Surveillance of tedizolid activity and resistance: In vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens collected over 5 years from the United States and Europe

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.

A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model-based analysis of tedizolid against enterococci using the hollow-fibre infection model

BACKGROUND

Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic. Considering the higher antibacterial effect in immunocompetent compared with immunosuppressed animals, it is not recommended in immunocompromised patients.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we assessed the 'pure' pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) relationship for tedizolid against Enterococcus in the hollow-fibre infection model (HFIM).

METHODS

Unbound plasma concentration time profiles (200-5000 mg/day IV) were simulated in the HFIM over 120 h against an Enterococcus faecalis strain and two clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecium (VRE-vanB and VRE-vanA). Next, a PKPD model describing tedizolid efficacy against bacterial isolates was developed. A population PK model was linked to the developed PKPD model and utilized to predict the bacterial kinetics in plasma and in target tissues [adipose, muscle, epithelial lining fluid (ELF) and sputum] over 120 h of therapy.

RESULTS

The PKPD model adequately described the bacterial kill kinetics for all bacterial populations. At the human recommended dose of 200 mg/day, bacterial growth was predicted in plasma and all tissues, except for ELF. Bacteriostasis was observed only at a higher dose of 1200 mg/day over 120 h. An fAUC/MIC of 80 related to stasis over 120 h. Subpopulations resistant to 3 × MIC were amplified in plasma and target tissues, except for ELF, at doses of 200-800 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

The human dose of 200 mg/day was insufficient to suppress bacterial growth in the HFIM, indicating that further components contribute to the clinical effect of tedizolid. This study supports the warning/precaution for tedizolid to limit its use in immunocompromised patients.

Aminopenicillins for treatment of ampicillin-resistant enterococcal urinary tract infections

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to describe the theory behind and data supporting use of aminopenicillins in the treatment of ampicillin-resistant enterococcal urinary tract infections.

SUMMARY

Aminopenicillin concentrations in the urine may be high enough to achieve bacterial eradication and clinical cure for infections affecting the lower genitourinary tract, even in the context of in vitro resistance based on established susceptibility breakpoints. A literature search was conducted to identify original research articles describing the use of aminopenicillins in the treatment of urinary tract infections caused by ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus species. Three published retrospective cohort studies were identified, all of which reported that aminopenicillins had similar rates of clinical cure as other antibiotic classes prescribed for the treatment of enterococcal urinary tract infections.

CONCLUSION

Both pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles and limited retrospective clinical data support the use of aminopenicillins in the treatment of lower urinary tract infections caused by Enterococcus species, even when the isolates have a minimum inhibitory concentration that exceeds the susceptibility breakpoint.

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.

New Antibiotics for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) represent one of the most common hospital-acquired infections, carrying a significant morbidity and risk of mortality. Increasing antibiotic resistance among the common bacterial pathogens associated with HAP and VAP, especially Enterobacterales and nonfermenting gram-negative bacteria, has made the choice of empiric treatment of these infections increasingly challenging. Moreover, failure of initial empiric therapy to cover the causative agents associated with HAP and VAP has been associated with worse clinical outcomes. This review provides an overview of antibiotics newly approved or in development for the treatment of HAP and VAP. The approved antibiotics include ceftobiprole, ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, imipenem-relebactam, and cefiderocol. Their major advantages include their high activity against multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens.

Novel investigational treatments for ventilator-associated pneumonia and critically ill patients in the intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common; its prevalence has been highlighted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Even young patients can suffer severe nosocomial infection and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Multidrug-resistant bacteria can spread alarmingly fast around the globe and new antimicrobials are struggling to keep pace; hence physicians must stay abreast of new developments in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia and VAP.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review examines novel antimicrobial investigational drugs and their implementation in the ICU setting for VAP. The paper highlights novel approaches such as monoclonal antibody treatments for P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, and phage antibiotic synthesis. The paper also examines mechanisms of resistance in gram-negative bacteria, virulence factors and inhaled antibiotics and questions what may be on the horizon in terms of emerging treatment strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

The post-antibiotic era is rapidly approaching and the need for personalised medicine, point-of-care microbial sensitivity testing and development of biomarkers for severe infections is clear. Results from emerging and new antibiotics are encouraging, but infection control measures and de-escalation protocols must be employed to prolong their usefulness in critical illness.

