In vitro susceptibility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from skin and soft tissue infections to vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid and tedizolid

Current and emerging drug treatment strategies to tackle invasive community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection: what are the challenges?

INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) infections represent a leading cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections in some geographical regions. Traditionally, 'old antibiotics' such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, tetracyclines, clindamycin, chloramphenicol,vancomycin, and teicoplanin have been used to treat these infections, but these were often associated with low efficacy and excessive side effects and toxicity, especially nephrotoxicity. Along with the development of new compounds, the last decade has seen substantial improvements in the management of CA-MRSA infections.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss the current and emerging drug treatment strategies to tackle invasive CA-MRSA infections. Articles reported in this review were selected from through literature searches using the PubMed database.

EXPERT OPINION

The availability of new drugs showing a potent in vitro activity against CA-MRSA represents a unique opportunity to face the threat of resistance while potentially reducing toxicity. All these compounds represent promising options to enhance our antibiotic armamentarium. However, data regarding the use of these new drugs in real-life studies are limited and their best placement in therapy and in terms of optimization of medical resources and balance of cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

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.

In vitro activity of ceftaroline and comparators against bacterial isolates collected globally from patients with skin infections

OBJECTIVES

This study reports the antimicrobial activities of ceftaroline and comparators against bacterial isolates from patients with skin and skin-structure infections (2015-2018).

METHODS

A central laboratory performed antimicrobial susceptibility testing according to CLSI broth microdilution methodology. EUCAST breakpoints were used.

RESULTS

Isolates were collected in Europe (14 408 isolates; 53.9%), Asia/South Pacific (SP) (5317; 19.9%), Latin America (4268; 16.0%) and Africa/Middle East (ME) (2753; 10.3%). In all regions, all 7950 methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) isolates were susceptible to ceftaroline and vancomycin; susceptibility to daptomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin and tigecycline was ≥99.6%. Susceptibility of all 9174 methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates to daptomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, tigecycline and vancomycin was ≥97.7%, with 90.8-96.5% susceptible to ceftaroline. The ceftaroline MIC90 was 0.008 mg/L against Streptococcus pyogenes, 0.015-0.03 mg/L against Streptococcus agalactiae and 0.008-0.015 mg/L against Streptococcus dysgalactiae. All β-haemolytic streptococci were susceptible to vancomycin. Susceptibility of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-negative Escherichia coli to ceftaroline ranged from 67.0% in Asia/SP to 91.0% in Africa/ME; susceptibility to amikacin, meropenem and tigecycline was ≥96.7% in all regions. Susceptibility of ESBL-negative Klebsiella pneumoniae to ceftaroline ranged from 78.4% in Europe to 83.2% in Africa/ME, and among ESBL-negative Klebsiella oxytoca was 76.3% in Asia/SP and 89.0-93.5% in other regions. Among ESBL-negative K. pneumoniae and ESBL-negative K. oxytoca, susceptibility was highest to amikacin (93.7-96.4% and 95.7-100%, respectively) and meropenem (89.7-97.4% and 98.3-100%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Ceftaroline was active against the Gram-positive isolates collected. Susceptibility of ESBL-negative Gram-negative isolates showed regional variations.

Interplay between ESKAPE Pathogens and Immunity in Skin Infections: An Overview of the Major Determinants of Virulence and Antibiotic Resistance

The skin is the largest organ in the human body, acting as a physical and immunological barrier against pathogenic microorganisms. The cutaneous lesions constitute a gateway for microbial contamination that can lead to chronic wounds and other invasive infections. Chronic wounds are considered as serious public health problems due the related social, psychological and economic consequences. The group of bacteria known as ESKAPE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter sp.) are among the most prevalent bacteria in cutaneous infections. These pathogens have a high level of incidence in hospital environments and several strains present phenotypes of multidrug resistance. In this review, we discuss some important aspects of skin immunology and the involvement of ESKAPE in wound infections. First, we introduce some fundamental aspects of skin physiology and immunology related to cutaneous infections. Following this, the major virulence factors involved in colonization and tissue damage are highlighted, as well as the most frequently detected antimicrobial resistance genes. ESKAPE pathogens express several virulence determinants that overcome the skin's physical and immunological barriers, enabling them to cause severe wound infections. The high ability these bacteria to acquire resistance is alarming, particularly in the hospital settings where immunocompromised individuals are exposed to these pathogens. Knowledge about the virulence and resistance markers of these species is important in order to develop new strategies to detect and treat their associated infections.

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.

Tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Introduction

Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) and active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Aims

The objective of this article was to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of ABSSSI.

Evidence review

Approval of tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of ABSSSI was based on the results of two phase III randomized controlled trials, ESTABLISH-1 (NCT01170221) and ESTABLISH-2 (NCT01421511), comparing 6-day once-daily tedizolid vs 10-day twice-daily linezolid. In ESTABLISH-1, noninferiority was met with early clinical response rates of 79.5% and 79.4% in tedizolid and linezolid groups, respectively (difference 0.1%, 95% CI –6.1% to 6.2%, with a 10% noninferiority margin). In ESTABLISH-2, noninferiority was met with 85% and 83% rates of early clinical response in tedizolid and linezolid groups, respectively (difference 2.6%, 95% CI –3.0% to 8.2%). Pooled data from ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2 indicated a lower frequency of thrombocytopenia in tedizolid-treated than in linezolid-treated patients.

Conclusion

Tedizolid offers the option of an intravenous to oral switch, allows once-daily administration, and presents lower risk of myelotoxicity when a 6-day course is used for the treatment of ABSSSI. Greater economic cost associated with this antibiotic could be offset by its shorter treatment duration and possibility of oral administration in routine clinical practice, although either sponsored or nonsponsored postmarketing observational experience remains essential for ultimately confirming the effectiveness and tolerability of tedizolid outside clinical trials.

Distribution of the Most Prevalent Spa Types among Clinical Isolates of Methicillin-Resistant and -Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus around the World: A Review

Background:Staphylococcus aureus, a leading cause of community-acquired and nosocomial infections, remains a major health problem worldwide. Molecular typing methods, such as spa typing, are vital for the control and, when typing can be made more timely, prevention of S. aureus spread around healthcare settings. The current study aims to review the literature to report the most common clinical spa types around the world, which is important for epidemiological surveys and nosocomial infection control policies.

Methods: A search via PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Scopus was conducted for original articles reporting the most prevalent spa types among S. aureus isolates. The search terms were “Staphylococcus aureus, spa typing.”

Results: The most prevalent spa types were t032, t008 and t002 in Europe; t037 and t002 in Asia; t008, t002, and t242 in America; t037, t084, and t064 in Africa; and t020 in Australia. In Europe, all the isolates related to spa type t032 were MRSA. In addition, spa type t037 in Africa and t037and t437 in Australia also consisted exclusively of MRSA isolates. Given the fact that more than 95% of the papers we studied originated in the past decade there was no option to study the dynamics of regional clone emergence.

Conclusion: This review documents the presence of the most prevalent spa types in countries, continents and worldwide and shows big local differences in clonal distribution.