Impact of patient characteristics and infection type on clinical outcomes of patients who received linezolid or vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a pooled data analysis

Is there still a role for vancomycin in skin and soft-tissue infections?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSIs) are among the commonest infections encountered in clinical practice. Spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus SSIs continues to increase in both health care and community settings and presents a challenge for the best treatment choice. Vancomycin has been the mainstay of SSIs treatment, but recently its use has been questioned because of concerns about its efficacy, tolerability, and unfavorable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile. The purpose of this review is to establish the current role for vancomycin in light of the literature published from January 2007 to September 2017 on comparison with both old and new alternatives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Meta-analyses show better clinical and microbiological outcomes for drugs approved for the treatment of SSI, including those sustained by methicillin-resistant S. aureus, in the last 10 years than for vancomycin. The newer glycopeptides and linezolid decrease the total treatment costs compared with vancomycin, by reducing the length of stay or avoiding the hospitalization.

SUMMARY

Vancomycin is noninferior in efficacy and safety to all comparator drugs, including the newest on the market. However, the SSI treatment evidence base presents several shortcomings limiting the clinical applicability of the results. High-level clinical trials should be performed to obtain results that can be generalized and applied effectively in clinical practice.

Classification, microbiology and treatment of diabetic foot infections

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a common complication of type-1 and type-2 diabetes. About 10-15% of patients with diabetes develop foot ulcers. A validated foot ulcer classification system that will support the development of treatment strategis is necessary for clinicians managing DFUs. More than 10 classification systems have been described by researchers. Another important aspect of the management of DFUs is the proper identification of causative pathogens that trigger infections. While conventional diagnostic methods, such as swabs, cultures and biopsies are more widely used, novel molecular techniques have been exploring bacterial identification and quantification. Knowledge of the microbial aetiologies in diabetic foot infections, and understanding of antibiotic resistance, is critical for the effective management and treatment of these infected wounds. Initial antibiotic regimens are usually selected empirically. A set of common principles may help avoid selecting either an unnecessarily broad or inappropriately narrow antibiotic treatment regimen. In this review we provide a comprehensive summary and description of classification systems of diabetic foot infections, and a comprehensive discussion of microbiology.

Epidemiology and Outcomes of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections among Inpatients in Southern China from 2008 to 2013

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are some of the most commonly treated infections in hospitals, and place heavy economic burdens on patients and society. Here we report the findings from an analysis of cSSTI based on a retrospective study which was conducted within the Chinese inpatient population. We focused our research on the analysis of the patient population, antibiotic treatment, clinical outcome and economic burden. The study population comprised 527 selected patients hospitalized between 2008 and 2013. Among the hospitalizations with microbiological diagnoses, 61.41% (n = 113) were diagnosed as infected with Gram-positive bacteria, while 46.20% (n = 85) were infected with Gram-negative bacteria. The most commonly found Gram-positive bacteria was Staphylococcus aureus (40.76%, n = 75), and the most common Gram-negative bacteria was Escherichia coli (14.13%, n = 26). About 20% of the Staphylococcus aureus were methicillin-resistant. The resistance rate of isolated Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli to penicillin was around 90%; in contrast, the resistance rate to vancomycin, linezolid or imipenem was low (<20%). A large percentage of patients were treated with cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones, while vancomycin and imipenem were also included to treat drug-resistant pathogens. Over half of the hospitalizations (58.43%, n = 336) experienced treatment modifications. The cost to patients with antibiotic modifications was relatively higher than to those without. In conclusion, our study offers an analysis of the disease characteristics, microbiological diagnoses, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of cSSTI in four hospitals in Guangdong Province, and sheds lights on the current clinical management of cSSTI in China.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

In Vitro Pharmacodynamics of Human Simulated Exposures of Telavancin against Methicillin-Susceptible and -Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with and without Prior Vancomycin Exposure

Telavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with potent activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). The activity of telavancin against MRSA and MSSA after prior vancomycin exposure was studied in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Two clinical MRSA and two MSSA isolates, all with vancomycin MICs of 2 μg/ml, were subjected to humanized free drug exposures of vancomycin at 1 g every 12 h (q12h) for 96 h, telavancin at 750 mg q24h for 96 h, and vancomycin at 1 g q12h for 72 h followed by telavancin at 750 mg q24h for 48 h (120 h total). The microbiological responses were measured by changes from 0 h in log10 CFU/ml at the end of experiments and area under the bacterial killing and regrowth curves over 96 h (AUBC0-96). The control isolates grew to 8.8 ± 0.3 log10 CFU/ml. Initially, all regimens caused -4.5 ± 0.9 reductions in log10 CFU/ml by 48 h followed by slight regrowth over the following 48 to 72 h. After 96 h, vancomycin and telavancin achieved -3.7 ± 0.9 and -3.8 ± 0.8 log10 CFU/ml changes from baseline, respectively (P = 0.74). Sequential exposure to telavancin after vancomycin did not result in additional CFU reductions or increases, with ultimate log10 CFU/ml reductions of -4.3 ± 1.1 at 96 h and -4.2 ± 1.3 at 120 h (P > 0.05 for all comparisons at 96 h). The AUBC0-96 was significantly smaller for the regimen of telavancin for 96 h than for the regimens of vancomycin for 96 h and vancomycin followed by telavancin (P ≤ 0.04). No resistance was observed throughout the experiment. Against these MRSA and MSSA isolates with vancomycin MICs of 2 μg/ml, telavancin was comparable with vancomycin and its activity was unaffected by prior vancomycin exposure.

Do Diabetic Foot Infections With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Differ From Those With Other Pathogens?

There is controversy as to whether or not diabetic foot infections (DFIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are associated with worse outcomes than DFIs caused by other pathogens. To address this issue we performed a nonsystematic literature search of published articles in English language journals seeking studies reporting on the outcomes of DFIs related to their microbiology. We retrieved 48 articles published from 1999 to 2013 that described a total of 7771 cases of DFI. The overall proportion of DFIs with an isolate of S aureus was about 30%; just over one third of these (11% of all cases) were MRSA strains. Among the DFI cases caused by MRSA 1543 were episodes of soft tissue infections and 113 of osteomyelitis, while non-MRSA organisms caused 5761 soft tissue infections and 354 cases of osteomyelitis. Only 5 of the included articles attempted a comparison between DFI caused by MRSA and those caused by other pathogens, with no clear differences noted. The median total duration of antibiotic therapy for DFI caused by MRSA was 26 days, of which a median of 10 days was given intravenously. Only a few articles reported the proportion of patients with a recurrence, but they often did not differentiate between MRSA and non-MRSA cases. Four publications reported a worse functional or microbiological outcome in MRSA, compared to non-MRSA, cases, but the findings were variable and differences did not seem to be significant. Many trials failed to adjust for case-mix or to definitively demonstrate a relationship between microbiology and outcomes. Few of the articles specifically commented on whether the MRSA isolates were health care- or community-acquired strains. Notwithstanding the substantial limitations of the available literature, there does not appear to be a need for any special treatment for DFI caused by MRSA. The current guidelines for treating according to established international recommendations seem appropriate.

Update on management of skin and soft tissue infections in the emergency department

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are frequently treated in the emergency department (ED) setting. Recent studies provide critical new information that can guide new approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of SSTIs in the ED. Rapid polymerase chain reaction assays capable of detecting MRSA in approximately 1 h hold significant potential to improving antibiotic stewardship in SSTI care. Emergency ultrasound continues to demonstrate value in guiding appropriate management of SSTIs, including the early diagnosis of necrotizing infections. Since emerging in the 1990s, community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) continues to increase in prevalence, and it represents a significant challenge to optimizing ED antibiotic use for SSTI management. Growing literature reinforces the current recommendation of incision and drainage without antibiotics for uncomplicated abscesses. Selecting antibiotics with CA-MRSA coverage is recommended when treating purulent SSTIs; however, it is generally not necessary in cases of nonpurulent cellulitis. Future advances in ED SSTI care may involve expansion of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy protocols and the recent development of a novel, once weekly antibiotic with activity against MRSA.