Population Pharmacokinetics, Exposure-Response, and Probability of Target Attainment Analyses for Tedizolid in Adolescent Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone antibacterial agent approved for the treatment of Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in patients aged ≥12 years. To support the use of tedizolid phosphate in adolescents with ABSSSIs, a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model, developed using adult and pediatric data, was updated to include PK data from a phase 3 clinical trial (PN012) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of once-daily oral or intravenous 200-mg tedizolid phosphate treatment in adolescents (12 to <18 years) with ABSSSIs, along with emerging data from a phase 1 trial (PN013) in children (2 to <12 years). Updated PK parameter estimates remained similar to those of the previous model. Body weight was a statistically significant covariate on clearance and volume parameters, with no clinically meaningful effects on exposure in adolescents. Tedizolid exposures in adolescents from PN012 were slightly higher with largely overlapped area under the concentration-time curve distribution compared with adults from previous phase 2 and 3 trials. The probability of PK/pharmacodynamic target attainment at the MIC susceptibility breakpoint of 0.5 μg/ml for Staphylococcus and Streptococcus sp. was 100%. As most participants from the PN012 trial were cured, no significant exposure-efficacy relationship was identified. Tedizolid exposures were similar between participants with and without a safety event from PN012; no clear relationship was detected between exposure and safety. Despite lower body weight and higher exposures in adolescents, safety profiles in adolescents were similar those in adults. These results support the 200-mg, once-daily intravenous or oral dose of tedizolid phosphate in adolescents with ABSSSIs.

Alternatives to Fight Vancomycin-Resistant Staphylococci and Enterococci

Gram positive pathogens are a significant cause of healthcare-associated infections, with Staphylococci and Enterococci being the most prevalent ones. Vancomycin, a last resort glycopeptide, is used to fight these bacteria but the emergence of resistance against this drug leaves some patients with few therapeutic options. To counter this issue, new generations of antibiotics have been developed but resistance has already been reported. In this article, we review the strategies in place or in development to counter vancomycin-resistant pathogens. First, an overview of traditional antimicrobials already on the market or in the preclinical or clinical pipeline used individually or in combination is summarized. The second part focuses on the non-traditional antimicrobials, such as antimicrobial peptides, bacteriophages and nanoparticles. The conclusion is that there is hitherto no substitute equivalent to vancomycin. However, promising strategies based on drugs with multiple mechanisms of action and treatments based on bacteriophages possibly combined with conventional antibiotics are hoped to provide treatment options for vancomycin-resistant Gram-positive pathogens.

Potential role of new-generation antibiotics in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the available results of primary analyses from high-quality randomized studies of either recently approved or possible future agents for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 2 decades, several novel agents have been approved for the treatment of ABSSSI, that are also active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to already available agents, further molecules are in clinical development that could become available for treating ABSSSI in the forthcoming future.

SUMMARY

The current and future availability of several new-generation antibiotics will allow to modulate therapeutic choices not only on efficacy but also on other relevant factors such as the combination of the drug safety profile and the comorbidities of any given patient, the expected adherence to outpatient therapy, and the possibilities of early discharge or avoiding hospitalization by means of oral formulations, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, or single-dose administration of long-acting intravenous agents. With the advent of new-generation antibiotics, all these factors are becoming increasingly essential for tailoring treatment to individual patients in line with the principles of personalized medicine, and for optimizing the use of healthcare resources.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP.

METHODS

In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, -1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, -7.6%; 97.5% CI: -15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02019420.

Tedizolid activity against a multicentre worldwide collection of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae recovered from patients with pneumonia (2017-2019)

OBJECTIVES

The antimicrobial activity of tedizolid and comparators was evaluated against a large worldwide collection of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates recovered from patients with pneumonia.

METHODS

Clinical isolates were collected from patients in 96 medical centres in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America and the USA between 2017 and 2019, and tested for susceptibility by reference broth microdilution.

RESULTS

The most active agents against S. aureus (n = 4667) were tedizolid (100.0% susceptible), linezolid (100.0% susceptible), ceftaroline (96.2% susceptible) and vancomycin (100.0% susceptible), but only tedizolid, linezolid and vancomycin retained activity against >95% of meticillin-resistant S. aureus isolates from all regions. In general, linezolid, ceftriaxone, ceftaroline, levofloxacin, penicillin and vancomycin showed susceptibility rates >95% against S. pneumoniae (n = 3008). However, only linezolid, ceftaroline, levofloxacin and vancomycin remained active (>95% susceptibility) against isolates displaying penicillin-non-susceptible or multidrug-resistant phenotypes. Penicillin-non-susceptible S. pneumoniae isolates were recovered less frequently from patients aged <5 years compared with other age groups.

CONCLUSION

The in-vitro data presented here confirm the high potency of tedizolid against S. aureus and S. pneumoniae causing pneumonia worldwide. There is a need for further clinical evaluations of tedizolid for treating pneumonia caused by these pathogens.

Tedizolid is a promising antimicrobial option for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections in cystic fibrosis patients

BACKGROUND

Tedizolid is a protein synthesis inhibitor in clinical use for the treatment of Gram-positive infections. Pulmonary MRSA infections are a growing problem in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and the efficacy of tedizolid-based therapy in CF pulmonary infections is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the in vitro and in vivo activity of tedizolid and predict the likelihood of tedizolid resistance selection in CF-background Staphylococcus aureus strains.

METHODS

A collection of 330 S. aureus strains (from adult and paediatric patients), either of normal or small colony variant (SCV) phenotypes, gathered at three CF centres in the USA was used. Tedizolid activity was assessed by broth microdilution, Etest and time-kill analysis. In vivo tedizolid efficacy was tested in a murine pneumonia model. Tedizolid in vitro mutants were obtained by 40 days of exposure and progressive passages. Whole genome sequencing of clinical S. aureus strains with reduced susceptibility to tedizolid was performed.

RESULTS

MRSA strain MIC90s were tedizolid 0.12-0.25 mg/L and linezolid 1-2 mg/L; for MSSA strains, MIC90s were tedizolid 0.12 mg/L and linezolid 1-2 mg/L. Two strains, WIS 441 and Seattle 106, with tedizolid MICs of 2 mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively, had MICs above the FDA tedizolid breakpoint (0.5 mg/L). Tedizolid at free serum concentrations exhibited a bacteriostatic effect. Mean bacterial burdens in lungs (log10 cfu/g) for WIS 423-infected mice were: control, 11.2±0.5; tedizolid-treated (10 mg/kg), 3.40±1.87; linezolid-treated (40 mg/kg), 4.51±2.1; and vancomycin-treated (30 mg/kg), 5.21±1.93. For WIS 441-infected mice the (log10 cfu/g) values were: control, 9.66±0.8; tedizolid-treated, 3.18±1.35; linezolid-treated 5.94±2.19; and vancomycin-treated, 4.35±1.7.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that tedizolid represents a promising therapeutic option for the treatment of CF-associated MRSA/MSSA infections, having potent in vivo activity and low resistance potential.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Single-dose Tedizolid Phosphate in Children 2 to <12 Years of Age

BACKGROUND

Infections with Gram-positive bacteria, including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), are common in children. We describe a single-dose pharmacokinetics and safety study of tedizolid phosphate, a new oxazolidinone under investigation for the treatment of ABSSSIs in children, in hospitalized participants 2 to <12 years of age.

METHODS

This open-label, multicenter, phase 1 trial (NCT02750761) enrolled hospitalized children 2 to <12 years of age receiving treatment for a confirmed/suspected Gram-positive bacterial infection. Participants were stratified by age (2 to <6 years and 6 to <12 years) to receive a single oral or intravenous dose of tedizolid phosphate. Evaluations included safety and pharmacokinetics of tedizolid phosphate and its active metabolite, tedizolid. Palatability of the oral suspension was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants were enrolled and received 3-6 mg/kg of study medication. For both routes of administration, tedizolid phosphate was rapidly converted to tedizolid; median time to maximum tedizolid plasma concentration was 1-2 hours after initiation of the 1-hour intravenous infusion and 2-3 hours after oral dosing. The tedizolid mean terminal half-life was 5-6 hours and 6-7 hours for the intravenous and oral administration groups, respectively. The oral tedizolid phosphate suspension demonstrated high bioavailability comparable to that of the parenteral administration. A single dose of intravenous or oral tedizolid phosphate was well tolerated; no unexpected safety findings were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacokinetic and safety observations provide the information necessary for the continued development of tedizolid phosphate for the treatment of Gram-positive infections in children, particularly ABSSSIs.

Safety and Efficacy of Oral and/or Intravenous Tedizolid Phosphate From a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Adolescents With Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

BACKGROUND

Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone prodrug approved in 2014 for treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs); however, efficacy has not previously been evaluated in children. This study compared the safety and efficacy of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) with active antibacterial comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs in adolescents.

