRSA isolates. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA software (version 14.0).

Results

Thirty-eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall in vitro activity of tedizolid on 12,204 MRSA isolates was 0.250 and 0.5 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, (minimum inhibitory concentration at which 50% and 90% of isolates were inhibited, respectively), respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of dalbavancin on 28539 MRSA isolates was 0.060 and 0.120 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of oritavancin on 420 MRSA isolates was 0.045 and 0.120 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The overall antibacterial activity of telavancin on 7353 MRSA isolates was 0.032 and 0.060 µg/mL for MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀, respectively. The pooled prevalence of tedizolid, telavancin, and dalbavancin susceptibility was 100% (95% CI: 100–100).

Conclusion

Telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and tedizolid had potent in vitro activity against MRSA isolates. The low MICs and high susceptibility rates of these antibiotics recommend a hopeful direction to introduce useful antibiotics in treating MRSA infections in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12941-022-00529-z.

Efficacy and Safety of Tedizolid Phosphate versus Linezolid in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o.

Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria in the United States, Europe, and other countries. In this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study, 598 adult ABSSSI patients in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the United States were randomized to receive 200 mg of tedizolid, intravenously (i.v.)/orally (p.o.), once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid, i.v./p.o. twice daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was early clinical response rate at 48 to 72 h. Secondary endpoints included programmatic and investigator-assessed outcomes at end-of-therapy (EOT) and posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visits. Safety was also evaluated. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 75.3% of tedizolid-treated patients and 79.9% of linezolid-treated patients were early responders (treatment difference, –4.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –11.2, 2.2). After exclusion of patients who never received the study drug (tedizolid, n = 8; linezolid, n = 1; modified ITT), comparable early response rates were observed (tedizolid, 77.4%; linezolid, 80.1%; treatment difference, –2.7%; 95% CI, –9.4, 3.9). Secondary endpoints showed high and similar clinical success rates in the ITT and clinically evaluable (CE) populations at EOT and PTE visits (e.g., CE-PTE for tedizolid, 90.4%; for linezolid, 93.5%). Both drugs were well tolerated, and no death occurred. Eight patients experienced phlebitis with tedizolid while none did with linezolid; hence, drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in a slightly higher proportion in the tedizolid (20.9%) arm than in the linezolid arm (15.8%). The study demonstrated that tedizolid in a primarily Asian population was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for ABSSSI patients. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02066402.)

In vitro activity of tedizolid and other comparator drugs in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in skin and soft tissue infections in seven Colombian hospitals

Introduction: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) causes severe skin and soft tissue infections in hospitals and, more recently, in the community. Tedizolid is a new second-generation oxazolidinone derivative having greater in vitro potency than linezolid against this type of microorganism. Objectives: To evaluate the antimicrobial activity of tedizolid and other comparator antibiotics in MRSA isolates causing skin and soft tissue infections in Colombian hospitals. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective, multi-center descriptive study in seven tertiary-level hospitals in Colombia along a 12-month period. MRSA isolates were collected from adult patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Tedizolid, linezolid, vancomycin, daptomycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and clindamycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined by ETEST® (bioMérieux). Results: MRSA isolates were obtained from 102 patients with an average age of 46.8 years of whom 56 (54.9%) were men. Infection was community-acquired in 77 cases (75.4%). Abscess-related samples predominated (69 patients: 67.6%). All isolates were susceptible to tedizolid, linezolid, daptomycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and vancomycin. Tedizolid had greater in vitro activity than linezolid. Tedizolid MIC intervals ranged from 0.125 μg/mL to 0.5 μg/mL while those of linezolid ranged from 1μg/mL to 2μg/mL. Conclusions: MRSA strains circulating in Colombia are highly susceptible to tedizolid and can be considered a therapeutic alternative for hospitals and/or community-acquired skin and soft tissue infections.

Real-Life Evidence for Tedizolid Phosphate in the Treatment of Cellulitis and Wound Infections: A Case Series

Introduction

Tedizolid phosphate 200 mg, once daily for 6 days, has recently been approved for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in several countries; however, clinical experience in real-life settings is currently limited. Here, we report on the use of tedizolid with an extended treatment duration for complex and severe ABSSSIs in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

Two patients with cellulitis and two patients with surgical site infection (SSI), aged 26–60 years, were treated with tedizolid phosphate 200 mg, intravenous/oral (IV/PO) or IV only, once daily at four different institutions.

Results

Two morbidly obese patients had non-necrotizing, non-purulent severe cellulitis, which were complicated by sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus myositis. One female patient failed on first-line empiric therapy with IV cefalotin, clindamycin and imipenem (3–4 days), and was switched to IV/PO tedizolid (7 + 5 days). One male patient received IV clindamycin plus IV/PO tedizolid (5 + 5 days), but clindamycin was discontinued on Day 3 due to an adverse event. For both patients, clinical signs and symptoms improved within 72 h, and laboratory results were normalized by Days 7 and 8, respectively. Two other patients (one obese, diabetic female with chronic hepatitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) had complicated SSIs occurring 10 days after hernia repair with mesh or 3 months after spinal fusion surgery with metal implant. First patient with previous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia received a 7-day tedizolid IV course empirically. The second patient with culture-confirmed MRSA infection received a 14-day IV course. Both patients responded within 72 h, and local and systemic signs normalized by end of treatment. There were no reports of thrombocytopenia.

Conclusion

Tedizolid phosphate 200 mg for 7–14 days was a favored treatment option for patients with severe/complex ABSSSIs, and was effective following previous treatment failure or in late-onset infections.

Funding

Editorial assistance and the article processing charges were funded by Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany.

In vitro activity of tedizolid and comparator agents against clinical Gram-positive isolates recovered from patients with cancer

A total of 248 Gram-positive isolates from cancer patients were tested for in-vitro susceptibility to tedizolid and 3 comparator agents using CLSI broth microdilution methodology. Tedizolid inhibited 97% of isolates at ≤0.5μg/ml. It was active against all Gram-positive species and consistently had 8 fold lower MICs than linezolid, although based on % susceptibility using CLSI breakpoints, most isolates were also susceptible to the comparators. Tedizolid was active against MRSA isolates with vancomycin MICs of ≥1.0μg/ml.

Treatment and prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease

Invasive pneumococcal disease is a severe infection that mainly affects patients with associated comorbidity. The paediatric conjugate vaccination has resulted in a change in the adult vaccination strategy. The antibiotic resistance of pneumococcus is not currently a severe problem. Nevertheless, the World Health Organisation has included pneumococcus among the bacteria whose treatment requires the introduction of new drugs, such as ceftaroline and ceftobiprole. Although the scientific evidence is still limited, the combination of beta-lactams and macrolides is recommended as empiric therapy for bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia.