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

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Tedizolid

Tedizolid is an oxazolidinone antibiotic with high potency against Gram-positive bacteria and currently prescribed in bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. The aim of the review was to summarize and critically review the key pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of tedizolid. Tedizolid displays linear pharmacokinetics with good tissue penetration. In in vitro susceptibility studies, tedizolid exhibits activity against the majority of Gram-positive bacteria (minimal inhibitory concentration [MIC] of ≤ 0.5 mg/L), is four-fold more potent than linezolid, and has the potential to treat pathogens being less susceptible to linezolid. Area under the unbound concentration–time curve (fAUC) related to MIC (fAUC/MIC) was best correlated with efficacy. In neutropenic mice, fAUC/MIC of ~ 50 and ~ 20 induced bacteriostasis in thigh and pulmonary infection models, respectively, at 24 h. The presence of granulocytes augmented its antibacterial effect. Hence, tedizolid is currently not recommended for immunocompromised patients. Clinical investigations with daily doses of 200 mg for 6 days showed non-inferiority to twice-daily dosing of linezolid 600 mg for 10 days in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. In addition to its use in skin and skin-structure infections, the high pulmonary penetration makes it an attractive option for respiratory infections including Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Resistance against tedizolid is rare yet effective antimicrobial surveillance and defining pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for resistance suppression are needed to guide dosing strategies to suppress resistance development.

Use of oral tetracyclines in the treatment of adult outpatients with skin and skin structure infections: Focus on doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline

Oral tetracyclines have been used in clinical practice for over 60 years. One of the most common indications for use of oral tetracyclines is for treatment of adult outpatients with skin and soft infections (SSTIs), including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The 2014 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) skin and soft tissue guideline strongly recommends sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, clindamycin, and tetracyclines as oral treatment options for patients with purulent SSTIs, especially when methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus is of clinical concern. Despite the long‐standing use of tetracyclines, practice patterns indicate that they are often considered after other guideline‐concordant oral options for the treatment of patients with SSTIs. Clinicians may therefore be less familiar with the clinical data associated with use of commercially available tetracycline agents for treatment of patients with SSTI. This review summarizes the literature on the use of oral tetracyclines (ie, doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline) for the treatment of adult patients with SSTIs. As part of this review, we describe their common mechanisms of resistance, susceptibility profiles against common SSTI pathogens, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and comparative clinical data.

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.

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.

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.