METHODS

This was a randomized, assessor-blind, global phase 3 study of tedizolid versus active comparators for the treatment of Gram-positive ABSSSIs in adolescents (12 to <18 years of age; NCT02276482). Enrolled participants were stratified by region and randomized 3:1 to receive tedizolid phosphate 200 mg (oral and/or intravenous) once daily for 6 days or active comparator, selected by investigator from an allowed list per local standard of care, for 10 days. The primary endpoint was safety; blinded investigator's assessment of clinical success at the test-of-cure visit (18-25 days after the first dose) was a secondary efficacy endpoint. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups were not performed.

RESULTS

Of the 121 participants enrolled, 120 were treated (tedizolid, n = 91; comparator, n = 29). Treatment-emergent adverse events were balanced between treatment groups (tedizolid, 14.3%; comparator, 10.3%). Overall, 3 participants (3.3%) in the tedizolid group and 1 (3.4%) in the comparator group experienced a single drug-related TEAE. Clinical success rates were high in both treatment groups: 96.7% and 93.1% at the test-of-cure visit for the tedizolid and comparator groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Tedizolid demonstrated safety and efficacy similar to comparators for the treatment of ABSSSIs in adolescents.

Characterization of Tn6349, a novel mosaic transposon carrying poxtA, cfr and other resistance determinants, inserted in the chromosome of an ST5-MRSA-II strain of clinical origin

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the genetic element carrying the poxtA oxazolidinone resistance gene found in the poxtA index strain Staphylococcus aureus AOUC-0915 isolated from a cystic fibrosis patient.

METHODS

The genetic context of poxtA was investigated by bioinformatics analysis of WGS data of strain AOUC-0915, followed by PCR and confirmatory Sanger sequencing for repetitive regions. Conjugation and electrotransformation experiments were carried out to assess horizontal transferability using S. aureus and Enterococcus faecalis recipients. Production of phage particles was evaluated by PCR using DNA preparations obtained after phage induction. Excision of the transposon carrying poxtA was evaluated by inverse PCR experiments for detection of circular intermediates.

RESULTS

poxtA was found to be associated with a 48 kb composite transposon of original structure, named Tn6349, inserted into a φN315-like prophage. The transposon was bounded by two IS1216 insertion sequences, carried several resistance genes [erm(B), cfr, poxtA and fexB] and exhibited a mosaic structure made by a derivative of plasmid pE35048-oc (previously described in an Enterococcus faecium clinical isolate) and Tn6657, a novel composite transposon carrying the poxtA and fexB genes. Excision ability of Tn6349 as a circular intermediate was demonstrated. Transferability of Tn6349 or modules thereof to S. aureus or E. faecalis by either conjugation or electrotransformation was not detected. Induction of the φN315-like prophage carrying Tn6349 was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes the structure of Tn6349, a novel composite transposon carrying several resistance determinants to anti-ribosomal drugs, including cfr and poxtA, from an oxazolidinone-resistant MRSA strain. Analysis of Tn6349 revealed a modular structure that could favour the mobilization of its resistance determinants.

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.

Novel strategies for the management of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with liver cirrhosis: focus on new antimicrobials

Introduction: Liver cirrhosis is a frequent condition caused by different etiologies. Bacterial and fungal infections are common complications, representing an independent prognostic stage in patients with cirrhosis, dramatically worsening their clinical outcomes.Areas covered: The present review article addresses manifold points and to this purpose an inductive literature search of MEDLINE database through PubMed was performed. First, it provides an overview on the mechanisms underlying immune disfunctions in patients with cirrhosis, who are prone to develop infections being at higher risk than the general population. Second, commonest types of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with advanced liver disease are described, focusing on their deleterious impact as decompensating events. Third, the rise of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria and fungi as causative agents of infection in cirrhotic subjects is illustrated. Eventually, the most promising novel therapeutic options against MDR pathogens and fungi are reviewed.Expert opinion: The management of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with cirrhosis is difficult, due to the frequent co-existence of renal impairment, low platelet count and other conditions that limit the antimicrobial choice. New antibacterial and antifungal compounds may overcome this issue by providing a better tolerability profile, along with equal or superior efficacy compared with older drugs.

Antimicrobial resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to newer antimicrobial agents

Infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) result in significant morbidity and mortality for patients in both community and health care settings. This is primarily due to the difficulty in treating MRSA, which is often resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. Understanding the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in MRSA provides insight into the optimal use of antimicrobial agents in clinical practice and also underpins critical aspects of antimicrobial stewardship programs. In this review we delineate the mechanisms, prevalence, and clinical importance of resistance to antibiotics licensed in the past 20 years that target MRSA, as well as new drugs in the pipeline which are likely to be licensed soon. Current gaps in scientific knowledge about MRSA resistance mechanisms are discussed, and topics in the epidemiology of AMR in S. aureus that require further investigation are highlighted.

The role of tedizolid in skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Tedizolid is a second-generation oxazolidinone with activity against Gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA isolates resistant to linezolid. Pivotal clinical trials showed that tedizolid at 200 mg once-daily for 6 days is not inferior to linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days in patients with SSTI. The comparison of adverse events is favorable to tedizolid under the circumstances of the clinical trials. This is a review of recent literature on tedizolid, its use in special populations and potential adverse effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings suggest that tedizolid can be used in SSTI in adolescents, those older than 65 years, obese individuals and patients with diabetic foot infections. Forthcoming research to determine the future uses of this drug in other clinical syndromes requires demonstration of tolerance whenever tedizolid is administered for longer than 6 days.We also speculate on missing data and potential future indications of tedizolid in the highly competitive field of the treatment of severe Gram-positive infections other than SSTI.

SUMMARY

Tedizolid is a second-generation oxazolidinone, very convenient for treatment of SSTI, in search for other indications including nosocomial pneumonia and bone and joint infections. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

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.

Comparative In Vitro Activities of New Antibiotics for the Treatment of Skin Infections

Bacterial skin infections result in significant morbidity and have contributed to enhanced health-care resource utilization. The problem is heightened by emerging antimicrobial resistance. Multiple novel agents active against resistant pathogens that cause skin infections-including dalbavancin, tedizolid phosphate, oritavancin, and delafloxacin-have been approved over the past 5 years. Common features of these agents include gram-positive activity and favorable safety. Of these agents, delafloxacin is unique in being active against both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens that cause skin infections, including those resistant to other antimicrobial agents. It is, therefore, an effective option for the treatment of skin infections.

Tedizolid in vitro activity against Gram-positive clinical isolates causing bone and joint infections in hospitals in the USA and Europe (2014–17)

Background

Despite the advances in current healthcare, bone and joint infections (BJIs) are a major clinical challenge that frequently involve prolonged systemic antibiotic use. Healthcare providers consider tedizolid an attractive candidate for therapy in adults and children with BJI.

Objectives

We tested tedizolid against a US and European collection of Gram-positive BJI isolates (n = 797) consecutively collected from 2014 to 2017.

Methods

Organisms were tested by broth microdilution susceptibility methods following current CLSI guidelines and interpreted by both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoint criteria.

Results

Staphylococcus aureus (59.3%; 58.6% in the USA and 60.4% in Europe) was the most common pathogen with a 29.6% MRSA rate and tedizolid MIC50/90 of 0.12/0.25 mg/L (100% susceptible). CoNS (15.0% of BJI in adults and <5% in children) had tedizolid MIC50/90 values of 0.12/0.12 mg/L (99.1% susceptible). Tedizolid exhibited MIC50/90 values of 0.12/0.25 mg/L for all streptococci and enterococci. Overall, high susceptibility rates (>95%) for vancomycin, daptomycin and linezolid were observed and, based on MIC90 values, tedizolid (MIC90 0.12–0.25 mg/L) was 4- to 8-fold more potent than linezolid (MIC90 0.5–2  mg/L) against this collection of Gram-positive pathogens causing BJI.

Conclusions

This study showed that tedizolid had potent in vitro activity against contemporary Gram-positive cocci causing BJI in adults and children in US and European hospitals.

Efficacy of Tedizolid against Enterococci and Staphylococci, Including cfr + Strains, in a Mouse Peritonitis Model

In a mouse peritonitis model, tedizolid was comparable to linezolid and daptomycin against an Enterococcus faecium strain (VAN^r, AMP^r), an Enterococcus faecalis strain, and a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain with and without cfr Against a cfr(B)⁺ E. faecium, tedizolid was inferior in vivo to linezolid and daptomycin, despite an ∼4-fold lower MIC.

Comparison of the microbiological efficacy of tedizolid and linezolid in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: pooled data from phase 3 clinical trials

We evaluated the microbiological efficacy of tedizolid compared with that of linezolid against common and emerging pathogens using pooled data from 2 phase 3 trials (NCT01170221 and NCT01421511) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Patients received tedizolid 200 mg once daily for 6 days (n = 664) or linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days (n = 669). Favorable microbiological outcome in both treatment groups, defined as eradication or presumed eradication at the end of treatment and at the posttherapy evaluation, exceeded 85% for most pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Favorable microbiological response was observed for staphylococci and streptococci at tedizolid minimal inhibitory concentration values ≤0.5 mg/L and 0.25 mg/L, respectively. The studies demonstrated positive microbiological outcomes against common pathogens with a 6-day, once-daily regimen of tedizolid phosphate in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

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.

Tedizolid Activity Against Clinical Mycobacterium abscessus Complex Isolates-An in vitro Characterization Study

Mycobacterium abscessus complex consist of three rapidly growing subspecies: M. abscessus, M. massiliense, and M. bolletii. They are clinically important human pathogens responsible for opportunistic pulmonary and skin and soft tissue infections. Treatment of M. abscessus infections is difficult due to in vitro resistance to most antimicrobial agents. Tedizolid (TZD) is a next-generation oxazolidinone antimicrobial with a wide spectrum of activity even against multidrug resistant Gram-positive bacteria. In this study, the in vitro activity of TZD against the M. abscessus complex (n = 130) was investigated. Susceptibility testing by broth microdilution showed lower TZD minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) when compared to linezolid. The MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ was 1 mg/L and 4 mg/L, respectively across all M. abscessus complex members, reflecting no difference in subspecies response to TZD. Pre-exposure of M. abscessus complex to subinhibitory concentrations of TZD did not trigger any inducible drug resistance. Single-drug time kill assays and bactericidal activity assays demonstrated bacteriostatic activity of TZD in all three M. abscessus subspecies, even at high drug concentrations of 4 to 8x MIC. Combination testing of TZD with clarithromycin, doxycycline and amikacin using the checkerboard approach showed no antagonistic interactions. TZD may be an effective therapeutic antimicrobial agent for the treatment of M. abscessus 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.

Characterization of Clinical Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Isolated in Eastern Hungary

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to characterize and elicit the genetic relatedness of emerging vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) isolated between 2012 and 2015 at a teaching hospital in Debrecen, Hungary.

RESULTS

Altogether 43 nonduplicate vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREfm) clinical isolates were obtained. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry was used for species identification. Isolates showed 100% resistance to ampicillin and ciprofloxacin while 81.4% were resistant to gentamicin. PCR analysis revealed the presence of VanB in 40 and VanA in 3 isolates. Among ace, agg, and esp virulence genes only esp was found in seven cases. Modified microtiter-plate test showed 13 weak and 4 moderate biofilm producer isolates. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis revealed nine pulsotypes. According to multilocus sequence typing all of the tested isolates belonged to clonal complex 17 (CC17).

CONCLUSIONS

We report on the alarming emergence of multidrug-resistant VREfm belonging to CC17 at a tertiary hospital in Eastern Hungary. This is the first report of sequence types 412 and 364 from this region. Although outbreak did not occur the increasing prevalence of VREfm is of concern and dissemination must be prevented with proper infection control measures and regular VRE screening.

In Vitro Activity of Tedizolid, Dalbavancin, and Ceftobiprole Against Clostridium difficile

Background:Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is a major nosocomial pathogen that colonizes in the human gut. Recently, the U.S. FDA approved three new antimicrobial agents against gram-positive bacteria: Tedizolid, Dalbavancin, and Ceftobiprole. The efficacy of these antibiotics for treatment of C. difficile infection has not been thoroughly examined. The current study aimed to examine the in vitro activity of these antibiotics against C. difficile. In addition, to compare between Dalbavancin and Ceftobiprole to antibiotics from the same class: Vancomycin and Ceftriaxone, respectively. Methods: Eighty-four C. difficile isolates were tested for susceptibility to Tedizolid, Dalbavancin, Ceftobiprole, Vancomycin, and Ceftriaxone by Etest technique in order to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). Results: Upon comparison of the novel antibiotic agents, Dalbavancin demonstrated the lowest MIC values and ceftobiprole the highest at MIC₅₀ (0.016, 0.38, and 1.5 μg/mL, for Dalbavancin, Tedizolid, and Ceftobiprole, respectively) and MIC₉₀ (0.03, 0.78, and 3.17 μg/mL, respectively). Dalbavancin demonstrated significantly lower MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ values compared to Vancomycin (0.016 vs. 0.38 and 0.03 vs. 3.5, respectively) (p < 0.001) and ceftobiprole had significantly lower MIC values compare to ceftriaxone (1.5 vs. 32 and 3.17 vs. 28.8, respectively) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Dalbavancin and Tedizolid may play a role as potential therapeutic agents for treatment of C. difficile infection. Examination of antibiotic effect on the intestinal microbiome and clinical trials are needed for more accurate results.

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.

Comparative Assessment of Tedizolid Pharmacokinetics and Tissue Penetration between Diabetic Patients with Wound Infections and Healthy Volunteers via In Vivo Microdialysis

Herein, we present pharmacokinetic and tissue penetration data for oral tedizolid in hospitalized patients with diabetic foot infections (DFI) compared with healthy volunteers. Participants received oral tedizolid phosphate 200 mg every 24 h for 3 doses to achieve steady state. A microdialysis catheter was inserted into the subcutaneous tissue near the margin of the wound for patients or into thigh tissue of volunteers. Following the third dose, 12 blood and 14 dialysate fluid samples were collected over 24 h to characterize tedizolid concentrations in plasma and interstitial extracellular fluid of soft tissue. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) tedizolid pharmacokinetic parameters in plasma for patients compared with volunteers, respectively, were as follows: maximum concentration (C_max), 1.5 ± 0.5 versus 2.7 ± 1.1 mg/liter (P = 0.005); time to C_max (T_max) (median [range]), 5.9 (1.2 to 8.0) versus 2.5 (2.0 to 3.0 h) (P = 0.003); half-life (t_1/2), 9.1 ± 3.6 versus 8.9 ± 2.2 h (P = 0.932); and plasma area under the concentration-time curve for the dosing interval (AUC _p ), 18.5 ± 9.7 versus 28.7 ± 9.6 mg · h/liter (P = 0.004). The tissue area under the concentration-time curve (AUC _t ) for the dosing interval was 3.4 ± 1.5 versus 5.2 ± 1.6 mg · h/liter (P = 0.075). Tissue penetration median (range) was 1.1 (0.3 to 1.6) versus 0.8 (0.7 to 1.0) (P = 0.351). Despite lower plasma C_max and delayed T_max values for patients with DFI relative to healthy volunteers, the penetration into and exposure to tissue were similar. Based on available pharmacodynamic thresholds for tedizolid, the plasma and tissue exposures using the oral 200 mg once-daily regimen are suitable for further study in treatment of DFI.

Determination of Tedizolid susceptibility interpretive criteria for gram-positive pathogens according to clinical and laboratory standards institute guidelines

For effective antibacterial therapy, physicians require qualitative test results using susceptibility breakpoints provided by clinical microbiology laboratories. This article summarizes the key components used to establish the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints for tedizolid. First, in vitro studies using recent surveillance and clinical trial isolates ascertained minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions against pertinent organisms, including staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci. Studies in animal models of infection determined rates of antibacterial efficacy and survival following administration of tedizolid phosphate at doses equivalent to those in humans. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses examined the relationship between plasma concentrations and MICs against the target organism. Finally, clinical trials assessed clinical and microbiologic outcomes by MIC. All these data were evaluated and combined to obtain the ratified CLSI susceptibility criteria for tedizolid of ≤0.5μg/mL for Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, and Enterococcus faecalis and ≤0.25μg/mL for Streptococcus anginosus group.

In vitro activity of tedizolid and comparator agents against Gram-positive pathogens responsible for bone and joint infections

Tedizolid, a second-generation oxazolidinone that displays a potent activity against Gram-positive pathogens, could be an interesting option for the treatment of bone and joint infections (BJIs). The aim of the study was to determine minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of tedizolid against a collection of 359 clinical isolates involved in clinically-documented BJIs and to compare them to those of comparator agents used in Gram-positive infections. Of the 104 Staphylococcusaureus and 102 coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) isolates, 99 and 92 % were categorized as susceptible to tedizolid, respectively (MIC25=0.12/0.25 µg ml^-1 and MIC90=0.25/0.5 µg ml^-1), regardless of their methicillin resistance. MIC50 and MIC90 for the 51 enterococci, the 50 Corynebacterium spp. and the 52 Propionibacterium spp. were either equal or inferior to 0.5 µg ml^-1. Altogether, tedizolid possessed a potent in vitro activity against most of the BJI Gram-positive pathogens with 95 % of them exhibiting a MIC ≤0.5 µg ml^-1.

In Vitro Activity of Delafloxacin and Microbiological Response against Fluoroquinolone-Susceptible and Nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Two Phase 3 Studies of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Delafloxacin is an investigational anionic fluoroquinolone antibiotic with broad-spectrum in vitro activity, including activity against Gram-positive organisms, Gram-negative organisms, atypical organisms, and anaerobes. The in vitro activity of delafloxacin and the percent microbiological response in subjects infected with fluoroquinolone-susceptible and nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolates were determined from two global phase 3 studies of delafloxacin versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Patients from 23 countries, predominately the United States but also Europe, South America, and Asia, were enrolled. The microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population included 1,042 patients from which 685 S. aureus isolates were submitted for identification and susceptibility testing per CLSI guidelines at the central laboratory (JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA). The comparator fluoroquinolone antibiotics included levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Nonsusceptibility to these antibiotics was determined using CLSI breakpoints. S. aureus isolates were 33.7% levofloxacin nonsusceptible (LVX-NS). The delafloxacin MIC₉₀ values against levofloxacin-nonsusceptible S. aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus isolates were all 0.25 μg/ml. Delafloxacin demonstrated high rates of microbiological response against LVX-NS isolates as well as isolates with documented mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining region (QRDR). S. aureus was eradicated or presumed eradicated in 98.4% (245/249) of delafloxacin-treated patients. Similar eradication rates were observed for delafloxacin-treated subjects with levofloxacin-nonsusceptible S. aureus isolates (80/81; 98.8%) and MRSA isolates (70/71; 98.6%). Microbiological response rates of 98.6% were observed with delafloxacin-treated subjects with S. aureus isolates with the S84L mutation in gyrA and the S80Y mutation in parC, the most commonly observed mutations in global phase 3 studies. The data suggest that delafloxacin could be a good option for the treatment of infections caused by S. aureus isolates causing ABSSSI, including MRSA isolates, where high rates of ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin nonsusceptibility are observed. (The phase 3 studies described in this paper have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifiers NCT01984684 and NCT01811732.).

In Vitro Activity of Delafloxacin and Microbiological Response against Fluoroquinolone-Susceptible and Nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Two Phase 3 Studies of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Delafloxacin is an investigational anionic fluoroquinolone antibiotic with broad-spectrum in vitro activity, including activity against Gram-positive organisms, Gram-negative organisms, atypical organisms, and anaerobes. The in vitro activity of delafloxacin and the percent microbiological response in subjects infected with fluoroquinolone-susceptible and nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolates were determined from two global phase 3 studies of delafloxacin versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Patients from 23 countries, predominately the United States but also Europe, South America, and Asia, were enrolled. The microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population included 1,042 patients from which 685 S. aureus isolates were submitted for identification and susceptibility testing per CLSI guidelines at the central laboratory (JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA). The comparator fluoroquinolone antibiotics included levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Nonsusceptibility to these antibiotics was determined using CLSI breakpoints. S. aureus isolates were 33.7% levofloxacin nonsusceptible (LVX-NS). The delafloxacin MIC₉₀ values against levofloxacin-nonsusceptible S. aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus isolates were all 0.25 μg/ml. Delafloxacin demonstrated high rates of microbiological response against LVX-NS isolates as well as isolates with documented mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining region (QRDR). S. aureus was eradicated or presumed eradicated in 98.4% (245/249) of delafloxacin-treated patients. Similar eradication rates were observed for delafloxacin-treated subjects with levofloxacin-nonsusceptible S. aureus isolates (80/81; 98.8%) and MRSA isolates (70/71; 98.6%). Microbiological response rates of 98.6% were observed with delafloxacin-treated subjects with S. aureus isolates with the S84L mutation in gyrA and the S80Y mutation in parC, the most commonly observed mutations in global phase 3 studies. The data suggest that delafloxacin could be a good option for the treatment of infections caused by S. aureus isolates causing ABSSSI, including MRSA isolates, where high rates of ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin nonsusceptibility are observed. (The phase 3 studies described in this paper have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifiers NCT01984684 and NCT01811732.)